Leigh vs Portillo

On the Today programme this morning Edward Leigh and Michael Portillo unsurprisingly offered diametrically opposed perspectives on the direction the Party should be going in. Commenting on Brown's bounce Leigh said:

"The way that we fight back is to show that we are not weak, we are not driven by PR, we are a party of principle. There's only one way they can go, which is the traditional Conservative way, the right policies, the progressive policies of successful countries around the world of low taxation, deregulation, strong immigration controls, strong defence and building on the social responsibility theme of David Cameron. The fact is that traditional policies of all successful Conservative governments since the Second World War have all been much the same."

In response Portillo wheeled out the mantra that those policies lost us the last three elections and he urged Cameron to be a martyr for the centre ground cause:

"It is a moment of crisis, or at least a critical moment, in that it is very important that David Cameron should see off the people who want to undermine the strategy to position the Conservative Party on the centre ground. Many people like what David Cameron is doing, but they are not convinced that the party is following him... David Cameron has to take the party to the centre. It is possible it is not do-able, but he should certainly die in the attempt."

Michael Gove denied that the Party was in crisis but agreed that the election would be won "by sticking to the centre ground". He said Brown wasn't underestimated and that his poll lead is a blip similar to that enjoyed by Eden, Callaghan and Major.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

I think Michael Portillo is wrong when he says "Many people like what David Cameron is doing, but they are not convinced that the party is following him...".

The issue does not appear to be whether the party is following Cameron; rather it is that many people claim not to know what the party stands for. The leadership is not getting our message across or landing blows on Labour despite the problems people can see around them in their everyday lives.

We may be waiting for the most far reaching policy review conducted in years, but that should not mean we avoid vigourous opposition to the Government and hard hitting exposure of its incompetence. We should be reminding people of our core values, which have remained popular with the public even when people in the party have not.

[CDM]

I'm not too sure what David Cameron is supposed to learn from a man who thought that John Redwood would be more appealing to the British public than John Major.

Who does he think he is? His bunch of knuckledraggers couldn't even put up a candidate for the leadership election.

[Yet Another Anon]

The major split now is one between the Public Relations fanatics and the People of Ideas and Principles; in the Labour Party and in the general public the drift has been towards the latter and the Conservative leadership seems to be going in the opposite direction.

In a choice between a fuzzy ill defined mainstreamist approach and a more philosophical approach based on solving practical problems in the country strategically, there is huge scope at the moment for different philosophical positions whether of an establishment, anti-establishment, Social Democrat, or Neo-Conservative standpoint of radicalising much of the population in a particular direction and that while David Cameron is being bold from a standpoint of internal Conservative Party management that he is actually being timid with regard to a general approach to having a strategy for government.

[Annabel Herriott]

Tim,
have you nodded off over your lap top?? Laigh said - WHAT????

[Annabel Herriott]

Tim - Have you nodded off over your laptop? Leigh said ---- What exactly!!!

[HF]

Both are wrong. The analysis from Lord Ashcroft after the GE2005 found that it was the image of the party that mattered. Our policies were correct but they did not address enough issues.

[Paul Oakley]

Er - what did he say Tim? You've left that bit out.

[TomTom]

Polly was remarkably unsure of himself when questioned....in fact he was just puffed up with his own self importance and could not have survived a junior debating club. He asserts without foundation and hedges when challenged. The upshot is that it must be so because Michael wants it to be so and will stamp his little foot itf it isn't so, so there !

[Editor]

I'm sorry - the programming error has now been corrected - I hope it now works for everyone!

[Sean Fear]

Portillo is wrong. The public is not so much concerned about how right or left wing the Conservative Party is as whether or not the Conservative leadership is competent and trustworthy. They like David Cameron, certainly, but it's not at all clear whether they respect him or his colleagues.

[Jack Cade]

All that has happened this week is that Labour has used its control of the media to exclude any other stories, and by default this makes Conservatives invisible and creates the impression of a vacuum. Does anyone remember the Local Government elections? This is the Labour media's payback. Our line continues to be that nothing has changed, the Labour emperor still has no clothes and no policies. Labour is a political parasite whose means and ends: the pursuit of power, are the identical (and that's why Portillo finds them attractive)

[Jaz]

David Cameron has to put his foot down soon. He needs to set out, at the next party conference, what the party would do IN government, and hence outlining what the party stands for.

A spring election isn't far away, DC needs to make it clear. That we HAVE to win, and have to unite behind him.

[John]

Editor:

Hardly a balanced summary.

Does Michael Portillo have any influence these days?

From what I can see he is a has-been political celebrity whose main role in life is to act as a leaning post for Diane Abbott on This Week.

His views are irrelevant. Ignore him and he will disappear up his own smug reflection.

