David Frum: Britain's empty conservatism

David Frum (recently Q&A'd on ConservativeHome) is one of America's leading conservative commentators.  I've noted before how British conservatism is becoming increasingly different from the conservatism of other Anglosphere nations (see here and here).  Mr Frum has noticed, too:

"Guess whose political platform this is:

- Tax cuts? No.

- More public money for government-monopoly health care? Yes.

- Same-sex marriage? Enthusiastically yes.

- Big supermarkets? Offenders against the environment.

- Kyoto Accord. Absolutely.

- Terrorism? Close Guantanamo.

- Illegal immigration? Don't talk about it.

- Israel's response to Hezbollah's rocket attacks? Disproportionate.

- George W. Bush? No friend of ours."

Some modernising Cameroons will welcome criticism from the man who wrote the 'axis of evil' line for George Bush's famous State of the Union address.  And it might be true that Mr Cameron's strategy might be right for 'BBC-land Britain' - time will tell - but we should know that it is very different from the conservatism of three election winners; George W Bush, Stephen Harper and John Howard.  Read David Frum's full article here.

Comments

[Sean Fear]

It's interesting that Frum compares Cameron to the George Bush of 1999/2000.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I would have thought that a man with the intellect of David Frum could present an argument without resorting to the blatant distortion and over-simplification displayed above.

My mistake.

[Gareth]

Personally, I'd be horrified had men like Frum been supporting us. The architects of the chaos in Iraq really ought to have the humility to keep quiet for a few decades (at least).

[Peter Harrison]

I agree Daniel. The full article also states of David Cameron that, "He cheerfully submits to the demands of tabloids for personal information about his disabled child and his own past drug experimentation." A strange way to represent Cameron's refusal to answer questions on his own experiences with drugs.

I'm sure there are differences between Cameron's brand of conservatism and that of Bush, Harper and Howard but characterising Cameron with the mixture of half-truths and blatant untruths above does not contribute towards a sensible debate on the subject.

[Anon]

"I've noted before how British conservatism is becoming increasingly different from the conservatism of other Anglosphere nations" Cue the headline that you wanted to use "Britain's empty conservatism" A better more honest editorial line might have been "Why has their brand of conservatism been so successful in other Anglosphere nations while being so reviled in the UK.
Correct me if I am wrong but just a little reminder that when the people of America and Australia start paying for the costs of her majesty's opposition then they can set the agenda on what British conservatism means. A few people in the conservative party should also remember that not only did the British public reject the tories in the last 3 elections they didn't even rate us as an opposition party either!

[Graeme Archer]

I love the disgusting way that the arch right yet again try to tie up equality in common law for gay couples as a sign of some sort of sliproad to the hell of socialism. Pathetic. And ditto, ditto, ditto to all the comments above.

[Chris]

Maybe so, but...
what about tax cuts?
what about the lunatic NHS monopoly?
what about immigration?

oh yes, and, what about Europe?
(how much of what we WANT to do will we be ALLOWED to do???)

[jake]

Perhaps that is because you refuse to be an opposition party and spend all your time playing the game according to Blair's rules . The public know this which is why , whatever happens , they do not really look to the conservatives for leadership .

Talking past the point has become a feature of Tory modern Toryism -

a case in point re health spending - Cameron continues to rabbit on about " the NHS " as of the old British NHS still effectively exists . In this he conspires with the Labour to hide the relative lack of health spending in England . He also conspires to hide the point that health in Scotland and Wales are entirely and solely the concern of their own parliaments . In fact , and he knows it , he is referring ONLY to health in England but refuses to admit this basic feature - and in so doing never quite gets to the point .
The public ( the English public that is -85% of the British ) are left puzzled , knowing there is a deliberate lack of clarity , smell a rat and are left leaderless , despite the heroic words .

If the Conservative party were able to bring themselves to recognise and address the severe constitutional situation which assymetric devolution has produced -

( and there is a logical and probably highly popular solution to it ie an English parliament in a federal British state )

and stop dodging the issue - they are likely to hugely gratified at the reaction of , at present leaderless ENGLISH public , to such an overdue and sensible initiative .

[Jason Hughes]

I don't think it can be denied that British 'conservatism' is now somewhat different to the conservatism of the Anglosphere.

America has Bush, Canada has Harper, and Australia has Howard, even then the conservatism of these three leaders is different to each others. Harper and Howard lack the essential religious nature of Bush's conservatism.

Harper's conservatism is tempered in the wake of a long standing Liberal Government. Although the five principles which his party stood for in the 2006 Federal elections bare a striking resemblance to the Michael Howard 2005 campaign.

Howard is a conservative/neoliberal who has proved to be an excellent Prime Minister based upon his pragmatic politics underpinned by ideology.

I certainly don't think American conservatism is the best way to assess conservatism in this country. Anyone who has American friends will know that their perception of the words "liberal" and "conservative" are starkly different to the meanings that these words have in this country.

I certainly don't think that a party's stance on Guantanamo Bay is an adequate benchmark for conservatism, nor is an assessment of the Iraeli-Palestinian situation, neither is the Kyoto Accord.

I therefore don't rate this examination of British conservatism very highly, although if conservatism in this country bore a closer resemblance to John Howard's Liberal Party in Australia, I'd be a happy man.

[Esbonio]

I'd rather have Howard than Cameron any day.

