Pro and anti-war newspapers welcome Cameron's 9/11 speech

Lady Thatcher's side-by-side appearance with Dick Cheney yesterday to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 features prominently and proudly on the White House website.  But it has created a few tricky headlines for David Cameron in this morning's newspapers...

Team Cameron may conclude, however, that the headlines underline the changes that he is making to the Tory Party and also his determination to see Britain have a less slavish relationship with America.

Mr Cameron will be pleased at the welcome his 9/11 speech receives from Fleet Street's leader-writers.  The anti-war Guardian calls the speech "moderate, sensible and liberal" and the anti-war Mail describes it as "significant and statesmanlike."  The Mail hopes that Mr Cameron is distancing himself from "the warmongers who surround Mr Bush" and is "signalling a change in party policy that will come as a huge relief to many natural Tories."  The Times more or less shares ConservativeHome's own reading of the speech.  It believes that Mr Cameron distanced himself from the Bush-Blair execution of the war on terror but appears to have little quarrel with the big decisions of the last five years.  The Times finds more of a compassionate emphasis in Cameron's 'liberal conservatism' but christens it 'neocom' rather than 'neocon'.

The fact that newspapers with as different approaches to the war on terror as The Times and Daily Mail can all welcome yesterday's speech underlines the speech's principal weakness - it's completely unbankable.  Yesterday's speech told us little about what Mr Cameron would actually do now about, for example, stopping Iran becoming a nuclear power or preventing further genocide in Darfur.

Mr Cameron deserves our patience when it comes to unpacking the practical content of his 'liberal conservatism'.  Yesterday was a promising beginning but that was all it was.  At some point he's going to have to upset The Independent-Daily Mail axis or the Times-Sun grouping.  Early years Blair was, of course, able to please all sides of difficult debates but what made for good politics also made for bad government.

Comments

[Chad]

When and only when Cameron says these words: "The war with Iraq was wrong" will anyone (outside loyal Tories) believe a word he says.

In the face of huge public opposition with many questioning the need to go to war at that stage, Cameron, like Blair, still voted to send in the troops.

That cannot be erased from the record no matter how inconvenient it may be to Cameron's aim to woo LibDems.

[Hannibal]

But Chad, the war with Saddam was not wrong so he can't say that without being either a liar or an opportunist (or both).

[Ranting Guttersnipe]

Chad,

Since we invaded in 2003 the public have had a General Election with which to return the LibDems, Greens or Respect into power and they haven't.

Clearly that huge public opposition wasn't that huge in the big picture.

[Chad]

No Hannibal, an opportunist gives a speech that provides the logic of why the war was wrong, but changes the conclusion to fit his own pro-war vote.

[Chad]

"Since we invaded in 2003 the public have had a General Election with which to return the LibDems, Greens or Respect into power and they haven't."

Didn't the LibDems pick up their best result in 80 odd years off the back of their anti-Iraq war stance?

[christina speight]

Chad - the LibDems did well in Labour seats with a big Muslim vote. not surprisingly.
===========================

IT’S HUG A TERRORIST TIME

There follow some of the headlines generated by Cameron’s ill-considered speech. Any experienced politician would have known that the press would seize on the negative and - with the media’s in-born anti-Americanism - largely ignore the weaker expressions of support for the USA. Contrast this with Thatcher. I know which leader inspires me!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

TIMES (leader) - “Is Cameron’s foreign policy neocon? Or neocom? Or libcon? Or glibcon?”

“I am a liberal conservative rather than a neoconservative,” he says. This “libcon” positioning is calculated to appeal to those who believe that Washington’s “neocons” are responsible for every ill of the past five years.

The term neoconservatism is used promiscuously and, more often than not, ignorantly, as a catchphrase for chaos.”

But if he continues to deliver lines such as “Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors”, he runs the risk of appearing more “glibcon” than “libcon”.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

TELEGRAPH - “Cameron distances Tories from Bush”

Thatcher ---”With Ammerica Britain stands in the front line against Islamic fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens. We must not falter; we must not fail. We need to renew our resolve that, however bitter or lenthy the struggle, this evil shall not prevail”

Cameron -- “ The Bush administration’s approach to foreign policy had too often been driven by “easy soundbites” and lacked “proper humility and patience” - - - it relied on “an unrealistic and simplistic” view of a world divided into light and darkness”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

GUARDIAN - “Cameron criticises 'simplistic' White House”

Cameron - - - “the Tory leader said he was a "liberal conservative, rather than a neoconservative" and insisted: "We are not engaged in a clash of civilisations."
++++++++++++++++++
(The diary can hardly claim that The Times approved of the speech - see above. As for Guardian calling it "liberal" - well- - Quite!)

