Melanie Phillips on David Cameron's first year

I had lunch with Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips yesterday and she recorded this five minute assessment of David Cameron's first year as 'Blue Labour leader' for 18 Doughty Street Talk TV.

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

I'd agree with that.

[Seamus Donovan]

Melanie Phillip's manages to contradict herself quite openly in this leaving her open to the patronising charge of intellectual and philosophical incoherence.

She says that the Tories did not lose the last few elections because of their views, but their incompetence. But then she says Blair won because he managed to position himself as a small 'c' Conservative (failed to deliver, yes, but the people voted for him because of that)and people liked this... So which one is it?

On the charge of being to the left of the Labour party? Erm, how?

- Anti-Americanism. Cameron said we should be a 'critical friend'- just like Maggie. So is Phillip's saying Maggie is the latest to join the anti-US anti-Israel brigade?
- Climate Change- Cameron is saying that taxation is not the means. He wants to win this agenda with right-wing policies based on responsibility
- His emphasis on the family
- Sharing the proceeds of growth with tax cuts and spending, not just labour spending
- Building more prisons
- Scrapping the Human Rights Act
- No to European consitution and euro

What planet is Phillips on? All Cameron has done, rightly, is soften the stance on a number of important policies that make them relevant to many hard-working people in this country, and not over-paid columnists who spend their evenings bemoaning the state of this country at dinner parties in West Kensington.

[TomTom]

She says that the Tories did not lose the last few elections because of their views, but their incompetence.

This is patently true.........they were incredibly incompetent...........it was as if they were being paid by Labour to be so incompetent

[David Walsh]

I agree with Seamus Donovan above. Although I very much respect Melanie Phillips on a lot of issues her interview did reveal a couple of logial fallacies.

First, her assumption was that it was media exposure that has given DC his poll lead and that similar exposure would do the same for GB. Is this necessarily true? Might it not be the case that media exposure will turn the public off GB and Labour?

Second, it was argued that TB won in 1997 by appealing to inherent conservatism. Whilst this might be true for Labour, does it necesarily follow that DC would win an election by appealing to public conservatism? Might it not be the case that TB's appeal to conservatism in 1997 was to indicate that he was a moderate in a left-of-centre party? If this was so, then a similar approach by DC might portray him as a radical in a right-of-centre party.

[Happy Tory]

Melanie, lots of nice words. You're just wrong. What he's done had to be done. Now we start from a much better place. But there's certainly work to do.

[SimonNewman]

I think Melanie's analysis is basically correct, although I think the Cameron 'go left' strategy can be genuinely electorally advantageous in London, which is well to the left of the rest of the UK - look at our mayor. And since the media is London-based this also gives a media-presentational advantage. But the value of this advantage may be overestimated as the country itself is worried and probably shifting rightwards.

[John Hirst]

I lost count of how many er, er, er, ers the incoherent Melanie Fibs uttered in this garbled rambling from someone some people actually take seriously as a political voice.

[SimonNewman]

Re America, I disagree with Melanie Phillips and basically agree with Seamus Donovan; if US policy is patently wrong, as with Iraq, the UK should not support that policy with British troops. Re Israel, I have mixed feelings. Western policy towards Israel always seems to start from the false premise that the Arabs want peace with Israel, rather than to destroy Israel. OTOH Israeli policies, like US policies, are sometimes mistaken and counter-productive; eg Israel's war with Hizbollah should not have extended to attacking non-Hizbullah targets in Lebanon, doing so just weakened the Lebanese state, which is bad for Israel. So I guess a 'critical friend' stance is best re Israel too, but with emphasis on 'friend'.

[SimonNewman]

"I lost count of how many er, er, er, ers"

When real people talk impromptu to camera, that's how we speak.

[Esbonio]

Well said Melanie.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

One thing that makes me laugh about what she had to say. How or when has Cameron come out with anything that is the slightest bit libertarian? I mean come on...high taxes, government being used to bludgeon people into behaving a certain way and every increasing size of government. Where is the libertarianism in any of that?

[Richard]

Melanie Philips always talks a lot of sense and this was another example of that.

Mark Styne, Peter Hitchens, Simon Heffer and Janet Daley are all saying very similar things as well.

When asked about our policies pre 2005 a majority of people said that they supported them, it was only when they heard they were Conservative policies that people started to think again.