[David Banks]

Would just like to add my agreement to comment above that it is pathetic the way that giving gay people equal rights in things such as inheritance and legal status of relationship is seen as a betrayal of conservative principle. If its their money we should enable them to leave it to whoever they want. If they wish to enter into a committed relationship with another gay person the state should back off from imposing its beliefs ( a sure sign of socialism)and allow people freedom to live their own lives in a responsible and constructive fashion. As for the ridiculous argument that equal rights for gay people can be ignored as they may not have the ability to produce children , i notice that argument isn't used to prevent disabled people who may have lost reproductive function from entering into marriage and nor shoud it.

[Jason Hughes]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but if that pursuit of "equality" and "egalitarianism" lead to an implicit betrayal of something that is inherently, and essentially conservative, ie., support of the family, family values etc.

Perhaps if the same amount of political effort had been placed upon support of the traditional family, the country might be in a position to tackle the problems of teenage unemployment, anti-social behaviour, and the spiralling and inescapable reliance on the welfare state, which so many decent and honest tax payers pay everything into, yet receive next to nothing out of?

[Robert McIlveen]

"if that pursuit of "equality" and "egalitarianism" lead to an implicit betrayal of something that is inherently, and essentially conservative, ie., support of the family, family values etc."

But it doesn't! I don't see how if I and a boyfriend got CPed it would undermine anyone else's family - or even my own. Supporting families with children does not contradict recognising gay relationships - I doubt anyone ever came out for a tax subsidy.

[David Banks]

Well , if was a big tax subsidy i might consider it :-)

[Jason Hughes]

Well, I guess the point is, some might think that a disproportionate amount of time and effort has been allocated in the upper echelons of our political system to this issue of recognising the union of homosexuals. If that amount of attention, political time and effort had been allocated to upholding the traditional family, rather than championing this issue which such clamour and publicity.

Of course the state should recognise same sex unions, especially from a legal perspective, in regards to inheritance, and taxation issues - but it should not upseat, or take away a focus on support for the family.

It is quite edifying, though, that Cameron has unveiled some degree of policy platitudes to the family, especially in regards to tax, and credits which will ease the financial burden on the modern family.

But if the Conservative Party is to avoid this unhelpful label of "empty conservatism" it will need to stick its neck out a bit on issues such as the family, and recognise - further and more proactively - that it is the wellspring of a stable, responsible and civilised society; whilst also maintaining that the
State should not dictate moral virtues to the individual, gay, straight, regardless of religion, race or any other determining factor. It is this critical notion of a limited state that will help us, as conservatives, avoid the critique of being "empty" and ideology vacuous.

[TomTom]

Gladstone and Peel and Disraeli were all Tories.........I am trying to think when was the last time Conservatives conserved anything.............where is there a recognisable thread of Conservatism ?

Keith Joseph wanted to go back to the 1920s and 1930s Toryism and away from Butskellism; he got them back to the land of the 1927 Trades Disputes Act..........but then ended up in 1945 again with Labour coming back.......

Cameron thinks if he blows bubbles people will not notice which party he represents; but why British politics should be aligned with Us political parties has always eluded me. Americans have only TWO parties sitting in the legislature and one in the executive...........Britain has 11 parties in The Commons.

The US has no regional parties in coalition or control. It is a completely different structure and trying to align them is fanciful and when Britain did not fish in US waters for policies and slogans, voter turnout was much higher here

[Robert McIlveen]

Jason @ 14.40

Well yes, we should recognise gya relationships - but there is no real tension between supporting the family and recognising partnerships. Doing both should appeal to Cosnervatism by emphasising responsibility, commitment and stability.

Modern Compassionate Conservatism (TM) needn't be empty (I don't think it is) to encompass diverse people - we should aim to govern for the whole nation.

[Gareth]

"Well, I guess the point is, some might think that a disproportionate amount of time and effort has been allocated in the upper echelons of our political system to this issue of recognising the union of homosexuals."

What a preposterous statement. Precisely enough time was allocated to allow the Act to pass. No more and no less. What you really mean is you don't think ANY time should have been allowed to gay civil-rights.

This is a classic tactic of those hostile to a particular enactment - "I'm not against it myself of course, I just think we spend far too much time talking about it when we ought to be talking about X"

[malcolm]

What an incredibly simplistic analysis of British Conservatism from David Frum. I'm quite suprised Tim that you give it credence. Do you really think that for one minute that the Conservatism of George Bush would be electorally acceptable in Britain?
PS How many Canadian troops are in Iraq?
PPS Have the Canadians opposed Kyoto?
PPS Has the Australian government advocated significant tax cuts? All genuine questions.

[Ian Sider]

God forbid that any conservative should want to conserve the environment, uphold due process of law, champion small businesses against mega-corporations and distance themselves from catastrophically ill-prepared foreign adventures!

How much more sensible to follow the Republican Party down the moral sewer.

[Daniel]

Wow

What an interesting read above! I think Frum says some very sensible things. And as for the detailed rant about gay rights above, while important to a party workforce extremely well represented by this goup (!), the average working family, (remember them?), simply want the kind of low tax, low interference government that conservative parties that actually win, offer! What's wrong with a few home truths?

[James]

Agreed Gareth. I'd also point out that Bush, Harper and Howard have all devoted vast amounts of time to preventing any legal recognition of same-sex couples. Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment have been well-covered (funny how tax and social security reform can go hang for this president but the FMA justifies numerous TV appearances and active attempts to unseat Republicans who didn't support the FMA), but what is less reported are Howard and Harper's contortions. Harper is attempting to push a purely face-saving vote on whether to have a vote (yes, you read that right) on abolishing same-sex marriage - most MPs are pledged to vote against. Perhaps the time could be better spent on something else?