The pejorative adjectives I've used in the past about Cameron's character are all displayed in this speech. A more facing-all-ways, gutless effort I can't imagine.

[Adam]

Cameron is trying to find a middle way between the neo cons and the anti interventionists which would be acceptable to the press and many voters disillusioned with the current policies of Blair.

Overall, he succeeds in adopting a fairly balanced approach which is hard to disagree with and which I think he needed to do for his first serious comments on foreign policy. However, as the Editor has said, its a bit weak in providing any solution to the problems of Iran and Darfur and a bit woolly in providing 'soft solutions' in trying to encourage democratic change in other countries.

[Michael F-G]

A truly terrible speech and viciously insulting to give it on 9/11. I know of a handful of Conservatives who have given up their membership on this basis. I wonder how many more will follow.

[Kevin Fowkes]

I have agreed with much of what David Cameron has done so far, and I am not used to agreeing with the right-wing critics on ConHome.

On this issue, however, I think he's got it wrong. Britain's most natural place is and always will be side-by-side with our American allies. The Americans are and always have been our best and most reliable allies and no-one knows this better than Lady Thatcher.

When I was living in the US I was amazed at how much respect there now is for the British. This must operate to the great advantage of our country economically and diplomatically. To alienate the Americans would be a serious mistake with severe consequences for this country, both relating to the economy and to our future success in the war on terror.

[Chad]

"Cameron is trying to find a middle way between the neo cons and the anti interventionists "

I totally agree Adam, however, for me, some things are about values, not simply finding an electoral strategy by triangulating everything.

For those of us who argued passionately against the war with Iraq, seeing someone seek to gain political capital from it, despite actively supporting the war, is a bit too much.

[Mark Fulford]

Christina, why are you so keen to find fault in everything that David Cameron does? It almost looks like you want him to fail. Apart from not being Thatcher, what has he done to offend you so deeply?

I challenge you to go for a whole week of balancing every criticism with something constructive. You might find it therapeutic. I can also recommend some fantastic relaxation mp3s from iTunes. I was sceptical at first, but I'm living proof that they work.

[David]

The question is when will DC drop the Conservative from Liberal Conservative. Why doesn't he just cross the floor and sit with his spiritual mentor 'Ming' Go on David you know you want to!

[Sandbagger]

Well Dave,there are many Conservatives who welcomed some of the things you were saying at the time you were going for Party leadership. Now we are told by you that you are a Liberal Conservative.Are you trying to eradicate all the true Conservatives from this Party. If that is the case then who will deliver all the literature and generally run the Constituencies. Or are you trying to wipe them out as well!

[Watchdog]

Ted Heath was a "Liberal Conservative" the last thing Britain needs is another one.

[christina speight]

Mark Fulford - "Christina, why are you so keen to find fault in everything that David Cameron does? It almost looks like you want him to fail."

I'm glad I've made myself clear about this "Glibcon". Thinking, as I do, that Cameron is gutless, and spineless, not a Conservative (HE says so) and who is incapable, it seems, of formulating any serious thoughts on anything, I regard him as no better than what we've got with NewLabour. Worse; some voters may be deceived into thinking they're voting for a Conservative government.

So, since he would destroy our country as well as the Conservative party I regard him as an unmitigated disaster.

Even more depressing is the thought that he might even get to No:10, courtesy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

David and Sandbagger above don't think much of him either, it seems. Though I must warn both of them that Cameron has said that he is a Liberal conservative and that he spells "conservative" with a small "c"

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Does anyone believe that sycophantically cow-towing to anti-Americans/pro-Islamists is going to help him get into power? Surely the Lib-Dems have got that vote all tied up. Cameron is in serious danger of losing his base to UKIP.

[Jon Gale]

"I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.

Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention.

Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world."

If he dropped the 'conservative' part he could fully embrace the wonders of neoconservatism. Perahps disapointingly for the hawks among us he's too conservative for that.

[Michael McGowan]

I tend to agree with the Editor: not a bad speech as these things go but not really bankable. What meaningful role can a smallish country with woefully underfunded armed forces and intelligence services play in today's world? If he ever reaches high office, Cameron will learn very quickly and the hard way that tough decisions have to be made in the international arena and then stuck with. That has been Blair's undoing. At least Cameron largely avoided the mistake of playing to the isolationist gallery represented by the Guardian, the Mail and the Al-Independent.