The same can be applied to why we lost in 1997. De we loose because we had the wrong policies? No we actually won all the arguments in the 1980s and early 1990s. It was Labour who had to accept our arguments and it was Labour that had to change to be more like us in order to win power. We lost in 1997 because we were seen as divided and incompetent.

People on this website seem to be getting a little carried away with themselves. Since David Cameron came to power we have been ahead in the polls which is good news, but with labour in the mess they are we SHOULD be ahead in the polls! We have also done well in the local elections but under William Hague we did well in local elections, we even won the European elections with a landslide in 1999. Under IDS and Howard we also did well in local and European elections.

David Cameron has a long way to go and I do feel that Melanie Philip's analysis of his first year is pretty accurate. Outside of the South east is Cameron actually having much impact?

[Alexander Drake]

I am amused, that was probably the nicest stuff I've ever heard Melanie Phillips say about David Cameron! Maybe she is starting to warm to him. : )

I couldn't give a tinkler's cuss whether Cameron has given the Party an intellectual coherence, I care about whether he is wooing voters needed to win marginal seats and get rid of this Government. From what I've seen, he's doing that on a scale that beats anything else we've seen lately from the Conservatives. If you're onto a good thing, stick to it!

[Alexander Drake]

Richard, if people don't feel that the economy's performing too badly, why would they want chuck out a government? Moral outrage finds it hard to beat self-interest.

[Richard]

"From what I've seen, he's doing that on a scale that beats anything else we've seen lately from the Conservatives. If you're onto a good thing, stick to it!"

Is this really true? There have been three Parliamentary by-elections since Cameron became leader our share of the vote fell in the two we didn't win and in Bromley where we did win our majority collapsed!

Yes we did well in the local elections but as I said we did just as well under Hague and not just in the South East. When Hague was leader we even won control of places like Carlisle. In 1999 we walked it in the European elecvtions and then lost the 2001 General election.

We did very well in London but how many local parties fought Cameron style campaigns? I don't know many that did. Hammersmith and Fulham won on a tax cutting agenda and as I have previously stated how many council seats did we win and how many councils did we take control of in the Midlands and the North of England? Not very many!

[Esbonio]

Richard is quite right to point out that the Tory pre-election policies were popular and it was only when they learnt their provenance that some people were put off. This suggests to me the strategy should be to stick with the policies and add a bit of rebranding where necessary. As for the branding, insulting your own voters was not and is not a good start. Either way we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Michael McGowan]

Alexander, if people think the economy is performing OK, then on your logic why would they want to replace Gordon Brown with David Cameron?

And why are you so keen to see this Government replaced even if the Opposition has no intellectual coherence? Do I hear the sound of a full-time baying for a job?

[Chris Palmer]

"Richard, if people don't feel that the economy's performing too badly, why would they want chuck out a government? Moral outrage finds it hard to beat self-interest." - Alexander Drake

You are wrong, of course. Look at the latest US Mid-terms. A good economy and yet moral outrage over sleaze and pork barreling by the Republicans had them tossed out by the American electorate.

Not everyone bases their vote on rational choice - far from it.

[TomTom]

Might it not be the case that TB's appeal to conservatism in 1997 was to indicate that he was a moderate in a left-of-centre party?

Labour Leaders are always rated higher when they are at odds with their party - it indicates a strong leader.

Tory Leaders are always better when they are leading their party and not fighting it

[Derek Buxton]

She was right, Cameron is not going to win anything. His lead of what, 2% is nowhere near enough. He has thrown away any principled ideas, having none himself, he only wants the power and money. Incidently he did call for green taxes and wants more of them. But he does not explain how they will help the world, obviously he thinks as one of Canute's courtiers. Hyprocrisy seems to fit the bill.

[Jorgen]

Melanie, well said!

[Gunther]

Melanie Phillips supporting the Conservative Party is one reason people are put off. Can't she go and support UKIP or BNP?

[Jack Stone]

I agree with Gunther.The Conservative Party can do without extremist of the sort Melanie Phillips represents.

[Jorgen]

She would probably suggest that Gunther and Stone alternatively went to the Lib Dems.

[Rebecca]

Gunther is right. If she is a member, can't she be thrown out? It's bad enough that she writes for the Daily Mail. It is enough to throw the Cameron Project off track.

[Sean Fear]

Gunther is right. If she is a member, can't she be thrown out?"