Similarly, Howard has changed the law to prevent any recognition of committed gay couples (yet is happy to allow Australia's 1970s hippie-ish approval for unmarried couples per se to continue), interfered in the process of states that wished to provide this recognition within their own spheres of influence (eg in the A.C.T.), allowed his ministers to opine that gay Australians who go to Canada to get married "should stay there", and has ridiculed the people in his own party who favour gay relationship recognition because they have gay children.

Of course, in Oz the socialists aren't much better on gay rights (and the Democrats in the US have been at best spineless, at worst fiercely anti-gay themselves) but excuse us if gay conservatives find little to cheer about 'in the Anglosphere' apart from DC's recognition that our relationships actually strengthen families (case in point: my partner's mother vowed never to remarry after her divorce and was horrified when we told her about our CP. Six months later she's just got engaged as our blatant passion for commitment eroded her distrust of the family. Family values? That's what the Civil Partnerships Act embodies).

[Jon White]

Malcolm: There are no Canadian troops in Iraq. There are Canadian troops in Afghanistan. They were not deployed there by Harper, but by the previous Canadian govt.

Canada has not opposed Kyoto - but that was under the previous administration, not Harper's.

I don't know if Howard's Australian conservatives have put forward 'significant' tax cuts as a policy. I doubt that question could be answered unless you define 'significant'.

[Daniel]

It would appear that most of the posters to this page would have a place in the US, with the log cabin republicans. How about we talk about what matters to the vast majority of Brits, be they English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, striaght, gay etc., which is how much money they are allowed to keep by a thiveign government, and how the government can protect them. Offering conservative values.

[TomTom]

James, are you really trying to justify public policy on the basis of your own personal convenience ?

This gets preposterous. If you cannot think beyond the personal to issues of overarching importance it is frankly a joke.

I would prefer not to have a government - they make such a mess of things - but for you so long as your personal agenda is satisfied that it is all that matters.

[Daniel]

Tom Tom = excellent posting!

[ToMTom]

I don't know if Howard's Australian conservatives have put forward 'significant' tax cuts as a policy.

Howard controls Federal Government - Labour controls the State legislatures

[Mike Christie]

"What's wrong with a few home truths?"

You are right about what you say about the 'average working family', but supporting gay rights doesn't stop you from supporting all those things.

[Daniel]

Mike,

The point I was trying to make was that when it comes to talking about how we win, and we we appeal to the vast majority of Britain, we instead talk about how we can all have gay rights.

[Gareth]

"And as for the detailed rant about gay rights above, while important to a party workforce extremely well represented by this goup (!), the average working family, (remember them?), simply want the kind of low tax, low interference government that conservative parties that actually win, offer! What's wrong with a few home truths?"

Another piece of preposterous quasi-homophobic nonsense, masquerading as 'blunt talking' or 'home truths'.

The juxtaposition between 'working families' and 'gay rights' is preposterous. As if having one somehow impedes helping the other. The swipe about party workers is really contemptible.

[Robert McIlveen]

I don't think you'd find many gay tories who would be against tax cuts or supporting marriage - there's absolutely no reason why recognising gay relationships jeopardises this. Of course Conservaitve values of freedom and the small state are more important. But getting voters (and not just gay ones: most people my age) to think we're swivel-eyed bigots. Which we're not.

[Mike Christie]

Daniel, David Cameron devoted 38 words of his 5,200+ word speech to civil partnerships. It was an aside, designed to illustrate that the party has abandoned the moralising position that put so many people of us in the past.

Not an unreasonable amount of time.

[Reagan Fan]

TomTom,

I don't understand your pointed jibe at James. He was explaining how a conservative (straight or gay) can find positive family values aspects in the CPA and David Cameron's warm endorsement of it. He did link it to his personal experience, nothing wrong in that, but he did so whilst making the wider point about a national agenda.

Don't let your prejudices blind yourself to what people are writing.

[James]

TomTom, precisely which "issues of overarching importance" have you actually articulated?

I believe that the family is the most important institution in human civilisation. I believe that strong families improve people's health and educational prospects. I believe that strong families reduce lvels of crime and antisocial behaviour. I believe that strong families keep welfare bills down and also offer the most powerful bulwark against over-mighty states.

I KNOW that recognising gay relationships, either through marriage, or through civil partnerships, makes families stronger.
Some of us actually believe that societies based on commitment and individual responsibility do better than those where 'personal agendas' are allowed to break up families. Not all gay people live in West London penthouse apartments.

When you talk about my 'personal agenda', please bear in mind that you are discussing my right to see my partner in hospital, my right not to give my house to the state when he dies, our access to one another's pension - even his right to be informed were I murdered in the street. Don't pretend it's anything other than heterosexual people take for granted.

[Daniel]

Mike,

You know how many words Dave spoke? I just wish other words would have included "tax".

My point was that this should not be a discussion on gay rigfhts. Can we talk about how American Republicans have a habit of winning and we keep losing?

Also, point to Gareth. Have you been to a CCO event? Have you worked there? (I'm guessing from your response you have?) Are you seriously telling me the Tory party is run by a representative group ? If so, why does a blog devoted to an analysis of the Tory party and it's lack of conservatism end up with some chap announcing how he has "CP'd" his boyfriend?

Get a sense of humour people!

[Reagan Fan]

"It would appear that most of the posters to this page would have a place in the US, with the log cabin republicans."

Indeed! Here is an extract from the Log Cabin Republicans press release on the death of President Reagan:

Ronald Reagan forever will be linked with the founding of Log Cabin Republicans in 1977. Anti-gay forces in California pushed what was called, the Briggs Initiative. The proposal would have prevented gay people from teaching in California public schools. Ronald Reagan's public opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped lead to its defeat. In the wake of that campaign, gay conservatives united to form Log Cabin Republicans.