[Mike A]

Meat on the bones? From wikipedia:

Fukuyama's current beliefs include: the US should use its power to promote democracy in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls realistic Wilsonianism, with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US is good at is the formation of international institutions. These would combine power with legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. [citation needed]

In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion [5], he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that the neoconservatives:

"...believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

He also announced the end of the "neoconservative moment" and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism:
"[W]ar" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.

If he has distanced himself from the label of neoconservatism, he remains indebted to Leo Strauss, purported father of neoconservatism, for much of the theoretical basis of his political economics. In Our PostHuman Future he takes a Straussian stance, defending a classical doctrine of natural right. He says his argument is Aristotelian and that
Aristotle argued, in effect, that human notions of right and wrong--what we today call human rights--were ultimately based on human nature.

[B List Woman]

David Cameron clearly understands that, when we go to a dinner party, or when we stand before our Maker on Judgement Day, it is unquestionably a good thing to realise that you don't have all the answers. Whether it is about the threat of terrorism or the threat of destruction of the planet or the securing of energy resources, I just wonder if it a good idea not to have any of the answers if you expect anyone to vote for you or take you seriously.

[Laura Norder]

Oh deary me Dave, following more poor advice are we? Just like you did by appearing on the Jonathan Ross show or the 'hug a hoodie' debacle?

[el tom]

I'm on the soft left of labour, and I can hneslty say that this foreign policy perspective is a million times more likely to attract ym vote than that of my own party leadership.

Not anti-interventionist either, which is nice. Could be seen as stiflingly left wing as well as traditionally and sensibly conservative.

As much as it riles me to say it, a masterstroke.

[George Hinton]

Whilst it was right and proper to remove that arch-dictator Saddam Hussein from his throne, it was done for all the wrong reasons. Saddam had no WMD and most certainly was not harbouring or succouring Al Quaeda, that was being handled by his near neighbours Afghanistan,Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Setting that aside we need to look at our long term goals and aims and to where we may see affinity and assistance. We know full well that the nations of the EU are inward looking and have no real place in global affairs, apart from France, that takes a realpolitik view of self-interest and anything to be anti-american and gain at their expense. The first Gulf War saw the Belgians refuse to sell artillery ammunition to us, so there is a track record of unreliability.
As a maritime trading nation we look outward and see similar needs to the Americans and often our needs mesh. There is still the old war-time links and this to some extent pushes our need to be on-side with the US. Suez we were off-side and the US put paid to the post imperial ambitions of preventing Nasser from nationalising the canal.
No matter our membership of the EU we will never accept the strictures of that membership, we would see our foreign policy run by nations and individuals who have no global reach and understanding of international affairs and trade....totally unacceptable. Our foreign policy is subtly different from that of France and we a continent apart from the rest.
Whilst Dave is right to distance himself from a lame duck President, whose popularity has fallen to dismal standards, whose foreign policy is in tatters, the war on terrorism and the Islamofascists goes on, and America has the capacity and means to drive this forward. After 9/11 the US will never be able to adopt a posture of isolation.
Our link to America needs to carefully nurtured, not ruptured, that to the EU very carefully rethought.

[el tom]

So did anyone read the new Fukayama book?

[Will T Power aka The Orator]

“Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors. They win no hearts and minds; they can build no democracies.”

This may sound yummy when i'm sipping my latte Dave, but it ain't so. Two of the last century's two most determined enemy dictatorships, Germany and Japan were turned into thriving democracies by military force. The third, the USSR, was also turned into a democracy (sadly not a thriving one) by bombs - thank goodness we never had to drop them, they just wore themselves out trying to keep up the arms race.

This kind of waffle is not the language of a commander-in-chief. It's a perfect repetition of John Kerry's flip-flopping. Why not go the whole hog and book Bon Jovi for the victory rally that will never happen?

[Hope Nott]

The Christina Speight joke is wearing thin for me so I typed her name into google. Very revealing. Do the quotations below come from the same, or a different, Christina?

Some snapshots from her web existence, which you can find at http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonQuery.aspx?searchParameters=Christina+Speight

The original report is 149 pages long, but a condensed version of 28 pages has been made by Christina Speight of UKIP.

Christina Speight's Facts, Figures and Phantasies is now on-line at the UKIP site at http://www.Indep endenceUK.org.uk/ffp.html

I found this one particularly revealing:

The Pope’s announcement of his latest proposed ‘Blessed’ has been greeted with widespread cynicism amongst all but faithful Roman Catholics. Mrs Christina Speight, editor of the eurosceptic magazine Facts, Figures and Phantasies, commented: “The Vatican’s beatification factory is scraping the barrel in its record-breaking creation of new saints and causing many faithful Christians to question its sanity”.