What for?

"It's bad enough that she writes for the Daily Mail."

Hardly a sin to most Conservative voters.

"It is enough to throw the Cameron Project off track. "

And?

[Michael McGowan]

Jack, if you think Melanie Phillips is an "extremist", then you must be a closet member of Respect. Come to think of it, you probably are given some of your earlier ethically diseased postings about the need to "talk to" Al-Quaeda.

As for Gunther's comment, the reason why Melanie Phillips would not support the BNP is that she is not a leftwing racist. She spends most of her time attacking leftwing racists. So why would she want to support the BNP?

[Jorgen]

Gunther is right. If she is a member, can't she be thrown out?"

What for?

Because she has the audacity of not praising Cameron's political experiment. Is more reason needed?

[Richard]

If all critics of Cameron were thrown out of the Party there wouldn't be many people left!

[Lucy]

Was Hitler a left wing racist? Of course BNP is extreme right wing.

[Richard]

Hitler was a National SOCIALIST.

[Gunther]

Melanie Phillips spends most of her time attacking Liberals, and anyone criticizing Israel in any way.

[Lucy]

The National Socialists had the support of business leaders and the military. They were right wing. Cameron calls himself Liberal Conservative. That does not make him Liberal.

[Jorgen]

Cameron calls himself Liberal Conservative. That does not make him Liberal.

His policies does.

[Martin Bristow]

It should not give us any pleasure in admitting that Melanie Phillips is correct in her analysis.Cameron has repositioned the Conservative in a place that it is simply not consistent with Tory value and philosophy.

The basic assumption of the Cameroons is if you can't beat em then join em.They appear to me to have swallowed the myth that the Blairite consensus is here to stay and indeed that we ought to applaud that.

It is my belief that this consensus far from being the solution is the cause of our malaise.A systematic undermining of the traditional family accompanied by the extension of welfarism has created a client state devoid of personal accountability.

I am deeply concerned that DC does not recognise this and further from this will do nothing to challenge and reverse the trend.

[Michael McGowan]

Lucy, I know lefties hate having Hitler described as rightwing because that would deprive them of their favourite pantomime villain "rightwing extremist". But leftwing is exactly what he was: he believed in the state control of the means of production, five year plans, etc etc. Most of German industry was semi-nationalised under his rule so the fact that those running the businesses collaborated with him doesn't really prove much. He had the support of military leaders because he was a nationalist too. But nationalism is consistent with being leftwing too: look at Stalin.

[Michael McGowan]

Weasel words, Gunther. The only "Liberals" Melanie Phillips attacks are politically correct cultural Marxists who style themselves as "liberal" but are anything but. She is of course a doughty defender of Israel (especially its right to exist) and tends to go over the top.....but I can forgive her that given that many of her detractors are closet anti-Semites and apologists for Islamic extremism.

[Sean Fear]

The BNP's views on immigration, and their social conservatism would place them on the right of the political spectrum. Their hostility to cultural marxism makes them potentially attractive to some disillusioned conservatives.

However, their economic policies and a number of their social policies (such as mass council house building) are virtually identical to those of the Labour Party in the 1930s and 1940s.

It's no wonder that they do increasingly well in parts of the country where the population is both socially conservative, and pretty keen on old-style socialism.

[Sean Fear]

Thinking more about Hitler & Stalin, Michael, it's probably the case that the similarities between totalitarian states outweigh their differences, regardless of philosophy. Whether Stalin and Hitler should be regarded as extreme left wing, or extreme right wing is probably not important, given that they resembled each other so closely in their methods.

[Martin Bristow]

Melanie Phillips is a traditional Conservative whose view I personally share.Her philosophy emphaises the centrality of key themes these are:

The Traditional Family
The Nation State
Rule of Law for all
End to moral relativism
Individual Freedom and personal liberty balanced by reponsibility for one's actions.

I fear DC does not share these priorities.

[Michael McGowan]

Martin, I would have said that she is more of a classical liberal than a Conservative. Her view on freedom of speech and thought and equality before the law are classically liberal. Not that it matters apart from the fact that if you call her a "traditional Conservative", it enables her many enemies on the left to lampoon her as an authoritarian reactionary, which she is not.....although many of them are.

[Esbonio]

Well said those sticking up for Melanie. Last week we had to endure the Guardian writer Polly Toynbee being praised; this week writing for the Daily Mail is attacked.