"President Reagan united the Republican Party by embracing an optimistic vision for America: low taxes, limited government, individual opportunity, free markets, personal freedom and a strong national defense," continued Guerriero. "He succeeded by bringing America together—not trying to divide it for political gain."

President Reagan's legacy can best be summed up by quoting one of his last speeches. At the 1992 Republican National Convention, President Reagan said, "Whatever else history will say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way."

[Reagan Fan]

"Can we talk about how American Republicans have a habit of winning and we keep losing?"

-

Hold that thought until the morning of 8th November...

[Daniel]

Reagan won on cutting taxes. Did he legalise gay marriage while in power! I thkn it's nice though the log cabin republicans liked Reagon. Other poeple did too - Like millions of hard working American families that voted him in!

Can we get back to the agenda set by Frum please?!

[Mike Christie]

Daniel, just to show how much of an anorak I am. The tax and economy sections of the speech weighed in at 218 words and included the phrase

"Everyone in this hall, me included, knows that a low tax economy is a strong economy"

Happy yet? ;-)

In my defence, I already had a transript of the speech open to quote in another thread, so I just pasted it into Word to get the number of words.

[Daniel]

Reagan fan,
Nice you're wishing the Republiccan party ill. Slightly inappropriate name on that basis. Mine, Daniel, is somewhat more accurate, being stuck in this lion's den of iniquity!
Now, what did everyone think of Frum?

[Reagan Fan]

"Other poeple [liked Reagan] too - Like millions of hard working American families that voted him in!"

Yep - some of whom would have had gay sons and daughters, aunts and uncles. The point is that Reagan was essentially optimistic and inclusive, not someone who railed against the world identifying scapegoats. I think it telling that the last words of Cameron's speech "the best is yet to come" were the same words used in Reagan's final words to the American people.

[Reagan Fan]

Daniel, I'm not wishing them ill at all, I'm merely pointing out that those holding them up as election winners probably have a limited time in which to do that. Do you think that assessment of their electoral fortunes is wrong?

[James]

Yes, let's not talk about this too much! It is one of David Frum's favourite topics though.

In fairness, I actually think that on a lot of the other issues there is something in what Frum says (in that Cameron is clearly distinct from other Anglosphere conservatives), although Bush hasn't exactly been very prudent with the federal budget.

Reagan Fan, we certainly do await the election results with interest. If the Republicans do lose 50 seats in the House, what will Frum have to say then?

[Sean Fear]

The US Republicans have been a good deal more successful than we have in recent times, but I'm afraid they've squandered most of their advantages recently.

They've pushed through massive rises in public spending, much of it on rubbish, conducted the Iraq war incompetently, and a fair few of their number have proved as corrupt as the Democrats they replaced in 1994.

As it happens, I quite approve of their stance towards issues like affirmative action and abortion, but certainly think it should be up to the individual States to decide what their stance should be on gay marriage/civil partnerships, and think their enthusiasm for creationism is daft.

A hefty electoral defeat on November 8th would be merited, but one shouldn't underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Reagan Fan]

James, he'll blame it on Foley!

Back to Frum, the piece is interesting but incomplete. He complains that Cameron is all about mood music, but he accepts the need to develop a Conservative 'brand' which allows the Party's policies to be favoured by the public without embarassment. Surely this is the phase Cameron is in now, the substance phase (as we have all discussed at length) will follow later. For Frum's piece to be authoritative he needs to be able to see what policies we offer at the next General Election, to criticise Cameron now before those are in place is putting the cart before the horse.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Cameron is much closer to what I recognise as British conservatism. I have no truck with the supposed conservatism of other English speaking countries (I think the term anglosphere is a meaningless construct designed to divide, so I won't use it), we are not them and they are not us.

[Three Billy Goats Gruff]

"My point was that this should not be a discussion on gay rigfhts."

Stop harping on about it then. Frum raised the issue of same-sex marriage in his piece, and it's only natural that people will want to discuss that. Nobody is forcing you to join in the discussion if you don't want to.

"Can we talk about how American Republicans have a habit of winning and we keep losing?"

Well apart from pointing out the obvious fact that the American political landscape is vastly different to our own, there seems little more to say, other than reminding you that, the intervention of Republican Secretary of State for Florida Katherine Harris aside, the Republicans failed to win a presidential election between 1988 and 2004. They certainly kicked that habit of winning for a long time - 16 whole years in fact!

[christina speight]

Malcolm asks some questions --

" PS How many Canadian troops are in Iraq?
PPS Have the Canadians opposed Kyoto?
PPS Has the Australian government advocated significant tax cuts? All genuine questions.

1. PS None I believe
2. PPS They are doing even more hard fighting than British troops. All the rest except the USA have it cushy
3 PPS d/k !!!
=-=-=-=-
Cardinal Pirelli - You wouldn't know about Anglshericism would you? Or about British Conservatism (Or is the pseudonym a devious device?)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[matt wright]

A commitment to social resposnibility is hardly "empty Conservatism" but a big and exciting challenge that rises above political labels. Frum misses the point as is self evidently defensive,

Matt

[Jason Hughes]

It would appear that talking about gay rights, and marriage has become somewhat of a Pandora's Box, however has that issue itself not demonstrated itself to be a fertile topic of debate, especially in regards to the 'changing face of conservatism'?

It's quite possible to be a 'conservative' and hold a plethora of conflicting views with other 'conservaives' - come to think of it it is what makes conservative politics all the stronger.

If David Cameron is serious - like he said in his speech - about 'loving it' when people go off message, I'm sure he'd enjoy this thread.