Is this the same Christina who treats us daily to phrases of unpleasant nastiness at an electable Conservative leader with his warm and generous human spirit? I mean, it's clear from her postings that anything warm and inclusive would drive her to a spitting fury, but I would like to know if she's motivated also by being an opposition party member, now or in the past.

[Mark Fulford]

So, since he [Cameron] would destroy our country as well as the Conservative party...

Overstated opinion?

[malcolm]

Christinas post on this thread shoews selective quoting at its very worst.I notice she ignores the faviourable reception Camerons speach received in the Daily Mail. I guess because they don't fit in with her awful prejudices.

[anon]

I wonder if some of these commentators have read the speech, or simply read the spin of the speech.

Cameron's speech was broadly atlanticist and interventionist, while trying to back away from some of the more extreme neoconservative positions, which have pretty much been proved impractical by the situation in Iraq in any case.

At the same time it succeeded in appealing to the moderate mainstream (which is a lot less leftist than I think a lot of the commentators here believe).

As the Editor says, the principal weakness of the speech is the lack of bankable commitments, but I don't think it really makes sense for a leader of the opposition to make foreign policy commitments so far from a general election, although a commitment to increase defence spending substantially would very much bolster Cameron's interventionist credentials, and would go down very well over the other side of the pond. It would require finesse to avoid leading to him being portrayed as a warmonger by the press, however.

[G-MaN Wild]

Well done Cameron. So much depth to what he had to say, wonderful! None of this warmongering language, which doesnt make sense when it come to the 'war on terror'.

Though he should also say, that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, now its the largest terrorist camp in the world. And for this Blair and Bush's polices have failed in this 'war'.

[kingbongo]

I know of a handful of Conservatives who have given up their membership on this basis

Oh dear, I'm surprised there are any members left in the party as everytime DC's picture appears in the paper someone comes on here to make this pronouncement.

Chad - can't you develop a proper UKIP site where these people can talk to each other?

Once again CH succeeds in bringing out the wingnuts to declare that we're all doomed.

[tapestry]

It has become almost a universal truth that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but how many would really be pleased if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Now we live in a world where Iran is starting to call the shots. The West seems to prefer to sit back and wait in case the results are not too bad. The EU in particular, is chronically deluded about the threat posed by Iran's current regime.

This is how terrorism is bred - when the West does nothing in the face of a rapidly growing very major threat. Cameron's rhetoric is aimed at only one objective - winning votes in the UK. Labour are all consumed with their troubles. Britain is currently leaderless.

[Michael McGowan]

Now Malcolm, don't be nasty to Christina. After all, this site has its "characters" (think Jack Stone?) and she is one of them. If you have a broad church, then you have to accept that every so often one of the members of the congregation will throw hymn books at the trendy vicar....

[malcolm]

I know,I know every day I make a resolution to ignore those posters who drive me nuts.....and most days I fail. Sorry!
Love to be a fly on the wall if Jack and Christina had a debate.Perhaps Tim could organize it? I'd run a book on who would make the least sense.

[Mike A]

I've read the Fukuyama book - and I like it.

As Danny Finkelstein now says, it's definitely the source for the speech.

Read it - it's excellent.

[tapestry]

Fukuyama sounds like a basketcase to me.

[tapestry]

For example, Fukuyama wrote that the neoconservatives:

...believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. ..

but later he wrote: .. Neoconservatism.... has evolved into something I can no longer support.

(Fukuyama was originally the main proponent of neoconservatism and pushed Bush to get going in Iraq)

Fukuyama (having started off as an enthusiastic militarist) then announced the end of the "neoconservative moment" and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism:

"[W]ar" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle," he wrote, "since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.

Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? Lebanon? Gaza? Iraq? etc etc

Fukuyama changed from the biggest advocate of war to the biggest advocate of not war. Reality is no doubt somewhere in the middle. Fukuyama just confuses everyone (including George Bush) by trying to make out that it's all really very simple - to please the American mentality.

I think we need to move on from simplistic explanations of what is going on, and look at specific threats and situations and how to deal with them effectively. Obviously hearts and minds is part of the picture.

Fukuyama seems to suffer from the worst kind of American mentality that thinks there is always a simple and quick solution to every problem - no matter how complex. Who else could write a book called The End Of History?

[Ranting Guttersnipe]

Chad @ 9:45am

"Didn't the LibDems pick up their best result in 80 odd years off the back of their anti-Iraq war stance?"

