The changing Tories

First we see A-lister Howard Flight in green shirt and green cord trousers as part of his public support of the leader's environmental agenda...

Second is a cardboard cut-out of Gordon Brown.  Similar Tory cut-outs of Mr Brown during the fuel-protests-era portrayed Mr Brown as a highway robber because of his petrol taxes - now the NHS-friendly Tories are on message with the unions; protesting against "NHS cuts".

Comments

[Goldie]

Ha!
This is all I have to add:
http://disillusionedandbored.blogspot.com/2006/10/sheer-genius.html

[christina speight]

Phooey!

[Monday Clubber]

The public are not as stupid as these idiots seem to believe.

The Tory grassroots have not changed at all, and there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that they have.

So they gave Dave's latest windbaggery a standing ovation? So what? IDS got the longest standing ovation on record weeks before he was dumped by the party.

It would be child's play for an unfriendly journalist to prove that the Tories have NOT changed...

...and that therefore the Dave clique are telling porkies.

[Katy Lindsay]

Do shut up, Monday Clubber. I really don't think you understand what is going on in this party. There is very exciting, very genuine change happening. It is absolutely based on sound Conservative principles, and will absolutely lead to a better Britain once we get into power. I guess you weren't there, you didn't hear or understand what is really going on in the policy review groups, so you didn't feel it... And why not come out and start giving us comments under your real name, not hiding...

[Monday Clubber]

"There is very exciting, very genuine change happening. It is absolutely based on sound Conservative principles"

Is that so Katie? Sadly, the Cameron clique wouldn't recognise "sound Conservative principles" if they smacked them round their respective chops.

Actually, nobody's changing. Dave and his mates are no more and no less left-wing than they were last year, and as for the rest of the party, what they really want to talk about is tax cuts, Europe etc.

But then you haven't really changed either, have you Katy? You just support the leftist hijacking of the party, and of course you have every right to do so.

Why not just be honest and admit it?

[James Maskell]

Katy, there may well be exciting, genuine changes going on, but from what some of us have seen, we dont hold that view. Please do understand that there are a large number of us who are annoyed that the foundations of our party are shifting as is the wish of Cameron. The media can see that there is a sizable number of party members who just arent convinced. Telling us to simply shut up isnt really understanding our feelings and why we believe what we believe.

What is an opportunity and a good thing to you, is a threat and a bad thing to me.

[Katy Lindsay]

Monday Clubber, Fascinating to hear back from you. You have an unfair advantage, as you clearly think you know me... What intrigue!

James, didn't really mean to tell you to shut up at all..! I'm sure life would be very boring if you did.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that change is hard. Some people are much more keen on change than others (my day job is something to do with psychology so that's not actually a statement of the obvious, but a technical point). I don't know you, so I can't comment further. But why I'm excited about this is that if you really listen to what's emerging (directly, not through the lens of the media), its about using the principles of the spirit of human enterprise, rather than State Control, and harnessing them across a much broader spectrum of policies than just the economic. It's actually radical and liberating, and in my view its anything but leftist. But that doesn't mean it's rightist either...

[Alice Hohler]

How can you say the party hasn't really changed, and then grumble about how you feel disenfranchised by the fact that 'the foundations of the party are shifting'. Make your mind up! Either things are changing or they aren't. The question is really about whether they are changing for the better or not (I think they certainly are) and on that we may have to differ.

[Sandbagger]

Well Kate,I have heard it all.A Leader who puts Family Values above all and talks about Homosexual Partnerships.This must be the end of the line for a lot of died in the wool Tories. Try looking up Leviticus Ch 20 v13 and heed what it says. I believe that I am a true Tory and many new to this calling are willing to swallow this codswallop hook line & sinker and try to tell those who disagree that they are ruining the chances of us winning an election. We will have to adopt our Tory policies or be sunk.That is a fact as there are no votes in taxing motorists and Tory ones at that,many who run these so called Gas guzzlers as they live in the rural areas and can't get about in the winter without that type of vehicle. Think it through before it is too late.

[Leviticus]

Sandbagger @ 22@33

Leviticus 11: 10-12
All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you,and you detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.
Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination to you.