[Crighton]

Melanie Phillips mentions aping Blair and also makes a point about the necessity of trusting a leader.

Sadly the outcome of the EPP withdrawal promise hardly helped in developing trust.

Nor, sadly, does the example quoted in Simon Heffer's Telegraph article yesterday, which I didn't see mentioned on CH.

Heffer commented,

'Mr Cameron said of Lord Moore: "He suggested that because 'the stark Dickensian poverty of a hundred years ago' had ceased to exist in Britain, poverty itself was history." For this, he added, Lord Moore was "wrong". Sadly, what Lord Moore said was rather different. He did indeed use the words quoted by Mr Cameron, but used them to support his unarguable point that "the true history of our economic development this century is not a story of failure, it is one of tremendous success. To pretend otherwise undermines confidence in the system that actually has abolished the stark Dickensian poverty of a hundred years ago." Was the quotation out of context incompetence, or was it the unscrupulousness of a PR man keen to make his point? You choose.'

Trust?

Heir to Blair?

[Tommac]

I just don't get the many people criticising Cameron here.

We are at least two, probably 4 years from an election, for god's sake.

Every policy Cameron has brought out has been stolen from him by Labour, whose amjor tactic is simply to smother any attempt at getting a distinctive Tory policy into the media. In such a situation, it would just be stupid to fling out a load of hard policies as a gift to Labour, when they have so much the whip hand in the media and the political timetable.

We all know that elections are lost by the incumbants. And we all know that this ludicrous government is perfectly placed to screw things up. So let's bide our time, work a bit on our image, and give Labour the rope to hang themselves.

[TomTom]

Was Hitler a left wing racist?

I don't really know Lucy - his Party certainly was Left - it was founded by Anton Drexler and Hitler was the 55th member. I suppose it addressed people's concerns trying to be all-embracing as political parties try to be........."inclusive"........that's the buzzword.

Stalin called it 'Socialism in One Country' the NSDAP called it "National Socialism".........after all Germany had been occupied until 1923 and they probably wanted to rebuild their nation.

Trouble with the modern education curriculum is the focus on 1933-45 as a sort of indoctrination about the Nazis without reference to Lenin-Stalin and their Fascism in Russia, so the teaching is a bit superficial and every GCSE pupil trots out the pre-packaged guff about Hitler gleaned off the crisp packets used as textbooks.

Try read some Hannah Arendt Lucy to get away from superficial assessments. Everyone who exercises State Power is by definition "right wing" even if the policies are Left....................Ernst Roehm certainly was a militant gay revolutionary socialist arrested in bed with his chauffeur

[Martin Bristow]

The idea that Labour will hang themselves is a non starter.We can not just sittight improve our presentation a bit and expect to win.

We need substance built upon a sound anslysis and a consevative perspective.Moving ever closer to the idiotic utterings of people like Poly Toynbee is a bad bad error!

[Old Hack]

As Australian PM John Howard said about Kevin Rudd, his new Labor opponent recently: "[Mr Rudd] talked about style, and style is quite important, very important, but substance is even more important. And the Australian people want substance from their politicians, not style,"

John Howard, another clunking old fist.

[Pickwick]

I agree with what Melanie Phillips says, and what's more I know exactly what she is saying.David Cameron leaves me totally bemused.

[Larry Green]

Melanie Phillips is a true Conservative and a great champion of Israel. I warmly welcome her criticisms of Cameron.

Jack Stone's rather disgusting attack on Ms Phillips is clearly motivated by his own paranoid hatred for Israel, which has been expressed repeatedly. Personally I feel soiled that someone of his type is claiming to be associated with the Conservative Party.

"Every policy Cameron has brought out has been stolen from him by Labour"

You mean every one of his so-called policies has been stolen from Labour, don't you?

[mason]

Isn't Zionism Leftwing ?

[SimonNewman]

Michael McGowan:
"Martin, I would have said that she is more of a classical liberal than a Conservative."

I agree - Phillips' stance, like mine, starts from a classical-liberal rather than traditionalist-conservative perspective.

However, cultural Marxist dominance of political discourse in modern Britain has moved the "centre ground" so far to the left that classical liberalism is now seen as well over on the right and can be hard to distinguish from traditionalist Conservatism. Basically, Whigs & Tories are on the same side now.