Yes... and still came third therefore there clearly wasn't enough anti-war sentiment in the country was there?

[christina speight]

Egg on your face time - Hope Nott !

I left UKIP when it was hijacked by some seriously flawed people in 2001 - ballot rigging, theft etc etc etc didn't appeal to me.

As for the quote, HN: might like to note that this was in relation to a Times article (which I gave in full) and which started with the piece HN: quoted. I went on "an extraordinarily competent statesman" could equally well have been applied to a whole bunch of real nasties! Even Hitler possibly! But sainthood for enslaving Europe by a bureaucratic monster?
=-=-=-=-=
Pope sets EU's founder on path to sainthood
From Richard Owen in Rome
TO THE surprise of those who consider the European Union humanly flawed, perhaps even the work of the Devil, the Pope is to put its founding father on the road to sainthood.

Vatican officials confirmed yesterday that Robert Schuman, of France, who died in 1963, was a candidate for beatification, the penultimate step before sainthood.
(Times 3/3/04)

The Vatican''s excuse was that Schuman was "an extraordinarily competent statesman" - hardly grounds for beatification.

==-=-=-=-
The 128 page report was on EU corruption by Paul van Buitenen, now a Dutch MEP and who brought down the corrupt Santer Commission. My precis had his blessing and was widely distributed. Doesn't HN: approve of THAT ?? Oooh!
==-=-=-=-
As for Hope Nott's description of Cameron's " warm and generous human spirit". This extends to hoodies, huskies, Liberals, terrorists but not to those who spent a large part of their lives fighting against tyranny and for the Tory party. THEY have to be modernised out of existence so that the party can be destroyed and the country betrayed.

[Mark Fulford]

Christina, I was at the "Hug a Hoodie" conference and speech. I don't recall seeing you there, which is a shame... to hear what was actually said might have helped you remove your blinkers and, even if not, you would certainly have enjoyed the fine Leith's catering.

[tapestry]

Wait a minute Christina. See this extract from Cameron's speech -

'we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed.

Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.'

Cameron's speech isn't as long as Paul van Buitenen's report so you should be OK with it! Have a read. Its content will pleasantly surprise you and anyone else who choked on this morning's papers.

[Wallenstein]

Like Christina I hardly thought The Times gave Cameron's speech a ringing welcome.

Anyway, the delicious keynote of that editorial is "Glibcon". "Dave" will never live that one down.

Elsewhere some trenchant observations by Hugo Rifkind on the shameless plagiarising of Fukuyama's ideas (for what they are worth).

I assume that we can put this down to one of "Dave"s researchers, ie someone who has actually heard of Fukuyama although possibly not the fact that his ridiculous
"End of History" theory has been overtaken by...er...history.

[Hope Nott]

Christina - it's not what you think about the EU that I wanted to broadcast. It's that you were until recently a fully paid up member of UKIP, who edited one of its publications, and that you were happy to post an article to a very Orange website detailing your views about the Vatican's sanity.

Here's your quote again:
The Vatican’s beatification factory is scraping the barrel in its record-breaking creation of new saints and causing many faithful Christians to question its sanity

and here's the URL where I found it:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/new_details.asp?ID=220

I think it's great that CH isn't a closed shop for members only, but people browsing through in their lunch hour might get the impression that you are some sort of committed Conservative party activist, which you clearly aren't. You might want to mention your affiliation with rival political parties the next time you write one of your unpleasant ad hominem pieces on our popular, elected leader, no?

[Wallenstein]

I think Christina said that she rejoined the Tory Party some five years ago.

Interesting that HN considers that the relatively short period of her current membership discounts her right to be treated as a committed party activist.

Presumably, therefore, the views of those new members alleged to have been lured to the party by the charms of "Dave" should be disregarded altogether?

By the way HN, since you have no compunction about making personal attacks on Mrs Speight, I assume you take the view that the term ad hominem applies to the male sex only?

[Paul Marks]

Mr Cameron says in his speech that antiAmericanism is "cowardice" and then goes in for antiAmericanism - "soundbites", lacking in "humility", seeing things in terms of good and evil "unrealistic and simplistic" (and so on).

However, Mr Cameron is free to be antiAmerican (or to hold any other opinion) - although it was (to use his own term) an example of "cowardice" to first attack antiAmericanism and then indulge in it (in the hopes of getting a favourable editorial in the "Daily Mail", on the correct calculation that this newspaper hates the United States even more than it hates Mr Cameron).