Perhaps we should ban seafood restaurants!

[Monday Clubber]

"Monday Clubber, Fascinating to hear back from you. You have an unfair advantage, as you clearly think you know me... What intrigue!"

Well I've read your CV on your website Katie. Impressive, but possibly not very typical of the average Tory member, let alone the average elector.

I may not be a trained psychologist but I've known the Tory grassroots for many, many years. Probably a lot longer than you have.

Trust me. One day they'll be cheering Dave's successor as if he had never existed.

And they'll still be "banging on" about tax, Europe, immigration...

[James Maskell]

Alice, when did I say the Party wasnt changing? It clearly is changing, but they werent exciting or genuine. I think its tacky, fake and not very exciting at all. Its pretty tired as weve had this for 9 years already and I thought we were trying to fight against this. So in fact I wasnt being contraditory at all.

At risk of going through past arguments again, there seems to be this misconception that we must change enormously and turn our back on the past in order to win an election. I dont agree with this perception and think its misguided. The big issues havent changed. Public services, the economy, crime and immigration. Theyve been the big issues since modern politics started.

The big battle isnt over tax as the media like to say, its a re-alignment of political ideology. Socialism is well out of it, though the Labour Party will kill itself trying to fend it off. Liberaism and Conservatism (coupled with libertarianism) remain. I worry that Cameron has taken the yellow pill, not the blue one. Who will stand up for the conservative/libertarians? Think about it, the divides in the big issues arent over modernisers and tradtionalists as thats a very murky boundary. Its the liberals and the conservatives. Cameron likes to say ideology isnt important but the truth is, its more important than ever. Its a form of identity.

[T Sinden]

The NHS cuts referred to are virtually entirely , if not entirely - confined to the English NHS - where the cash flow , or lack of it , is now severey compromised . Our Scottish chancellor makes certain sure that , at the same time , the Scottish NHS

( for there are now four quite separate NHS's - a point that most commentators appear rigidly determined not to take on board - a tribute to Mr Blair's skill at manipulating the opinions and the terms of opinion even of his enemies )

- is rolling in money - English money that is.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Well Kate,I have heard it all.A Leader who puts Family Values above all and talks about Homosexual Partnerships.This must be the end of the line for a lot of died in the wool Tories. Try looking up Leviticus Ch 20 v13 and heed what it says."

If those 'died (sic) in the wool' Tories really do believe in putting homosexuals to death, then they really have no place in today's Conservative Party.

[Sandbagger]

Do you agree that we should embrace Homosexual Partnerships then Leviticus. I take it that you from your post that you are a supporter of Homosexual Partnerships Perhaps then you should also address the New Testament links. Are we to be a Party who goes for the minorities and fall foul of the majority.That sort of thing will not win elections and I have fought very many of them and won.There will be many activists who will find it very uncomfortable to remain members of a Party whose Leader supports such policy. Any Christian will find it very difficult and I for one will be giving this a great deal of thought over the weekend.I and my collegues will be making a public statement soon on this as it has far reaching coonsequences.

[Julian Williams]

Katey stop and think! Change - that is not a policy.

Nothing is ever static, things are always changing. So saying "everything is changing" or "change has to happen" is really just one more vauous Blairism.

Baby Blair got this hang-up from Big Blair: Things had to be new, so he made new Labour and with a red rose. Baby Blair makes Green Conservative with an Oak Tree. Once Big Blair got into power things had to be new, so old institutions that were working well had to been changed "because new is better than old" . That is Blairism, New/Change for New/Change sake.

But this is all so empty. If you want to do something tomake this world better you have to have some idea of what you want to do and then work out how to do it. Change is inherent in the process, it is not the reason.

Environmental taxes might be a good idea, so do it. But do not tell us it is because we need to change, tell us it is because we need to look after the environment.

Cameron is saying nothing constructive or useful; he is a creature of the media and a mimic of a rather bad PM. His words are insincere and ring very hollow. he wants to be the next Blair, the country will suffer.

[EML]

Well, we've got less than three years to persuade the likes of Monday Clubber that Cameron is embarking on an election-winning strategy.