For my own part, I hope Cameron allows this type of thing to continue without imposing a 'liberal conservative' orthodoxy on the rest of the party, and perhaps even the 'movement' as a whole. [See Donal Blaney's article on why we need a 'Conservative Movement']

I personally consider the bulk of the political problems that face Britain, and Britons more accutely, today is the imposition of values in a top-down fashion from a self-appointed liberal elite. It sounds like an off message reactionary scaremonger type statement, but there really is a liberal paralysis in British politics today, caused by a dictatorial intellectual movement that characterises an intollerant and grossly misguided liberalism. [I would recommend the apparently renegade voice crying in the wilderness, Peter Hitchens, on this point]

Anyone who does not strictly adhere to this allegedly infallible 'liberal' docrtine is in someway less of a human, and instantly labelled racist, homophobic, xenophobic, a Little Englander, a bigot, and so on.

I think what 'conservatives' need to do, to avoid allowing this paralysis to continue, is to break free from this liberal orthodoxy and flesh out conservatism in a ideological way once again. If this doesn't happen, it is quite possible that conservatism will become "empty" - although I maintain that David Frum's assessment is crude, simplistic, and of little practical value.

Any thoughts?

[Reagan Fan]

Spot on Jason, we don't want a top down liberal conservative orthodoxy (though the presence of a genuinely diverse Shadow Cabinet suggests this isn't the case) any more than we want a rigid top down reactionary conservative orthodoxy.

I think the advantage of Donal's suggested wider 'Conservative Movement' is it allows conservative thought to develop freely outside the party, constantly challenging orthodoxy to justify itself or evolve. Nobody can look at our party between 1990 and 2005 and claim this isn't needed.

The problem is that, arguably, genuine classical liberalism/conservatism is reliant on an absence of dogma or rigid ideology so until policies are added to the party programme (and I don't believe now is the time to do that) internal debate looks like internicine warfare. It needn't be. However attempts like Frum's (whom I often admire) to impose a rigid yardstick against which to measure conservatism is a great way to promote bitter factionalism.

[TomTom]

Don't let your prejudices blind yourself to what people are writing.

Posted by: Reagan Fan | October 11, 2006 at 17:25

and James

When you talk about my 'personal agenda', please bear in mind that you are discussing my right to see my partner in hospital, my right not to give my house to the state when he dies, our access to one another's pension - even his right to be informed were I murdered in the street. Don't pretend it's anything other than heterosexual people take for granted.

Fine - so that is what The Conservatives stand for. Thank you for updating me. I did not realise that heterosexual people had these rights........two sisters before the ECHR seem to think they do not.

Reagan Fan - so what are my "prejudices" why don't you list them ? I always find prejudiced people like yourself are superb at projecting your obsessions onto others.

but since Labour provided you Reagan Fan and James with what you so desire, I suggest you vote for that party which has done a superb job with the NHS, fantastic job on taxes, amazing job on national defence, unbelievably superb job on roads, increased the rail subsidies to £6 bn/year, and made Britain a beacon to the whole world which is beating a path to its door to occupy all those new homes being built on the green belt (sorry - it is Cameron who wants homes built on the green belt)

Oh, I forgot - Education is now the best in the world with child geniuses dominating the Nobel Prize lists.

In fact under Labour Britain has now become an Earthly Paradise which David Cameron can only improve with building on the green belt and embracing diversity and unrestricted immigration.

At least we now know

[Reagan Fan]

TomTom, there you go obsessing again!

"...since Labour provided you Reagan Fan and James with what you so desire, I suggest you vote for that party"

Er...the Tory Party overwhelmingly voted for it too, or didn't you notice that?

"In fact under Labour Britain has now become an Earthly Paradise..."

There's that blindness again! I don't which bit of Britain you live in, I long for the day Cameron beats Brown (or whoever) in a General Election.

[Hannibal]

Tomtom, do move on. Your monomania is boring. The debate had shifted off your pet topic but you seem determined to bring it back! Answer posters comments on Frum's argument that go wider than your personal bug bear.

Michael Gove's comment in yesterday's Times is quite useful regarding reforming opposition parties into winning machines...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1055-2396784,00.html

...the perennial query asked of all opposition leaders since Harold Wilson (and probably since the time of Pitt the Elder): “Is this fresh new figure as good as he/she seems, with the toughness required for the top job?” There is, of course, a variation on this question, asked by some in the opposition leader’s party, which runs along the lines of: “Why is this leader refusing to spell out the radical measures that my favourite columnists on the Daily Beast have so clearly identified as the tough medicine the nation needs?” Some opposition leaders have indeed delighted their supporters with the breathtaking radicalism of their vision. One thinks, nostalgically, of Michael Foot’s success in that regard.

There have also been opposition leaders who have disappointed their most ardent supporters, clearly indicating their lack of fitness for the tough disciplines of Government. Surely we all remember Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to argue for radical reform of the unions when in Opposition and her decision to appoint the wetly consensual Jim Prior as her shadow spokesman on the issue. A sad tale, then, of weakness and irresolution from the Finchley housewife. Whatever can have happened to her?

[James Maskell]

Here we go again. Someone is critical of Cameron and they are bundled by the pro-Cameron forces. As it was, as it is, as it ever will be...

[Hannibal]

James,

Why don't you answer some of the substantive points in Frum's article or the responses both pro and anti above?

[James Maskell]

Hannibal, calm down. I was making an observation, one that seems to have been proved right. Tom Tom was commenting on the changes to Tory policy which comes into this thread in relation to being different to other Conservative parties.