It was irritating that Mr Cameron tried to have his cake and eat it as well (by attacking the Americans, but not saying that the Iraq war was wrong - thus trying to keep both pro and anti war people on board).

However, the main point is the DATE of Mr Cameron's speech.

If David Cameron does not understand that September 11th is not the correct date to go in for some Yank bashing it shows that comming from a wealthy family and going to Eton and Oxford is not enough to make a man a gentleman.

Some people, regardless of all the wealth and other advantages they have had in life, are just no good.

[Hope Note]

I'm not attacking Christina at all. All I'm pointing out is (1) the majority of her posts are personal and unpleasant and (2) she neglects to mention her anti-Tory political activist recent past, as though it has no bearing on her current views. It's an unpleasant facet of the vicious minority on this site that they retain the right to be nasty about the Tory leadership, but start complaining if anyone dares write something mild about how sick they are of reading it. I cannot count the number of times one of the ultras has written one of those faux-cool attempts at a put down - "you claim that X is unpleasant but surely you're the unpleasant one for mentioning it blah blah ". No, pointing out that Christina is unnecessarily rude in nearly all of her posts isn't an attack, it's a statement of fact. Stating that I wish she would stop is an opinion, but I don't think an unpleasant one. And that she was until recently a highly-placed activist in the party which probably hates the Conservatives more than any other is, I think, germane to this discussion.

[christina speight]

Hope Nott writes - "It's that you were until recently a fully paid up member of UKIP, who edited one of its publications, and that you were happy to post an article to a very Orange website detailing your views about the Vatican's sanity."

WRONG - WRONG ans WRONG - apart from that oh dear. I was in UKIP for 2 years and left it in 2001 5 YEARS AGO - "recently" ???

"Facts, Figures & Phantasies" was NEVER a UKIP publication and never went on its website with my knowledge or permission. When I left UKIP they tried to take FFPh which was so successful but they failed as the copyright was mine!

I did not post an article to an orange website. That Times report and my brief comment thereon was on my own FFPh website which was largely and conditionally pro-Tory (that was during Hague. IDS and Howard's leadership). If Ian Paisley's lot quoted from my site - that's up to them. As it happens I think (and the Times did too) the Vatican's saint-factory lost its marbles in promoting Schuman, a highly controversial figure to say the least, as a saintly candidate

So you're up the pole, making crazy allegations which haven't a shred of truth in them. Pretty poor record on the whole. One way or another you've got a whole omelette on your face

I shouldn't try muck raking - you get dirty for doing so - as you have

Now can we stick to the subject

[christina speight]

Wallenstein writes - "the relatively short period of her current membership". OK but "current" is the operative word. I joined the party at University after war service and refounded the Party's branch there. I then worked at Central Office (including being election agent in a - hilarious - by-election for candidate Jimmy Edwards - anyone remember him?) and was one of the 6 to found the Bow Group (Griffiths, Baum, Henderson, Harris, + someone ? and me)

I remained a member while raising a family and doing a job until Major's attack on the integrity of the party over Maastricht. That was 45 years mermbership in all plus the more recent stint. If anybody on this blog can beat that I'll be delighted to hear.
=-=-=-=-
Just seen Hope Nott's lame response to Wallenstein. Opinions are one thing and my opinions are just that - opinions.

However, attacking a fellow blogger on the basis of LIES, which he'd has done, is contemptible. He should shut up until he learns the need to check what he - wrongly - assumes are facts. AND I was never a "highly-placed activist" in UKIP in my short time there - I was a branch secretary. Nothing else at all.

[Martin Cole]

Paul Marks at 14;03 makes the critical point on the timing of the speech and DC's character as that in my post yesterday on the blog:

http://teeteringtories.blogspot.com

Teetering Tories has been accurately foretelling the travails of the Conservative Party since the dying days of the leadership of IDS.

It predicted the doomed leadership of Michael Howard with absolute accuracy even before his annointment.

It forecasted the same fate for David Cameron for reasons fully detailed on the blog even before his election.

Newer blogs such as Conservative Home provide a first rate debating forum and external link service to follow events as they occur and I commend the Editor.

For the reality on where British Conservatism is going and inspired insights into what might lie ahead,all in a brief regular read, I suggest readers put Teetering Tories on their browser bookmarks or favourites.

[Mark Fulford]

However, attacking a fellow blogger on the basis of LIES, which he'd has done, is contemptible.

Christina, you take gross simplifications of what David Cameron actually says and you use them to attack him. It seems to me that effectively you are attacking him with a lie. How is it any different?