[Jorgen]

mason:
Not necessarily as there are different types. Zionism means supporting a homeland in Palestine, i.e. todays Israel.

[Esbonio]

Simon Newman rightly says: "Basically,Whigs & Tories are on the same side now"; please tell Cameron and his acolytes.

[Larry Green]

Whigs and Tories are indeed on the same side now. I suppose I'm really a Whig.

Socialists are on the other side. That includes Cameron and all his Blairite mob.

[Michael McGowan]

Simon, you only shift the terms of political discourse if you refuse to buy into the left's sterotypes.....a point repeatedly overlooked by the Conservative Party.

[SimonNewman]

Michael - I agree - I found the book "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" a very interesting and useful read. It explains what the Left does so well, and is good for thinking about what we need to do - though ironically the author is a cultural Marxist and his thesis is that the American Left doesn't do this and needs to copy those wily Conservatives!

[SimonNewman]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/dictionary/2005/08/dont_think_of_a.html

[SimonNewman]

"Whigs and Tories are indeed on the same side now. I suppose I'm really a Whig.

Socialists are on the other side. That includes Cameron and all his Blairite mob."

I think Cameronism is profoundly opposed to the Roundhead or Whiggish Conservatism of Thatcherism, but has some links to the old Cavalier 'divine right of kings' paternalist Toryism, albeit with a social-democrat gloss. I recall reading Julian Critchley saying that Thatcher wasn't really a Tory, she was a radical, and I think there is a point there, a point which makes me hesitate to describe Cameronism as "un-Conservative". Cavalier-Conservatism is not a kind of Conservatism I have any great natural affinity for, but it may not be any less genuine than Thatcherism.

[SimonNewman]

I think the thing about Thatcherite or Roundhead Conservatism is that it's a politics of the upper-working class through to the aspiring lower-middle and insecure middle classes, people who might have gone to Grammar school but can't afford Private school. Cavalier Conservatism has a much stronger "noblese oblige" ethos, it's a politics led by the secure upper-middle class, which I think is something Blairism and Cameronism have in common. Its language is much less harsh than "on your bike" Thatcherism, it's more "one nation" and "social cohesion". Arguably therefore Cameronism represents something of a return to old-style Toryism.

[TomTom]

people who might have gone to Grammar school but can't afford Private school.

Public Schools were mainly in The South - Grammar Schools were the mainstay in the North

[Alexander Drake]

Michael McGowan @ 13:24...

1. Personally I think it will be quite hard to replace Gordon Brown with David Cameron because incumbency is hard to overcome these days. Cameron is doing very well to be as successful in the polls as he is, in my opinion.

2. I think it's fair to say Michael your attitude towards political involvement and activity are very different to mine, and that's fine. Personally I am committed to seeing the Liberals do as well as possible at the polls here, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Party. My parents have been active Party members for almost all my life (dad was a Lib candidate) and I think I got the taste for involvement from them.

And on your other point I found it hard to put up with Canberra's winter so I think it unlikely I'll try my hand at 3pm dusks during cold English winters any time soon! I'm just an enthusiast for the team and like to get behind it. You're not, and that's fine, if disappointing. I guess the Party has to double its efforts to try and persuade you!

[John Irvine]

"Cameronism...has some links to the old Cavalier 'divine right of kings' paternalist Toryism"

Only in its dictatorial arrogance.

Do you think Charles I/Laud/Strafford would have favoured homosexual or racial equality?

Those concerned would have ended up with offending body parts displayed on Traitor's Gate.

[Lucy]

How well are the Conservatives doing?
Kentish Town by election result 7 Dec -

Lib Dems 1093, Green 812, Labour 808,Conservative 198

[Michael McGowan]

Surely Simon, the real problem with Cavalier Conservatism is that it is anti-meritocratic and a roadblock to social mobility? It is built on closed elites and has nothing to offer society's strivers, who should be the natural bedrock for a modern liberal centre-right party. It is a relic of nineteenth century paternalism. The resurgence of Cavalier Conservatism is the big difference between Cameron's Conservatives on the one hand and the Liberals in Oz and post-Goldwater Republicanism in the US. That is one of the reasons why I find Alexander Drake's enthusiasm for Cameronism strange if he such a fan of John Howard: they are chalk and cheese.

[Sean Fear]

I certainly think that Conservatives and classical Liberals have much more to unite them than to divide them.

