The Guardian group of newspapers is becoming a favourite launchpad for Project Cameron's policy makeovers. Margaret Thatcher's apartheid policy was repudiated in last weekend's Observer. The new hug-a-teacher approach to education was trailed exclusively in yesterday's Guardian and today's Guardian has an article from the Tory leader about Britain's relationship with India. In the article, Mr Cameron appears to imply that Britain shouldn't just have a special relationship with India (something which ConservativeHome enthusiastically supports) but that Britain's relationship with India should enjoy "the highest priority".
"Special relationship" is, of course, a heavily-loaded political term - associated as it is with Britain's historically close relationship with America. Talk of a new 'special relationship' was always open to being read as a downgrading of the US-UK link. Was that a deliberate tactic by the Cameron spin team? A movement away from America is certainly how The Guardian's Will Woodward is interpreting the Tory leader's words:
"British politicians need to curb their obsession with the US and Europe and look east to safeguard Britain's interests, David Cameron says today."
The Guardian's homepage chooses 'David Cameron: Forget America let's look to India' as its headline. All predictable and unnecessary. As important as India is to Britain's foreign and economic future - nothing should be done to undermine the transatlantic relationship. America remains a more important economic and security ally for Britain. The Tories should never pander to the anti-Americanism of Guardian readers.
Mr Cameron uses his article to call for India-UK cooperation on fighting terrorism, global trade and protecting the environment. India - with its close relationship with the Bush administration - has already appeared to have rejected David Cameron's Kyoto environmentalism in favour of Washington's tech-based approach. More promising is David Cameron's visionary suggestion - that he is billed to make later tonight - that there should be a free trade agreement between India and the UK if global trade talks fail.
This visit to India - hot-on-the-heels of George Osborne's Japan trip - and set alongside this week's Hague-Fox trip to China are encouraging indications of the party leadership's awareness that it needs to establish its foreign policy credentials. Time is on David Cameron's side in this mission and contacts now being made in China, India and Japan could serve UK interests for years to come. In a sign of the international recognition of David Cameron, 'Team Cameron' is being met by the most senior representatives of the governments being visited. All of this is to be warmly welcomed.
Related links: Peter Luff MP on YourPlatform (where, yesterday, he raised the idea of India being another special relationship for Britain); David Cameron's latest India blog with its video of dancing girls and diggers; and George Osborne's Diary of his Eastern trip (plus his article in The Times on opportunities for UK-India trade).
I don't know .. the fact is there's a lot of public discontent with the US at the moment not confined to Guardia readers-and the Tories will have to actually be in power to do anything about it... this doesn't actually mean anything anti-american and it's worth pointing the falsity of a bi-polar choice between the US and euorpe particuly given the current unfortuante public mood on such a choice
Posted by: edmund | September 05, 2006 at 04:45
Cameron should remember that one key issue in getting closer to India (which i welcome if it is bilateral) is Kashmir.
I do hope Conservatives have a definitive approach on Kashmir which makes the Shebaa Farms small beer by comparison and is the location of the UN's longest-running peacekeeping mission - almost 50 years !
Conservative candidates in local elections will have many questions about Kashmir in many constituencies and should remember that like Chechnya it figures on the Jihadi videos inculcating suicide bombers...............the Indians also want Britain to stop fundraising for Kashmir terrorist groups...........will Cameron ?
Posted by: ToMTom | September 05, 2006 at 06:41
India remains a backward, polluted and polluting country, despite all the recent hype about its supposed forthcoming "powerhouse" status
Looks like Cameron has been duped by this.
If the man had an ounce of sense he would be forging a special relationship with China.
Posted by: Tony Barton | September 05, 2006 at 07:14
So, David Cameron wants closer ties and a new special relationship with India. Well, in what way is he going to achieve this if we remain members of the European Union.
All you have to do is look at the number of areas in which European Union jurisdiction is specified:
competition, trade, asylum and immigration, foreign affairs, industrial policy, agriculture, fisheries, energy, transport, regional government, consumer health, social and employment policy, justice and home affairs.
The list goes on and on. In fact, it is easier to make the point the other way around by asking how many Whitehall ministries would be left fully in control of their own affairs. The answer is one: the Department of Health.
The United Kingdom Parliament is an Executive Agency of the European Union.