[Mark Fulford]

Paul Marks at 14;03 makes the critical point on the timing of the speech and DC's character as that in my post yesterday on the blog:

As I wrote yesterday, the anniversary of a tragedy temporarily brings closer what was lost - and that closeness makes it a very good time to talk and think about the lessons learned. From David Cameron, platitudes or silence would have shown less respect to those who died than this thoughtful, honest speech.

Further justification came when George W Bush went on to make his own speech that also didn't hold back.

[Chad]

"Chad - can't you develop a proper UKIP site where these people can talk to each other?"

Yes, will do. Just got back from the count. It's Nigel!!! Hurrah.

[christina speight]

Mark F: - "gross simplifications" name one which distorts his views.

[Mark Fulford]

Yes, will do. Just got back from the count. It's Nigel!!! Hurrah.

And there was me hoping that CH would manage to completely ignore that little bit of UKIP irrelevance.

Mark F: - "gross simplifications" name one which distorts his views.

"Hug a hoodie" for a start.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I see Richard Suchorzewski came second, ahead of David Campbell-Bannerman, for UKIP despite some scurrilous, hypocritical and downright malicious attempts to discredit him.

Us Conservatives should be glad that the rag-tag collection of Conservative wannabes-in-denial and swivel-eyed misfits have gone for the status quo - hurrah indeed.

Now, I'm sure the Editor doesn't want this to turn into yet another discussion about UKIP's march towards electoral oblivion, so that's the last I'll say here.

[Chad]

For a minute there I thought you were talking about me!

[tapestry]

Party Leaders in UKIP seem to have little authority. Things are tightly controlled elsewhere in the Party - the NEC and other Party officers. I doubt Nigel Farage will be able to unstitch the power structure that runs the party, and set electoral strategy and priorities.

[Jon Gale]

Mark, Christina,

You could also try "It's Hug a Terrorist Time".

[malcolm]

DVA, were you a trouble maker at school?. Nigel Farage seems quite a good guy to me and I hope that one day he sees the error of his ways and joins a party that can actually achieve something. It's interesting that the UKIP leadership contest generated virtually no publicity.

[Wallenstein]

>>Further justification came when George W Bush went on to make his own speech that also didn't hold back.<<

Bush's speech, in case you haven't noticed, did not launch an attack on the policies of the British Government, or indeed Cameron's non-policies for that matter.

The Boy Wonder put his foot in it well and truly. Looks like one or two people are in an extended state of denial about that simple truth.

[Chad]

"It's interesting that the UKIP leadership contest generated virtually no publicity."

Robin Brandt and a BBC crew were filming in the counting hall and the rest of the press were in the conference room post result.

I guess we'll have to check the BBC tonight.

If you see a handsome chap in a pink shirt and blue tie, that's me! ;-)

Nigel is focussed on building a positive low tax, small government domestic agenda, so it should be interesting.

[tapestry]

I thought UKIP believed in exiting the EU.

[Chad]

Indeed they do, 100% unequivocal support for withdrawal, much like the brave Tory MP's who founded the BetterOffOut campaign that now has supporters across at least 5 parties (inc Lab and Tories).

However, now it is time for UKIP to develop a full, positive domestic agenda, and relevance both locally and nationally.

That's what they'll be focussing on now.

ps Just saw a report of the count pop up on Sky News.

[christina speight]

Mark Fulford - ""Hug a hoodie" for a start." THAT doesn't distort his views. It was a simplification which beautifully encapsuled his views and what he'd said.
=-=-=-=-
Tapestry - UKIP's "power structure that runs the party" always has been run by Farage since 2001! Therein lies the trouble with that party and why secretary after secretary has resigned. His personal conduct has also been the subject of some pointed press comment.

Pity - we'll just have to 'do-a-Bromley'then I suppose. Judging by the low numbers "certain to vote" we'll be in good company.

[tapestry]

If UKIP want withdrawal from the EU, they should stop standing against eurosceptics, and target eurocompliant MP's only.

UKIP's electoral strategy is a farce. They are far more likely to accelerate the loss of Britain's independence by standing against eurosceptics, than they are to prevent it.

Equally by reducing potential Conservative majorities, they are postponing the day when a Conservative leadership would be in a strong enough position ignore its eurocompliant rump.

Now they're waffling on about low tax in competition with John Redwood.

UKIP should focus on what their core business is, if it wants to be considered anything other than an egotistical farce, a home for fruitcakes, loonies and racists.