Tims right. Cameron's Conservatives are very different to other Conservative Parties. In Australia, Howard has been able to keep the right wing conservatism and remain in office. Theres no reason why Cameron cant be more supportive of the rightwing instead of assuming they'll stay because theres nowhere else. Other Conservative parties have been electorally successful without having to water down their beliefs as Cameron has done.

[Hannibal]

But don't you think Cameron is doing this to become electable and thereafter will govern as a Conservative? The fact David Davis is so supportive, that people like Forsyth and Redwood develop policy, that Fox and Hague are given prominent roles, and that the likes of Polly Toynbee detest Cameron, don't they offer you some comfort that when the substance comes it will be positive? Perhaps I'm overly optimistic but I really do think Cameron is at heart a Eurosceptic, that he does believe in social responsibility resting with private individuals and not the State, and that he understands the need for a low tax economy.

Maybe I will end up being horribly let down, but for the moment Cameron is giving us the best chance of winning a general election for the first time in what will be nearly 20 years. Isn't it perhaps worth giving him the benefit of the doubt until we can actually see the manifesto? Do we really think Brown (probably) will be better as PM than Cameron?

[James Maskell]

If hes just doing this to get elected and then he'll put more right wing conservatism into it, isnt that deceiving the British people? It seems very dishonest to me.

[Hannibal]

He isn't being dishonest, not if he doesn't lie about policies. Remember the polling that Frum refers to in his article:

"How disliked are the British Conservatives? A pollster friend tells this story. He identified the three or four most popular ideas in the last Conservative manifesto. He convened a focus group and asked them what they thought of these ideas. The focus group murmured their approval. Then he told them the Conservative party advocated these ideas. Did that change their minds? Yes, it did. They decided they did not like the ideas after all."

The policies are not the problem, the tainted brand is. If we can convince people Conservatives don't have two heads and eat babies then we are on the way to convicing them of Tory policies too. This is what Polly Toynbee hates so much about Cameron, she likes to demonise Tories because then she needn't argue about policies and ideas but he isn't giving her that option

[christina speight]

Hannibal - "But don't you think Cameron is doing this to become electable and thereafter will govern as a Conservative?"

Surely what you're saying is that Cameron is deceitful but although we all know this (with his disgraceful broken promise) I didn't realise that deceit was settled policy now

And he isn't a eurosceptic - he wants us to stay in the undemocratic monster.

[James Maskell]

Hannibal, its dishonest if you act as one thing to get elected then suddenly change. Dishonesty is a subjective thing of course but in this case its going to be pretty obvious if he does swing to the right wing after being made PM.

[Hannibal]

Christina,

Regarding dishonesty see comment above yours.

Regarding Euroscepticism, not all Eurosceptics favour withdrawal. Some do, some don't, they may all be Eurosceptics (the Bruges Group and Conservative Way Forward don't have party lines on withdrawal, does that make them pro Euro?).

[Hannibal]

James,

Not if he governs on the policies and principles on which he is elected. Remember the point about Margaret Thatcher, her time in government (with such radical breaks from the Post War Consensus as privatisation and trade union reform) was not the same as her time in opposition. Was she dishonest?

[Chad]

Hannibal, the definitions are becoming clearer:

A eurorealist supports withdrawal, a eurosceptic supports reform as far as I'm aware.

BOO supporters across the parties are eurorealists.

[James Maskell]

If you propose a set of policies then change those policies once elected without a very good and obvious reason to do so, its dishonest. Its the argument about Cameron being nice at the moment so he can get the attention he needs then switching later on. Thats dishonest because there was never an intention to actually be what you had proported to be initially.

Do you not think the public would appreciate it more if they werent treated like pawns in a game and instead were just told it straight?

[Hannibal]

James,

I think we are arguing where there is no argument! I'm not suggesting Cameron comes up with a raft of policies which are ditched on attaining office. I don't think "being nice" (horrible way of putting it, but can't think of anything better) is mutually exclusive with being Conservative. That's all he is getting across.

Chad,

I like your definitions.

[Anon]

"heres no reason why Cameron cant be more supportive of the rightwing instead of assuming they'll stay because theres nowhere else.
James, what about all the people who stayed in the party over the last 10 years and did not have their voice heard but continued to loyally support the party, or the millions of voter's who turned away from the conservative party in their droves?
I think that you are under the mistaken belief that the right of the party = 30-33% core vote and therefore need special treatment and attention. This is naval gazing at its worst, either we are a major political party who is aiming at attracting enough votes to be elected as a government or we are a minority party who seeks only to represent a small group. If that is the case then we have no right to ask the taxpayer to pay for us as an opposition party.
"Other Conservative parties have been electorally successful without having to water down their beliefs as Cameron has done." Yeah right, and they did it after 3 crushing electoral defeats and without changing their message in any way, shape or form! Just maybe they did what the UK conservatives are doing now,
1. Elect a leader to detox your badly tainted image and sell your message.
2. Use a policy review to actually build a conservative manifesto which reflects the needs and aspirations of the many voters you NEED to represent as a government.
3.Build a shadow cabinet that will deliver those promises in government.
Cheer up James, the conservative party is not going to collapse if a few people throw their toys out of the pram and leave.

[James Maskell]

Its not so much them leaving thats the problem...its them staying at home on polling day that worries me. Bromley and Chistlehurst is a perfect example of that.

[Peter Harrison]

I agree that it is dishonest to propose policies then change them once elected without good reason, although I would disagree that the reason has to be obvious.