Posted by: Anoneumouse | September 05, 2006 at 07:29
Too true Anoneumouse.
If our party is not a patriotic party it is nothing.
Tht's why we Tories need to prioritise moves towards pulling out of the EU.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 08:04
It's possible that the idea is partly to help India come into the circle of Western democracies (a significant and positive foreign policy initiative of President Bush).
Bringing India into the circle of natural Western allies in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Singapore and Australia is smart macro-level foreign policy. Leveraging the historical India-UK tie to help facilitate this is a clever idea. I think the value of this move is that it demonstrates Cameron's bona fides to Bush, and the US generally.
Posted by: Alexander Drake | September 05, 2006 at 08:09
What is the point in seeking the endorsement of the Guardian or the BBC? They will never endorse the Party and, if they do, we must be doing something seriously wrong as they have been on the wrong end of every single issue in the last 50 years!
Posted by: Donal Blaney | September 05, 2006 at 08:15
Bush is poison.
Cameron has been 100% right is ditancing himself from the US imperialistic foreign policy.
India is a natural ally for us, but we must avoid antagonising China, the new power in the world.
This will be China's century and we had better make sure we are batting for the right team when the game hots up.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 08:17
Bush might be electoral poison Malvolio, but his desire to bring India into the alliance system is very, very wise.
Besides, I thought the idea of basing foreign policy partly around avoiding antagonising others, purely to stay on the right side of them 'when the game hots up' was the antithesis of Tory instincts on foreign policy. Wasn't that the lesson of Churchill to us all?
Posted by: Alexander Drake | September 05, 2006 at 08:25
If he wants to pursue any kind of eurosceptic agenda in a credible fashion, he needs to develop strong links with non-European countries, not just the USA and even the Commonwealth.
Posted by: EdR | September 05, 2006 at 08:39
Alexander Drake: "Bringing India into the circle of natural Western allies in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Singapore and Australia is smart macro-level foreign policy. Leveraging the historical India-UK tie to help facilitate this is a clever idea. I think the value of this move is that it demonstrates Cameron's bona fides to Bush, and the US generally."
I agree with the desirability of that Alexander and I think you are right. The US will value a close UK-India relationship that serves shared interests. What I don't like - and I don't think I'm over-interpreting - is the hint of the UK-India relationship somehow suggesting that the UK-US relationship is less important.
Posted by: Editor | September 05, 2006 at 09:06
Completely agree Tim. One can only hope you are over-interpreting. If you are not, then I would urge DC to reconsider, pronto.
Posted by: Alexander Drake | September 05, 2006 at 09:15
Editor,
To complete your interpretative Kremlinology, you should look at Rachel Sylvester's article in today's Telegraph (link at the end of this post).
She reports that Douglas Hurd is now a key Cameron advisor on foreign policy, that DC wants to call himself a liberal Conservative not a neo-Conservative, and that "Love Actually" is seen as an aspiration for foreign policy.
Bring on free trade with India. But please let's be grown up with the US as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/05/do0501.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/05/ixopinion.html
Posted by: Simon Chapman | September 05, 2006 at 09:53
I cannot believe that Mr Cameron is suggesting a free trade arrangement with India - he must surely realise that the EU would never allow it. Or is he contemplating the United Kingdom leaving the EU? Unlikely as he seems to be positively Europhile. Very confusing - is this more "on-the-hoof" policy?
Posted by: John Coles | September 05, 2006 at 09:57
Thanks Simon. I do think I'm right on this 'distancing-from-America' thing. If true, Hurd's appointment is very bad news for all those who believe in the use of pre-emption by 'coalitions of the willing' in the war on terror. There are people around Cameron who regret Tory support for the Iraq war, know Bush is a political liability for Blair and want to distance the Tories from the US. I see something of all that in the way this India article has been presented.
Posted by: Editor | September 05, 2006 at 09:59
Tim, the Sylvester article specifically rules out "coalitions of the willing".
It trails what's being billed as a major foreign policy speech next week to coincide with the 5th anniversary of 9/11. "Interpreters" will be working overtime! It's going to be a significant moment.