I believe Cameron is just as conservative as most people on this site, it's just that he's compromising and being pragmatic to get us back in to power, rather than relying on core issues that will never attract more than a third of the popular vote.

Politics in Britain is fragmenting, and to be a majority, centrist government, a party has to cover an awful lot of territory. And with the odds stacked against us, we have to be a little more daring than the other parties.

I sincerely hope Cameron will be our next prime minister. He wouldn't the best possible conservative PM we could have, but then it's not my choice: millions of other people have a vote as well.

At the end of the day, Britain will be all the better for eight years of a Cameron government, rather than for having to endure another four to eight years of whichever Labour git gets their leadership.

[Sandbagger]

Sorry Kate,don't know you but are you on the A list by any chance. You challenge someone to sign on in his/her real name.Well there you go,that tells me that you don't know that CCHQ are monitoring posts and anyone who may be on the candidates list and posts anything in opposition to the great Dave's thoughts then they can forget any chance they may have had of being selected. Don't think that they won't.

[Monday Clubber]

Actually I disagree with James. The foundations of our Party aren't shifting.

They remain constant.

The change that has occurred is that power has been seized by the leftwing Cameroon/TRG clique who are now desperately trying to prove to the press that the party has changed with them.

Actually it's a lie.

Nobody is calling for gays to be exterminated. That's Cameroon black propaganda intended to smear the reputation of the right and centre of the Party.

No.

We're calling for tax cuts. It's as simple as that.

And if we don't get them - it's time we had a leader who will deliver what we demand.

[disillusioned activist]

Katie Lindsay... telling people to 'shut up' because they hold and express views different to your own is not acceptable

[James Maskell]

Sadly the Party is run by the left of the Party and I do think they are shifting the foundations slightly. Not enormously, but enough for them to tell the press the Party has changed hugely. Saying that stability is prefered over tax cuts is a big thing for a Conservative to say. In terms of foundations its not a big change because as we know the Party itself still believes in it, but its been adjusted to allow that freedom in declaring change to have occured.

The core of the Party is very much right wing but since the left is in the hot seat and since a large number back the leader for a range of reasons, there is a shift in the foundations, though not huge as there is a certain amount of resistance by us right wingers who still stick to the old ways, the ways that have held us so well.

I dont think we disagree that much Monday Clubber.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

Sandbagger - I'm not on nor aspire to the 'A' List. Further, I have posted many severely critical articles about DC's leadership. Nevertheless, I am confident that his speech today will have ensured that a large number of members of the public will vote for DC and through him the Conservative Party.

Something we need to learn is that is not clever nor intelligent to precisely describe in detail at this distance from a General Election, the tax cuts an incoming Conservative Government will apply, ahead of reading the books. Despite what has been peddled by some journo's, Gordon Brown is not as clever as he is portrayed, and when we return to office, we shall find a 'black hole'.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that it would be advantageous and in the interests of the UK for DC to say that his general intention is to reduce taxes, in the interests of our nation. This will be secured especially by withdrawal from the EU in order to save not only our finances individually and nationally, but will restore and preserve our hard won and hard protected freedoms, traditions and especially our criminal justice system.

It costs in financial terms almost £900 per person per annum in the UK to remain in the EU. Even more important,we are losing our heritage that 2 World Wars preserved due to our vigilance and the sacrifice of mainly young people. Now we are in danger of losing these precious things to the bribery, corruption and deep troughs of subversion provided to our major politicians and other leaders by the EU.

I hope we can encourage DC to keep his nose and those around him from out of the EU trough.

[christina speight]

Katy (earlier) Has the party changed???

Depends what you mean by the party! If you mean CCHQ and the Cameroon lefty-clique who have hi-jacked the party on the back of a broken promise, Yes it HAS changed. If you mean the mass of members in my opinion and from my soundings No it hasn't.

Bromley was the warning and Bromley's MP has said TODAY (paraphrase) "No tax cuts - No Tory Bromley"

There are millions who voted Tory in 2005 but who voted UKIP in the euro-elections. Those will not put up with an untrustworthy leader with neo-liberal attitudes but will vote for UKIP or abstain. Without them Cameron cannot win. His lead at present is miles short of a winning lead.