[James]

Ordinarily I find myself in disagreeemnt with Melanie Phillips (since she considers my relationship with my partner to be bad for us, bad for society and therefore something to be destroyed as quickly as possible), but I agree with much of her political analysis. I was a keen Cameron supporter (and for what it's worth I think we'd be behind in the polls with Davis), but he's disappointed me by saying "Let's keep our policies under review" (fine, I can accept the premise up to a point), but then he does actually have some policies - leftwing ones! And I do worry that he has misread the situation, as she posits.

[SimonNewman]

John Irvine:
"Do you think Charles I/Laud/Strafford would have favoured homosexual or racial equality?"

No, but Cameron & co aren't pushing a radical agenda, as far as I can see they're just saying that Britain is great as it currently is and they don't want to change it.

Michael McGowan:
"Surely Simon, the real problem with Cavalier Conservatism is that it is anti-meritocratic and a roadblock to social mobility?"

Yes, I agree with this, and it's very noticeable that not only has social mobility in Britain declined, both Blair & Cameron seem very happy about this. Putting it a little harshly, their concept of Diversity seems to be to have plenty of female & ethnic minority people around them, but preferably upper-middle-class female & ethnic minority people from a very narrow social set. As you might guess I was unhappy with the way the A-list required female & ethnic quotas but ignored social class.

[SimonNewman]

"The resurgence of Cavalier Conservatism is the big difference between Cameron's Conservatives on the one hand and the Liberals in Oz and post-Goldwater Republicanism in the US"

I agree with this, I've remarked before on how strange it is that the Conservative party currently seems to show no interest in the vital C2 demographic. The USA is a bit different as there has always been a fairly narrow elite political class there, and we don't have a significant religious right here, but the contrast with Australia is very striking.

[Sean Fear]

"I agree with this, I've remarked before on how strange it is that the Conservative party currently seems to show no interest in the vital C2 demographic"

Do you think that may be due to the London-centric nature of the Party Leadership?

London actually has relatively few white skilled and semi-skilled workers, compared to the rest of the country (obviously, there are exceptions such as Enfield North, and Barking and Dagenham).

London is more youthful, more ethnic, more rich, and also more poor, than the rest of the UK. I wonder if our leadership subconsciously view the whole of the country as being like London, socially, without realising how unusual London is.

They may simply not appreciate how numerous C2 (and C1) voters are.

[SimonNewman]

Sean:
"Do you think that may be due to the London-centric nature of the Party Leadership?"

I suspect that may be a big part of it. Cameron certainly didn't do us any harm campaigning in London in the May local election, in Tooting ward (Wandsworth) where I live, we won two of the three seats in what had always previously been a hard-Labour ward. Tooting is about 40% or so ethnic minority, with large numbers of young people, many NHS workers (St George's hospital is the big employer) and few middle-aged families. Partly we won because of the personal qualities of the candidates, now Cllrs Alex Jacob and Susan John-Richards (and Matthew Maxwell Scott just missed out, beating the Labour group leader Stuart King, who came 6th on the ballot). But apparently this was the first time we had ever used a picture of the national Conservative leader on our local election leaflets! It was certainly much easier campaigning in Tooting with Cameron as leader than it would have been under Hague or IDS I think - and I myself joined the party just after Cameron became leader.

[Alexander Drake]

Michael, I hope I can address your confusion when you say:
That is one of the reasons why I find Alexander Drake's enthusiasm for Cameronism strange if he such a fan of John Howard: they are chalk and cheese.

I'm not a John Howard fan just because he's a cultural conservative or because he delivers good economic management. I'm also a John Howard fan because he is a good man to lead our country and understands what makes people tick. He's not 'up himself' to use the vernacular. He goes walking in the morning near where I live when he's here in Sydney and talks to people. He's great with kids and older Australians, holds hands with his wife in public (to the derision of a wife of the worst PM we have ever had), supports and encourages his kids and is proud of his country and the way it is, not lecturing people how it should be. Howard to me embodies a PM and leader who leads, emotes and is positive. Stuff the policy - at an emotive level, as a loyal Liberal footsoldier and as an Australian I am proud to have John Howard as my leader.