Posted by: Simon Chapman | September 05, 2006 at 10:08
Rachel Sylvester says "After a year in which the Conservative leader has said conspicuously little about international affairs, - - -"
He's said conspicuously little about anything IMPORTANT at all. It's all been photo ops and soundbites with his lieutenants busily repudiating all those things which made the Tories the "natural party of government" for so long. The latest is to throw more money at the wasteful public services and refusing to acknowledge that taxes are too high already and have to come down to stop the economy collapsing under Brown's profligacy,
I have no quarrel with his India demarche but it smacks of Nero and his violin practice.
Incidentally today's Telegraph has an aerial photo of Cameron's Notting Hill house. It's totally demolished except for the facade and is being rebuilt out of sight. Just typical - all facade and nothing behind except deceit.
Posted by: christina speight | September 05, 2006 at 10:41
I think the polls speak for themselves Christina. Your brand of toryism has lost us enough elections thanks. We're ready for something new.
Your little piece in the S Torygraph was the funniest thing I've read in ages btw. It seems you've added a trade policy based on autarky to the list of election losing policies you want us to adopt.
Posted by: Gareth | September 05, 2006 at 11:01
Gareth - The polls ?? Do get them right please! Today's Populus is Tories 36% (n/c), Labour 32% (-2%) LibDem 20% (+1%) . This isn't enough to unseat Labour let alone win!!! The personality figures are meaningless since polls with such hypothetical questions are always "up-the-pole /poll" However, as Blair is busy destroying the Labour party, Cameron might be in with a chance - solely thanks to Blair!
Like all Cameroons, backing the empty shell that is the Party's temporary leader, you never answer the criticisms - just attack the messenger.
"Your brand of toryism has lost us enough elections". MY brand won us election after election. It all fell apart under Major and Maastricht. Since then it has not been MY brand. I left the party but resuming voting for it under Howard (we made gains, remember?) . I will not back Cameron - he's not a Tory - he said so! - he's a "Liberal Conservative" Yeah we noticed.
The core vote and workers are NOT Cameron backers. In London they preferred Thatcher (YouGov E.Standard) And try this one on from another blog - - - -"As a Branch Chairman, with my wife as Branch Secretary and our Treasurer - - - -All we Branch Officers have resigned and the Branch and the two associated wards are lost to the Conservative party. "
"My bit" in the Torygraph was written by Christopher Booker - in case you didn't notice that. The only bit that was 100% me was the photo and most of the first column. So I'm glad he made you laugh,. there's not much to laugh about in the party.
Posted by: christina speight | September 05, 2006 at 11:40
Oh, and Gareth, if you are "ready for something new" try the LibDems . That's where Cameron belongs.
Posted by: christina speight | September 05, 2006 at 11:42
Please keep on subject!
Posted by: Editor | September 05, 2006 at 12:04
Personally I think it we should build a Foreign policy around what is best for this country and right for peace and co-operation in the world not have a policy that starts and ends with Eurosceptism.
There are far more many dreadful things in the world that we need to contend with then the EU.
It would make a change if people on this site discussed something else other than the EU for a change.
As DC is in India I would think we should be discussing India and the Asian sub-continant not banging on about Europe yet again.
Posted by: Jack Stone | September 05, 2006 at 12:21
Hurd as key foreign policy adviser to Cameron is disasterous news. He was a totally misguided Foreign Secretary with a string of misjudgements to his record - the ERM (which he advocated to Margaret Thatcher and supported to the end), the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (which he tried to prevent), the Maastricht Treaty, Bosnian appeasement and connivance at genocide... the list is endless.
Closer links to India however are something which I would welcome, although neither of its two main parties would seem to have much affinity with the Conservative Party - Congress having its roots in socialism and the BJP in Hindu fundamentalism.
Posted by: johnC | September 05, 2006 at 13:20
Yet again Christina posts a message full of clap-trap, lies and anti-Conservativism. The (single) poll (many others have suggested similar findings) actually suggests a 42% - 33% lead under a Brown administration which is the one we should all be looking towards now.
Anyway... As much as the Guardian would like to spin Team Cameron's International visit as a distancing from the USA, it is not. They are quite clearly divising international foriegn policy hands on, and not from their comfy sofas here in the UK. And well done for doing so.
Free trade with India can only be a good thing. Devising close ties with Japan is also greatly welcomed.
China may-be a big power, but nevertheless, in my opinion, a bunch of Commies whom cant be trusted. And untill their people are free I would be uncomfortable with any close ties we may establish. Close ties with corrupt regimes only come round to bit you in the arse.