It would have been much better if you had focussed on the excellent Michael Gove's comments that dismissed Portillo's excessively flamboyant and over dramatic performance.

[Joseph]

A lot of people do admit to liking Cameron. I cannot say I particularly like him or Mr Brown for that matter either.

However elections as I have said before are not a beauty competition, I would sooner have a dull, dour, boring old fart who appears more like the formidable very first Bank Manager I ever encountered, whom I feel safe with, rather than a glamour boy who is bereft of any principles with an overwhelming desire to win at any price.
The undisguised shallowness of Mr Cameron is what the public are more and more coming to realise. Unless the Tory Party wake up fast you can kiss good-bye to the next election.
Now, just before anybody jumps in and remind bloggers I am a Labour party supporter, I will do it myself...having said all that I have no wish to see the Tory Party destroyed. My only wish is it remains intact and in opposition which under Mr Cameron's leadership is a self inflicted fulfillment.
The reason I wish Tories to remain intact is because we need effective opposition, I cannot say we always got that even at the dispatch box as we had the spectacle of Blair mark 1 in the red corner and Blair mark 2 in the blue, red, yellow and green corner each week at PMQ's.
Yes, you may all commiserate with each other that your slim lead has
evaporated, but in truth it was never there in the first place.
The lead was far more to do with the Anti-Blair and Ante Iraq War faction than it was by Mr Cameron.

I await the barrage to follow with intrepidity, (in your dreams)
Quite a lot of the more realist bloggers will not only realise what I say is a fact they will also realise what I am saying is true, other will try to block it from their minds and wishful thinking will be going into over-drive.
Time is running out.

[Bill]

I suspect Joseph is correct when writes the Tory "lead was far more to do with the Anti-Blair and Ante Iraq War faction than it was by Mr Cameron."

[TomTom]

is that Labour has used its control of the media to exclude any other stories,

That is patently untrue as two badly-parked Mercedes have proven within the past 24 hours

[david]

Looks like a suicide bomber has struck at Glasgow Airport, the media is about to be hijacked once again.

[Derek]

I agree, we have got a lot to do to win the next election. In fact if Brown sees an opportunity for a snap election within the next nine months we could easily lose it. Cameron has got to show that he has got some real meat on his policies. Trusting people is a good start but it is not nearly enough. He must show a lot more difference from Brown's Labour. Being a nicer alternative is not enough.

[tapestry]

The middle ground is a marketing badge, a desirable label, like living in Chelsea or Notting Hill.

It is not a replacement for the application of human intelligence to the changing problems that society faces.

It is possible to live in Notting Hill and be intelligent, (and systematic) although with media commentators like Portillo being granted endless privilege to commentate despite his failures at the ballot box, it is a lot harder to apply intelligence to anything.

I've just had a brainwave. All journalists from now on must be elected. That might move the middle ground to a place where street murder is not a daily occurrence, thugs don't rule classrooms and the Police sort it with criminals.

How about that Mr Portillo? I guess you'd be kicked out/deseleced as usual.

[MikeA]

My god! One bad poll, a new PM and the Tory right is baying for a change in direction.
Mr.Cameron would be advised to call Edward Leigh in and have a little chat with him on the topic of patience and loyalty.
The polls will be all over the place over the next few weeks and months. So what?
Brown will appear to strengthen Labours position as he is new, well not really but he's not Blair. Also with terrorism sadly back, Brown can take charge and appear statesman-like further strengthening Labour. But it's all to play for.
To me all the comments on Cameron around shallowness, PR or lack of policy is code for "move to the right". I'm sorry we have lost three elections on the trot on a right-wing platform. It's time to try something else, unless you feel 4th time lucky. I do not.
I agree with Andrew Neil, the next political battleground is not economics or managerialism but societal breakdown.

[MikeA]

My god! One bad poll, a new PM and the Tory right is baying for a change in direction.
Mr.Cameron would be advised to call Edward Leigh in and have a little chat with him on the topic of patience and loyalty.
The polls will be all over the place over the next few weeks and months. So what?
Brown will appear to strengthen Labours position as he is new, well not really but he's not Blair. Also with terrorism sadly back, Brown can take charge and appear statesman-like further strengthening Labour. But it's all to play for.
To me all the comments on Cameron around shallowness, PR or lack of policy is code for "move to the right". I'm sorry we have lost three elections on the trot on a right-wing platform. It's time to try something else, unless you feel 4th time lucky. I do not.
I agree with Andrew Neil, the next political battleground is not economics or managerialism but societal breakdown.

[Edward]

"The middle ground is a marketing badge, a desirable label, like living in Chelsea or Notting Hill.

It is not a replacement for the application of human intelligence to the changing problems that society faces.