Those who worked for the party for years have been scorned and sidelined. Their revenge will come
=-=-=-=-=
Leviticus - Please don't be silly. In those years when that passage was written there were severe health risks from eating crustaceans.
=-=-=-=-==

I too find the equating of marriage with homosexual partnerships profoundly distasteful. Marriage is the best basis for rearing a family which is of no concern to these partnerships

=-=-=-=-=-=
What is annoying ex supporters, is to see all the work that Thatcher did to change the thinking, be torn up by the Green Moron.

It is also certainly not what he suposedly promised when he won the leadership election. Had he outlined a return to what is really managed decline,(some change) he would have been laughed off the stage.
=-=-=-=

[Prodicus]

I'm getting really REALLY bored with the wingnuts' belly-aching on ConHome. And I thought *I* was a right-winger! Some people won't be satisfied until the Cameroons don sackcloth and ashes and revert to spouting Bufton Tufton mantras which would keep us out of office permanently. The world has changed whether you (or I) like it or not. It's this real world in which we need a government based on core Conservative principles (which Cameron plainly holds - listen *carefully*) blended with sufficient pragmatism for those principles to survive the electoral test at all. Or perhaps the nay-sayers here would actually prefer Pure and Never Elected? Thereby handing our country over to Gordon Brown and co. Do me a favour.

[Alexander Drake]

I rarely agree with James Maskell on this site, but I was pleased that he had changed his mind earlier in the year to stay involved with the Party (I think it's ALWAYS a good idea when people decide to recommit to the Party), and I do think that his views (while certainly not my own) are heartfelt and genuine.

So it's in that spirit that I read his posts on this thread.

James, you said:

"Please do understand that there are a large number of us who are annoyed that the foundations of our party are shifting as is the wish of Cameron... Telling us to simply shut up isnt really understanding our feelings and why we believe what we believe."

"...What is an opportunity and a good thing to you, is a threat and a bad thing to me."

"...Cameron likes to say ideology isnt important but the truth is, its more important than ever. Its a form of identity."

James, I think these are some of the most honest and genuine comments that any Cameron-sceptic poster on this site has made. I think the reason that so many Cameron-sceptics express their dissatisfaction on this site is because they are actually grieving (there is one spectactular example which doesn't need naming). They loved the Party when no one else did, precisely FOR the resaons that no one else did - i.e. it was theirs, and not accessible to everyone. For some time it seems to have been a club, rather than a broad-based political party seeking to be a mainstream, alternative government that is electorally attractive and competitive. Maybe echoes of the much older YC dating tradition also resonate here, I don't know.

Tim speaks frequently about the "AND theory" on this site, but James's comment makes me think that Tim is talking about the wrong "AND". It's not the 'policies' AND that Cameron should be thinking about - it's how to continue rebuilding the Party as an electorally competitive alternative, AND to provide a space within the organisation for those who feel they have lost "their" Party which functioned as an extension of their identity, and also served as something as a refuge from social changes, which I think many British conservatives have found much, much harder to adapt to than their counterparts in the US or Australia.

Derisory comments about "tribalism" dismiss the feelings of people like James and their sense of ownership, and DC should direct considerable energies to reassure these people that there is no need to grieve, and that he is enhancing, not replacing, the Party they love.

[Monday Clubber]

"a refuge from social changes, which I think many British conservatives have found much, much harder to adapt to than their counterparts in the US or Australia."

Well Alexander, you can no doubt tell us all about Australian conservatives, although I still remain absolutely baffled as to why an Australian who worked briefly in CCO should have become so totally obsessed with the English Conservative Party.

One occasionally reads allegations that posters are "trolls". Actually it wouldn't take long to detect even the most intelligent, well-researched and careful "Labour Troll" on this blog because he would eventually reveal himself by some misuse of "tribal" language or by an incorrect recollection of some past in-party event.