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 14:26
OK 'Jack Stone', name a political sphere of interest where UK governments havnt passed some degree of competence to the EU and we can chat away to your hearts content.
bed pan anyone
Posted by: Anoneumouse | September 05, 2006 at 14:28
I'm not sure that the invitation to McCain to speak at our conference quite square with the desire 'to distance ourselves from America'. They may want to distance the Conservative party from Bush which is quite a different thing. Both for electoral and moral reasons I would heartily approve.
Suprised to hear about Hurd but I cannot believe that he would excercise the influence of a Gove for instance. Also Douglas elegant chap though he is had his reputation quite justifiably ruined by his disgraceful policy in the Balkans.I would have thought the last thing anyone would want to do would be to remind the electorate of that.
Posted by: malcolm | September 05, 2006 at 14:34
The obvious answer is for India to join the EU - it would only be like Turkey joining, but more so. Then we could rename it the Indo-European Union.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | September 05, 2006 at 14:37
Anoneumouse
How would EU respond if we just did it? Cameron as General de Gualle Mark 2 could spout European rhetoric but make alliances, reach agreements without discussing with his partners at all - wouldn't it be fun.
Posted by: Ted | September 05, 2006 at 15:01
The obvious answer is for India to join the EU - it would only be like Turkey joining, but more so. Then we could rename it the Indo-European Union.
Posted by: Denis Cooper |
Yes the Free Movement of People bit is especially attractive with all those green spaces in southern England !
Posted by: TomTom | September 05, 2006 at 15:53
G-MaN Wild - Yet again Christina posts a message full of clap-trap, lies and anti-Conservativism.
Who is this idiot who spits out a snarl of sheer hatred against a woman who has a proven and distinguished record of service to our party?
One of David's main problems is this kind of embarrassing "supporter"
That's assuming he is a genuine supporter at all.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 16:33
This idiot is a CF activist and former Chairman whom believes in Cameron (The Great) and the future of our great party and country.
I also believe its by-time that the members of this party stuck it to the people who clearly do not want us to succeed, and practice anti-Camronism. Hating that fact that indeed we are succeeding on a sensible, wide-ranging modern Conservative movement fit for the Twenty-first Century.
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 16:47
"We are succeeding on a sensible, wide-ranging modren Conservative movement fit for the Twenty-first Century". Add in the words "pivotal", "vibrant", "partnership" and "stakeholder" and this cliche could have been lifted straight from the works of Mr Blameron's icon, Blair.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | September 05, 2006 at 17:31
I wouldn't get too worked up G-MaN Wild. The comments on this site help define Cameron by showing his approach vs. the old reactionary right's - and are therefore only helpful.
Reagrds McCain coming to conference - it would be fantastic to have someone political from India come across. Probably too close to the time now but something to think about for 2007.
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 17:35
Oops - last comment was from me - must learn to copy and paste better.
Damn apple macs.
Sorry G-MaN Wild!
Posted by: Zhukov | September 05, 2006 at 17:36
I suppose thats a refreshing way of looking at the old hacks reactionary responses to Cameron's way, Zhukov!
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 17:47
This idiot is a CF activist and former Chairman whom believes in Cameron (The Great)
Ah well that confirms it. As a former YC Chairman I have taken an amused interest in the Micky Mouse group which has replaced our once great youth movement.
it would be fantastic to have someone political from India come across.
Why not cut costs by digging up some Indian councillor from Leicester or somewhere?
Alternatively there was that old boy who used to drink his own urine as a health cure. I think he was Indian President about the time Rajiv Gandhi was blown up.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 17:52
I also believe its by-time that the members of this party stuck it to the people who clearly do not want us to succeed, and practice anti-Camronism.
G-MaN Wild , please could you translate that into English?
Oops - last comment was from me - must learn to copy and paste better.
Damn apple macs.
Sorry G-MaN Wild!
Apologising to yourself Zukhov/G-MaN Wild? I believe it’s the first sign of Bluelabouritis.
If you must use sockpuppets it does help to remember which one you have your hand up when you post.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 18:00
Which YC group were you Chairman of Malvolio?
Posted by: malcolm | September 05, 2006 at 18:04
The obvious answer is for India to join the EU - it would only be like Turkey joining, but more so. Then we could rename it the Indo-European Union.