Although their packaging is different, I see similar features with David Cameron. Sure he went to a posh school and belongs to Whites, but if you listen to him and watch him in action(as I try to do from a distance), he seems to have (or at least project) the same thing. He likes talking to people. He's giving it a go. He wants to rebuild his party's stocks, and rebuild its self-preservation instinct. He seems to be giving it a new vitality again. He likes Britain - he's not some pain-int-the-neck cultural dietician who wants to tell people how Britain should be. I like Britain too - I chose to live there for a while and I liked it, a lot. I can understand why DC seems to like it too!

From time to time there has been a real turn-off to some of the arguments advanced by some people who post here. You know the type - Britain's going to the dogs, the place sucks, it was better in the fifties, I want to emigrate, etc. That sort of talk from politicians repels people. Labor burnt a lot of people here in Australia because it trashed the "Australian achievement" when Keating was PM, although from a romantic-Left perspective. If you criticse a prosperous, democratic country for its lack of perfection, you are criticising its people for the choices they have made. How on earth does a party expect to attract votes from a nation it derides? Both Howard and Cameron understand this. They prefer a positive outlook rather than a Victor Meldrew one.

I should also point out that I haven't been uncritical of Cameronism, as opposed to the guy itself, on this site. I disagreed with his approach to wealth distribution, and I don't like his attitude to showing national pride via flag-flying. I think some of his stuff is a bit off. But I am prepared to take this because politics is also partly a process where you don't get 100% of what you want.

To me there is an awful lot more to politics than policies. Leadership of a party and a nation requires a 'certain something' and I find the same refreshing, 'relaxed and comfortable' positive outlook in both David Cameron and John Howard.

Just my thoughts...

[John Irvine]

If you like Britain so much why didn't you stay here instead of escaping to Australia like many Brits would like to do but are prevented by the sort of anti-immigration laws we ought to have here.

Howard stands up for ordinary middle-class Australians. Cameron is more concerned about the kind of people who have turned our once-great country into a sewer.

The best Prime Minister you ever had was Sir Robert Menzies, and I think you know what I mean.

Blair and his red scum have turned Britain into a filthy tip. We need a real Tory who will put the process into reverse.

As Hague said "It's a foreign land"

[Tory Loyalist]

Yes, it's very telling that the only Cameroonie who ever posts vaguely intelligent comments as opposed to bootlicking claptrap is an Australian who chooses to live down-under rather than in the Blairite paradise "Dave" admires so much.

A few years ago I had a job which frequently involved assisting Australian visitors. We would always chat about Britain and the conversation followed predictable lines.

After praising the countryide, Fortnums, Blenheim Palace etc they would launch into a torrent of invective against certain aspects of UK society which Mr Blair thinks "enrich" us all.

Obviously they didnt feel enriched. I have always assumed that Mr Howard is a man very much in the image of these stalwart traditionalists.

As to the degeneracy of modern British society I am getting quite excited by what I hear of IDS's forthcoming report "Breakdown Britain"

Modern Britain lies under a pestilential miasma which I was once taught to remember as PALE GAS.

Pride, Anger, Lust Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth.

Remember those? The seven deadly sins? I gather "Dave" thinks they're irrelevant.

As a Christian Conservative I beg to differ.

[Alexander Drake]

John Irvine, Britain's too cold for me but I loved it. Completely agree also about R G Menzies. I have said so on this site also. I was very proud to see his Thistle stall in the chapel at St Giles' in Edinburgh. They still have his Southern Cross coat of arms on the wall there.

Tory Loyalist - er...thank you for the compliment, I think! But I stand by the point I was making - no matter how much you think you dislike modern Britain, the point is that the very people who have made it that way are the people who you need to convince to vote Conservative. Why would they turn around and vote for us if all we do is mock their choices (no matter how unsavoury they are) and denigrate them? Patience, and pragmatism. Leverage incumbency from government to turn things around. Play the long game. I think that's the smart play for the Conservative Party, and ultimately for Britain.

[malcolm]

You're a nice chap Alexander bothering to reply to those two 'commentators' above.They're either trolls posing as the most ignorant bigoted of caricature Conservatives or they really are just ignorant and bigoted.Either way it's good of you to take them seriously.

[AJS]

Partly we won because of the personal qualities of the candidates, now Cllrs Alex Jacob and Susan John-Richards (and Matthew Maxwell Scott just missed out

Ah so why have Tooting Conservatives just deslected Susan John-Richards who has in turn become an indie?