To take just one example. Anybody who has been attending Tory conferences for as long as I have will instinctively wince when "representatives" are termed
"delegates". It's a small and pedantic point, but it tells. (These days they may well be called delegates for all I know)

The problem with Alexander is not that he knows too little about the party, but that he clearly knows far, far more than any backpacking temporary staffer would ever know, and I for one find that very intriguing.

His theory is ingenious, it's wrong. Many of us may certainly have grieved when Maggie was betrayed, but we grieved for her not the party, and I for one have regarded the parliamentary party with distrust and distaste ever since.

No Alexander, we don't need your condescension. We are genuine Conservatives with deeply-held views ranging over the entire centre ground and right wing of the party, and we don't change our views as if they were last year's fashions. A party which won an election by such turncoat treachery would be a party not worth supporting, which is why, at the moment, our support is very conditional indeed.

Now let's deal with the cold facts. As we've recently learned, the membership is not increasing but declining. It's mainly elderly, and it has been with us a very long time. Most of it has no day-to-day contact with "social change" but what it hears about such matters it does not like.

There's not the slightest evidence that these people genuinely support a changed agenda, or that they have changed their own opinions and outlook. Leopards don't change their spots.

Many of them simply see Cameron as a Trojan Horse who will revert to Tory principles if he is ever elected. Those are the ones who cheered him in the hall yesterday.

And as Simon Heffer pointed out yesterday, Cameron had better savour those cheers.

There may be fewer ahead.

[MH]

I have to say Dave has proved far worse than I ever imagined. There really is no room any more in his Party for right of centre Conservatives. Where the hell do we go? Well, maybe the saddest part is that we should just stay at home and watch the system turn to irrelevance around us.

[Mark Fulford]

MH, what is it that a right of centre Conservative wants? (Genuine question.)

[Alexander Drake]

Monday I have an interest in the fortunes of the Conservative Party for the same reason many here (possibly including yourself?) also follow US politics - the Conservative Party is sufficiently similar to our Liberal Party here to make it a comparable exercise, but sufficiently different to make it interesting. And one thing I'll grant you Monday - you certainly go some way to reading this site, er, 'interesting'!

[MH]

Read Anatole Kaletsky in The Times.

Personally, I feel grossly over-taxed through income tax, CGT, NIC and council tax and cannot believe that what is currently taken from me is well-spent (as a local councillor, I know it isn't). I live in a rural area and so need my car and so green taxes will hit me harder. I loathe political correctness: marriage is between a man and a woman / the A-list should be about merit and not gender or ethinicity, or, frankly, nepotism. The NHS is a bloated, ineffiecient structure that delivers a disastrous service (my Aunt got MRSA and my ex-wife waited 8 hours in casualty as no-one spoke sufficient English to look at her). And, when all is said and done, 80% of all laws are originated in Brussels, so what's the point in voting at all?

[christina speight]

The Sun says it all when it complains that the Leader's speech gave no reason to vote Tory . It was "cloudy, lukewarm soup".

He majored on the NHS but his only proposal is to do more of what is failing under Labour - throw even more money at it! We have a lower number of doctors per head than 23 out of 27 OECD nations, and a worse survival rate from cancer, heart disease and strokes than most developed nations. . He ruled out reforms. Which means he's against CHANGE! Ooooh!

The NHS is failing again and again and the supply of doctors is threatened by incompetent management ensuring that there are not enough places for young post-training doctors Such doctors as do get through will lack experience because - me banging on again - EU rules prevent them from learning from a wide variety of cases.

This will not improve until the system is CHANGED. But change is anathema to the Tory leader who is wedded to a failing system. The obvious answer is a system of personal state-funded insurance as most other countries use. Since Cameron rejects any form of additional personal provision the whole burden will continue to fall on taxes . He has thus guarranteed that the problems of the NHS will persist and intensify.

Since this was about the only subject he DID deal with, I repeat, The Sun got it right

He was playing to the media gallery yesterday and GOT IT WRONG. The only change he wants is towards political correctness. There's no hope of real change to help those caught in a tax trap - the poor, to give opportunities for bright children to forge ahead (these are the hope for the future), to provide adequate defences for our country and stop sacrificing our young men with 2nd rate equipment, to cut the political correctness from policing and let the police do their job. None of this - just vacuous soundbites.