Turkey joining isn't the problem people make out, the opposition to Turkey is the whole fortress Europe thing that thinks somehow that Europe is united politically, in fact Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria may well have more in common with the UK than France and Germany do - certainly they haven't had as long to get ever larger blinkers.
Russia joining would have practical problems because of it's sheer size, it would have about a quarter of the votes in the Commission, if India joined of course they would have 3 times the votes of everyone else put together in the Commission and Parliament , maybe if the Conservative Party merged with the BJP and Congress and Labour merged then at least there could be an Indo-Albion Alliance rather than the Franco-Prussian one at the moment.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 05, 2006 at 18:07
That would be telling Malcolm, but if you want to test my bona fides I suggest you bowl a couple of googlies about the YCs circa 1979.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 18:10
What a suprise! If I'd made half of the embarrasing comments you have Malvolio I doubt I would have the courage to post under my real name either!
Posted by: malcolm | September 05, 2006 at 18:36
Well Malcolm, seeing as there are umpteen thousand Malcolms in the UK the use of your Christian name (assuming it is your real name) is hardly very enlightening either.
I've been studying your posts, some of which are almost sensible.
Such a pity you feel you have to throw in your lot with the Bluelabour brigade, many of whom choose to post under pseudonyms.
Maybe they're afraid of a change in the political wind.
Posted by: Malvolio | September 05, 2006 at 18:54
""it would be fantastic to have someone political from India come across.""
"Why not cut costs by digging up some Indian councillor from Leicester or somewhere? "
Thats a disgracful post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 19:02
Malvolio, G-Man, Zhukov (G-Man). To peacock like this in a public forum you must imagine you’re being entertaining. You’re not. This thread (and most of the others you touch) has become a childish embarrassment and a turn-off.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 05, 2006 at 19:29
Mark - there seems to be a common thread in several with references to the YCs, Monday Club, 1970's/80's etc. They are as you say an embarrassment. Best to ignore I think.
Posted by: Ted | September 05, 2006 at 19:57
Mark - Nothing I have posted has been "childish". In fact I think playground antics does subscribe to name calling, which I have not.
In fact Malvolio took offence to me unspinning Christinas post - by calling me an idiot. The rest of my post was about the original story on this thread. I still have not yet responded in an absurd & offensive manner. Unlike Malvalios response to a fair remark by Zhukov about having Indian Parliamentary visitors come to conference. Which I think is a rather good idea!
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 21:05
Malvolio's latest comment was disgraceful and his opinions are no longer welcome on this blog. I believe he was previously posting as John G (who I also attempted to ban).
Posted by: Editor | September 05, 2006 at 21:06
Disgusting comments there by Malvolio, who started posting on this site being reasonable. Now hes a simple troll.
Posted by: James Maskell | September 05, 2006 at 21:18
James
He was always a troll.
Posted by: Ted | September 05, 2006 at 21:35
Nothing I have posted has been "childish".
G-MaN Wild, many apologies if I'm wrong, but the cut and paste error did seem to show that Zhukov is you replying to your own posts. If so, it's pretty childish to engage in a puppet show.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 05, 2006 at 21:55
Yes Mark, I certainly am not Zhukov. I dont know what he was copying and pasting, maybe he could explain? Apology accepted. Blairs off May 31 it would seem! Well well...
Posted by: G-MaN Wild | September 05, 2006 at 22:01
And apology sincerely meant.
Well well indeed.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 05, 2006 at 22:27
it would be fantastic to have someone political from India come across.
Last time I looked we had a problem with Muslim terrorists and Labour with a Muslim voter problem - this suggestion strikes me as a super way of aligning Conservatives with India and Labour with Pakistan so we can reproduce the conflicts on the Subcontinent in British cities............
There is a huge problem on the Indian Subcontinent caused by Britain leaving India and Pakistan is expanding its output of nuclear warheads.......no other country in Europe risks its own internal security by having major political parties closely aligned with rival factions on that Subcontinent.
It may not occur to people but there is a significant issue which may not be evident in Witney but the average age of a Bangaldeshi in Britain is 24, of a Pakistani 26, of a White Briton 40............and Bangladesh was formerly East Pakistan and West Pakistan was the other piece of India the British gave to Jinnah
Posted by: TomTom | September 06, 2006 at 08:19