I don't think Cameron is pretending to be something he isn't. I think he is emphasising certain parts of his beliefs and soft pedalling others. If he plans to revert to the "nasty party" stereotype when in office, that would be dishonest. If his priorities in office will be different from those he is saying now without good reason, that would be dishonest. If he turns out to be a different person in office to the image he is projecting now, that would be dishonest.

If he intends to do what he says AND intends to deal with other, more traditionally Conservative issues in a traditionally Conservative way, I can see nothing dishonest in that, especially since he and his colleagues have talked about many of these issues, albeit in a fairly low key way.

[Sean Fear]

Take 30-33% of the voters for granted, and your chances of winning power are slim indeed.

[Peter Harrison]

I know Bromley is frequently trotted out by those who think Cameron is leading us the wrong way. However, that fails to take account of the fact that Bromley ran a poor campaign with a very non-Cameron (and, at times, anti-Cameron) message. The Lib Dems were amazed at the tactics of the local party.

I note that Bromley Conservatives web site claims that Eric Forth is still their MP...

[Anon]

Keep ignoring 70% of the electorate and your chances of winning power are nil. You might even make them start questioning your right to be the main opposition party hence the % of the vote that the Libdems have been attracting over the last 10years.
Is the 30-33% of the conservative core vote happy to keep taking the rest of the electorate for granted at the risk of a 4th Labour govenment under Gordon Brown?
David Cameron is happy to see Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour party, but Brown will be even more delighted to see David Cameron fail to change the conservative party into an electable alternative to his government.

[Sean Fear]

I don't believe in ignoring voters who could be won over to join the 30-33% (perhaps 10% or so). But ignoring our existing base would be a very foolish strategy.

[christina speight]

Anon - The largest part of "the millions of voter's who turned away from the conservative party in their droves?" were those outraged by Major's sell-out at Maastricht, Michael Howard saw some of them drift back but Cameron is not only driving them and others away for being duplicitous but is pandering to the unstable LibDems and eschewing anything Conservative.

And - "the conservative party is not going to collapse". ??? Oh - are you sure. It seems with Bromley and the sinking lead in the polls that it is doing just that right now.

The Conference fringe meetings by the B.O.O. group, the Bruges Group and even Open Europe were all packed and strongly anti-Cameron.

Peter Harrison - You don't have to predicate in the future about whether Cameron would be dishonest. He was dishonest when he made a promise to get elected and promptly broke it. The man IS dishonest.

[Angelo Basu]

Surely the UKIPpers et al should more properly be described as europhobes than eurosceptics? "Eurorealist" suggests that anyone who supports anything other than withdrawal would have to be a eurofantasist, which may be what UKIP believes but is not any more constructive or helpful a label than europhiles describing them as Euronutters, just more flattering.

[Chad]

"Surely the UKIPpers et al should more properly be described as europhobes than eurosceptics?"

Complete crap Angelo.

Not liking the way FIFA run football doesn't make you anti-football, quite the opposite, as those who love football want it run the best way.

Those who really love Europe and the world, know that a regionalist organisations like the EU hinder the move to internationalism, ie addressing international issues like the environment etc on the international stage.

[Gareth]

Lest anyone get too carried away with Christina's musings. This is the woman, you will recall who regards John Major as being 'very evil' and thinks Mr Brown has a secret plan for taking us out of the EU.

[Jon Gale]

Christina,

"He was dishonest when he made a promise to get elected and promptly broke it. The man IS dishonest."

Well, lets look at the sequence of events.

1. DC makes pledge.
2. Hague negotiates with Czech and Polish parties to form new group.
3.Czech and Polish parties fall out, Poles back out. (Around here a "senior figure" tells Tim Montgomerie that it is definately going ahead.)
4.Bit more negotiation. Anouncement date postponed.
5.Czechs refuse to leave EPP for three years.
6. At which point I believe Cameron made a calculation that it would be less bad to stay in the EPP for three years than sit on our own.

I strongly disagree with that assessment. But he obviously tried to get a new group going, but failed. I cannot see how that makes him "dishonest" or has any bearing on the future. At least he tried. David Davis wouldn't even contemplate it.

[Mark Fulford]

Those who really love Europe and the world, know that a regionalist organisations like the EU hinder the move to internationalism, ie addressing international issues like the environment etc on the international stage.

So exactly how much clout does Norway have with China, India, Brazil, USA, Russia etc on climate issues?

[Chad]

"So exactly how much clout does Norway have with China, India, Brazil, USA, Russia etc on climate issues?"

A lot more as a member of an international body than a regional one.

We desperately need international reform, but the personal interests and distractions of regional groups like the EU are preventing this from receiving the attention it needs.

[Chad]

Mark,
Your point is clearly than Norway will gain strength by being a member of a larger group, so clearly, following that logic, an international body will have more strength than a regional one.

Do you agree?

[TomTom]

Er...the Tory Party overwhelmingly voted for it too, or didn't you notice that?

I don't notice the Tory Party at all round here - it has taken its name off Conservative Clubs to stave off bankruptcy, Conservatives are a strange species down in Southern England who have absolutely nothing to say up here.

They have no members, no activists, one MP, and are barely relevant. The way this site operates I can see why. It is clearly a private club in Southern England and has absolutely no interest in issues that affect voters, it is inward-looking, and culturally alien to most voters in this part of the world.

[Mark Fulford]

A lot more as a member of an international body than a regional one.

Which explains why "Almost 80% of Norwegian legislation on pollution comes from the EU."

[TomTom]

Tomtom, do move on. Your monomania is boring. The debate had shifted off your pet topic but you seem determined to bring it back!

Damned right Hannibal. I want to know why the Conservatives are determined to lose a fourth election, why they cannot address the issues, and why the next government will be a Lib/Lab coalition.