[Richard Weatherill]

On a lighter note, it's good to see Howard Flight looking so cheerful after the way he's been treated recently. I'm also glad that (for whatever reason) he's toned down his cords. I've seen him in some pretty ghastly reds and yellows before now! But what's that behind his back? A riding whip?

[David Cooper]

It is not exactly heartwarming to see the Telegraph's cartoon today of Cameron and Blair joined at the hip. How long before someone coins "Blameronism" as the modern day equivalent of Butskellism? It might be an important first step to convince the electorate that you can manage a socialist system better than the socialists, but without a firm and unequivocal commitment in principle for its root and branch reform, are we really going to win back our lost natural votes from the stay at home party?

[Mark Fulford]

Tax: "Everyone in this hall, me included, knows that a low tax economy is a strong economy." To go any further right-of-centre he'd have to promise specific tax cuts, but that would be daft.

Green tax: Will hit you harder possibly. But I live in a built-up area so failure to act, increased pollution and congestion will hit me harder. Green isn't left or right.

Political correctness: Political incorrectness is neither left nor right, so I don't see that correctness is either.

A-list: Shireen Ritchie needs to answer some serious questions about the number of K&C A-listers but, that aside, the "merit and not gender" system was hardly being honest or unbiased either, was it?

NHS: Cameron isn't saying that nothing needs to be done.

80% laws: Not the case.

[Richard Weatherill]

Don't know about "Blameronism". "Cairism" sounds nearer the mark!

[MH]

Mark, I disagree with you on all of your responses. Sadly, I see no reason to vote Conservative anymore and this week has done nothing to change that. I am left with: (i) voting UKIP as I agree with them on Europe; (ii) voting Labour in my constituency to defeat Cameron's Conservative and look forward to a new party with which I can identify rising from the ashes or (iii) not bothering at all. Presently, I veer between ii and iii.

[Francis]

Leav DC alone. Along with George he has repeated the Thatcher line of 1978/79 that unless we know that the public finances are sound then we can't commit to tax cuts. This along with George telling us he believes in them, and then telling us why, is more than enough for me. When it comes to the NHS Cameron repeated Maggies' line of the NHS is safe in our hands. When it comes to the environment DC has just pointed out that there is a Conserve in Conservation, which is why he is reclaiming it as a natural issue of the right.

Where's the problem there?

[James Maskell]

He doesnt believe in conserving the Green Belt...

[Mike Christie]

"Please don't be silly. In those years when that passage was written there were severe health risks from eating crustaceans."

So what you are saying is that some parts of scripture can be safely ignored as times have changed and they are outdated and archaic, but some are sacrosanct. Who gets to decide which are which?

[Sally Roberts]

I think the prize for the Scariest Sight at Conference has to be awarded to Francis Maude for that terrible t-shirt!!!!!

[christina speight]

Mike Christie - I did NOT say that anything can be ignored. You made that up.

[Mike Christie]

You did not say it could be ignored, but by justifying the quote about shellfish by placing it in the context of its times you implied that changing times justified changing perspective.

Do you believe eating seafood is sinful? Are you a Jew or a Christian?

Jesus broke several of the laws of Judaism himself and taught that loving God and your neighbour was more important than obeying petty rules and regulations...

If you question the relevance of any biblical edict in the modern world, surely all of them can be questioned. Either it is the unquestionable law of God, or it is a set of rules written to suit a particular time and place which may not be relevant to life three thousand or so years later.

If we are to pick and choose which laws are still applicable, who chooses? You? The Pope? The Archbishop of Canterbury?

[Monday Clubber]

I think the prize for the Scariest Sight at Conference has to be awarded to Francis Maude for that terrible t-shirt!!!!!

T-shirt?

What about his hairdo?

Spookily enough I was watching the movie JFK which alleges that Kennedy was assassinated by a gang of far-right gay racists.

One of the prime suspects had a coiffeur (wig?) exactly like Maude's.

Now we know where he gets his "fizzing" ideas from.

[Tim]

Monday Clubber, where did you find Katie's website? As she's a candidate candidate in Bracknell, I'd like to know more about her...