There cannot be many organisations in the world with a single declared aim that continually behaves in a way guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite. Farage looks a bit sheepish, winning the poisoned chalice of UKIP leadership. I'm not surprised. It's a bloody mess.

[Chad]

"If UKIP want withdrawal from the EU, they should stop standing against eurosceptics, and target eurocompliant MP's only"

I believe that Nigel supports exactly this, not standing against openly declared members of the BetterOffOut campaign if they have a better chance of winning.

The days of splitting the eurosceptic vote are over, thanks to the Tories who founded BetterOffOut.

[malcolm]

You do the Labour partys work for it by promoting the ridiculous 'hug a hoodie' or 'hug a terrorist' lies Christina.

[tapestry]

So BetterOffOut dictates UKIP Policy now, does it? I doubt it.

[Chad]

"So BetterOffOut dictates UKIP Policy now, does it?"
Um, no, the leader, Nigel does. And he, just like you suggested, sees it as more productive to focus limited funds on europhiles to ensure eurosceptics across all parties work together to achieve a result throw their combined strength.

You said you support it. Now you have it.
So you must be happy! :-)

[tapestry]

and I like the 'if they have a better chance of winning' bit!!!!!!!!!!!!

The idea is it not, is to get eurosceptic MP's into Westminster. No UKIP candidate stands a cat in hell chance of doing that. All they're going to do is prevent a Conservative victory or reduce a Conservative majority. So rethink the strategy. Target eurocompliant MP's and campaign for their deselection and replacement with eurosceptic ones.

Anything else is barmy.

[Editor]

For goodness sake. No more UKIP on this thread. PLEASE! When we know who the new UKIP leader is we can start a special thread...

[Mark Fulford]

Mark Fulford - ""Hug a hoodie" for a start." THAT doesn't distort his views. It was a simplification which beautifully encapsuled his views and what he'd said.

Christine, how does "Hug a hoodie" beautifully encapsulate "Of course we should never excuse teenage crime, or tolerate the police ignoring it. We need tough sanctions, protection and punishment"?

Read the CSJ speech and tell me what you actually object to about it. In principle, where is he wrong? Go on.

[Editor]

Anything not on thread after this will be deleted so don't bother leaving any other comments.

[Matt Davis]

"Does anyone believe that sycophantically cow-towing to anti-Americans/pro-Islamists is going to help him get into power? Surely the Lib-Dems have got that vote all tied up. Cameron is in serious danger of losing his base to UKIP."

Hey Dodge, you are dead right but what is really scary about this is that neither Cameron nor Maude nor Hague seem to take this danger seriously. If after the election of Farage as their new leader UKIP can actually get their act together, which is an open question, then they will stand a very good chance indeed of taking our natural votes and our activists. But then perhaps the self serving electoral calculation being made is that it doesn't matter so long as the NuLab swing voters vote for us instead for while.

What really appalls me about all of this is that there isn't a single principle or genuine view in any of it, it is all PR spin designed solely to allow certain people to enjoy careers in Government, it is certainly not what is best for the Country or the Party in the long run.

[Monday Clubber]

Fukuyama must be the ultimate philosophical dead end.

So typical of an American to have declared that the perfection of US Democracy marked the final chapter of history. Hegel prostituted his genius by saying much the same about the Prussian bureaucracy of his day.

Hegel also attempted to prove that although the definition of planets had changed since the Ancients, there still could only be, philosophically. seven planets.

Jacob Bronowski's rejoinder to Hegel could equally well apply to Fukuyama's hubris.

"There is a marvellous passage in King Lear, in which who else but the Fool says to the King: 'The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.'

"And the King wags sagely and says,'Because they are not eight.' And the Fool says,
'Yes, indeed. Thou would'st make a good fool."

[MH]

Words cannot begin to convery the disgust I feel at Cameron's comments on 9/11.

[Matt Davis]

So Hope Note, if you think that Christina Speight should be mentioning her "Anti Tory Past" then where exactly does that leave you regarding Rehman Christi then please? Should he also be mentioning his anti Tory past at every selection meeting he attends?

[Matt Davis]

This is the sort of thing hat I would have hoped to hear from the Leader of the Conservative Party regarding the greatest foreign policy challenge of our time, in fact it is by EMILIO KARIM DABUL, an Arab living in the US. Check it out:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/one_arabs_apology_opedcolumnists_emilio_karim_dabul.htm

[Matt Davis]

Sorry, the link's too long so here it is split, please cut and paste it.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/one_arabs_apology
_opedcolumnists_emilio_karim_dabul.htm

[Seroprin-24]

Thanks for the amazing post, Now I will read time to time that...