You keep shifting the topic away from the simple fact that Conservatives hold NO appeal to Northern England and that is disastrous - if you cannot win in Scotland, Wales, Northern England Conservatives can never ever gain a majority in the House of Commons..........and nothing to date suggests that will change.

[Chad]

What sort of answer was that Mark?

You seem to agree that collective power is the best way to achieve international results, then pick a smaller regional solution over an international one.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Surely us European countries could drive international reform on the international stage instead ofbeing held back by a regional club that has no framework to cede power to the international level.

The environment etc doesn't stop at the borders of the EU.

They are international issues that can only be solved internationally.

[Reagan Fan]

He he! There goes TomTom again! The thread had moved on from his obsession about thirty posts ago but he had to drag it back to civil unions! LOL!

[Mike Christie]

"The largest part of "the millions of voter's who turned away from the conservative party in their droves?" were those outraged by Major's sell-out at Maastricht"

Christina, do you have the slightest shred of proof for that? Personally I would have thought Black Wednesday, recession and the general air of fin de siecle that hung around the Major government were far more relevant to defeat than Maastricht.

We've tried obsessing about Europe in the past... you might remember it... we lost three elections in a row.

[Reagan Fan]

TomTom,

Will a return to full-blooded Thatcherism win us back Scotland, Wales and Northern England? Suggesting so is controversial to say the very least!

[Mark Fulford]

an international body will have more strength than a regional one.

Do you agree?

and subsequently

You seem to agree that collective power is the best way to achieve international results, then pick a smaller regional solution over an international one.

No. There is an optimum size which allows a body to both influence AND remain nimble.

[Reagan Fan]

Loving the idea that the EU renders us "nimble". Ha ha ha!

[Jason Hughes]

Considering this thread has somewhat veered off course on a couple of stages, shall I pose an interesting question on what might constitute a 'conservative' opinion?

Would people consider those MPs who voted against 'gay rights legislation' homophobic? Conservative? Or an out of touch empty conservatism?

One often sees the perspective of those outside of the Party and the 'movement's views on this topic, but not necessarily those within it.

Any thoughts?

[Reagan Fan]

Jason,

Too many variables.

What "gay rights legislation"? What are their motivations for doing so (sincere faith? blind hate? other?)?

Too wide a question to answer.

[TomTom]

He he! There goes TomTom again! The thread had moved on from his obsession about thirty posts ago but he had to drag it back to civil unions! LOL!

Engage your brain Reagan Fool - I could not care less about trivia like civil partnerships. They are irrelevant to the state of this country - for all I care you can have them gold plated - I am more concerned with the state of the country.

As for Thatcherism that is what has caused your problem. Forget Scotland, you will never get anywhere there again - it is West and South Yorkshire you are losing permanently too.

You must live in Brighton or something since you have zero idea of what people in Northern England want - and your party just ain't delivering it. Don't you understand ? Tories are history they are not relevant in Northern England and from comments of people like you, never will be.

[Chad]

"No. There is an optimum size which allows a body to both influence AND remain nimble."

ROTFL!

That's the xenophobic Little-Europeaner approach for you.

[Anon]

"I don't believe in ignoring voters who could be won over to join the 30-33% (perhaps 10% or so). But ignoring our existing base would be a very foolish strategy."
That is exactly the strategy we followed in the 2005 GE and for the 1st time in 20 years I questioned my continued active support for the party!
When did it become unfashionable to want to win over the floating voter and actually get elected on a manifesto that reflected the views of the majority of voters in all parts of the UK.
No wonder David Cameron said we need a bit more sunshine and a positive message to give voters.

[Jason Hughes]

Even though the Party failed to win the 2005 General Election - partly criticised for focusing too much on existing support at the 33% level - was there actually anything wrong with the content of that Manifesto?

I personally don't think so, I was quite proud of it.

[Angelo Basu]

I hope I didn't touch a nerve there! Perhaps my tongue-in-cheek comments would have been more accurate had I said EUphobe?

Or perhaps I've misunderstood and the UKIP position is that it loves European Union, thinks it is a good idea for us to be part of but that the current format of the EU is bad and the best way for us to be at the heart of Europe is to leave the EU and reform it eg by having 576 bilateral agreements which would of course be really simple to manage.

Re civil partnerships TomTom, I suspect that they are supported by a lot of voters in precisely the sorts of constituencies in Northern England which we ought to be winning back if there is to be a Tory government, such as the professional middle-class suburbs of the large cities where people are increasingly socially liberal and where we are or risk being pushed into third place as they replace 97 Blairites with cuddly LibDems where they used to be long-term Tory strongholds.

Of course, there are also some constituencies where we there is a strong BNP vote, but I hope that the party won't take the view that campaigning selectively in those seats for repatriation would be a price worth paying to win the seats.

[Chad]

Hi Angelo,

"Perhaps my tongue-in-cheek comments would have been more accurate had I said EUphobe? "

:-) Exactly but you missed have misunderstood the key part.

I would like to see a strong single international body formed by nation states that can actually tackle the challenges we face, not hundreds of bi-lateral agreements as you note.

Personally, I can see why regional groupings like the EU where popular in the 20th century, but in our 'global' 21st century, where our biggest challenges like the environment, terrorism etc are international in nature, the arguments for setting this grouping at a regional rather than international one seem increasingly based in xenophobia and greed, imho.

[Angelo Basu]

I see, so rather like take 3 of the League of Nations/UN project, but this time really getting it right? Perhaps a benign and fair WTO? One which could tackle all the important issues yet preserve national sovereignty.