It is possible to live in Notting Hill and be intelligent, (and systematic) although with media commentators like Portillo being granted endless privilege to commentate despite his failures at the ballot box, it is a lot harder to apply intelligence to anything."

I quite agree, tapestry, but the only way we're going to get our application of principles to peoples' conditions taken seriously by key parts of the electorate is if we adopt that marketing badge properly and show we are serious about being at the heart of British politics and debate.

[Sean Fear]

"I agree with Andrew Neil, the next political battleground is not economics or managerialism but societal breakdown"

To deal with which, one would need to offer a "right wing platform."

[tapestry]

Societal breakdown is the main concern in peoples' daily lives, Sean. But taking the economy for granted is not wise. Interest rates are heading north - maybe 6% plus. Possibly 40,000 houses will be repossessed next year. Prices are rising fast with regulation and taxation destroying the efficiency of our economy. We are not competitive any longer. The cold draft of our failure will be punishing, especially for the feral tribes that bring murderous crime onto the streets. It's the 'and theory' again. We need to think the full breadth of managing our society.

[TomTom]

Interest rates are heading north - maybe 6% plus. Possibly 40,000 houses will be repossessed next year.

That's hardly a crisis...it is market economics shaking out the marginal players...Schumpeteian Creative Destruction. The housing market needs a good shakeout - we had one after the 1980s boom - it is a normal economic cycle.

More to the point is our friends with their incendiary cars - it is reassuring that someone with the solidity of Gordon Brown is heading government at this time rather than a flibbertigibbet like the Leader of the Opposition

[Opinicus]

@MikeA
It is not just one bad poll. Cameron has flatlined at 38% for a year on Yougov and has now dipped further but even 38% still meant opposition.

We did not lose the 3 elections because we had rightwing policies. We lost in 1997 because we had lied about ERM and raised taxes - both impeccably socially democratic. We lost in 2001 because Blair deserved a second term. We lost in 2005 because we had nothing to say about the issues that most concerned voters eg. public services (whether from the right or from the left)and because Michael Howard was too identified with the Major years. Our policies, such as we squeezed them out, when polled, were popular - until they were branded as Conservative policies.

However, we are no longer fighting the 1997, 2001 or 2005 elections but the 2007/8 election. In this election, Labour's 30yr boast that "there is nothing wrong with the public services that throwing money at them wouldn't cure" has been painfully and expensively exposed as a busted flush. Labour's entire line of argument against us for the last 30 yrs is null and void. The voters see hospital delays and poor cleanliness, they see dumbing down in schools and they want change. Even Brown realises they want change. Only Osborne is thick enough (but very pretty and media savvy, no doubt)to supose that "heir to Blair" is a winning slogan.

It is not a matter of right wing. It is a matter of radical reform. You and I know that that can only be right wing in practice but that is only going to bother CCHQ. The electorate will see it as the answer to prayer.

[tapestry]

Gordon Brown is probably the most overpraised and overestimated man in the UK. And David Cameron is the least - at the moment. Run with the fashion, Tom Tom. That's the way to build respect on the blogs.

[Steve]

The economic collapse just around the corner will expose the disastrous policies of Brown and we need to have credibility with the public to be able to resolve it.

Ploughing money into unproductive public sector non-jobs, strangling business with red-tape and a massive tax burden are the cause of this collapse and we need to make an argument now against them.

When public spending is reduced, which it must be from now on, the complete lie of Browns economic genius will be exposed. The house of cards is about to collapse and we need to pin it directly to Brown.

[Frank McGarry]

We are certainly in the centre.
In fact we are in the middle of nowhere.

All this talk of left and right is premature. When we announce we have a policy - THEN we can categorise it as left, right or centre.

In the meantime we should be supporting the cause of democracy. This puts us in opposition to the EU and to Gordon Brown.

After 18 months as our Leader it is time for Mr Cameron to tell the country who he is and why he wants to be Prime Minister.

[Joseph]

Tapestry, people have to earn respect. Can you give me a clue as to why people should respect Mr Cameron?
What has he said that would command respect?
What has he done that would earn him respect?
Hug Hoodies, Huskies, placing windmills that do not work on his chiney stack, claim his green agenda then when a newspaper went through his dusbin it made a mockery of what he stood for, then there was the chaffeur, the car, the shirt,the shoes, the briefcase, not forgetting the airmiles he added attending the World Cup to watch a game of football which he did not even understand. Great photo opportuninty what!
How can anyone respect a person who not only stood on a platform of right wing policies, he was the author of the said manifesto then reversed most of them less than a year later.
How can there be any respect for someone who made promises about the EPP and failed to deliver. 2009 is a long way away and he may not even be leader then.
Gordon Brown perhaps is the most overestimated man in the UK at the moment, it is other who are deciding that not Mr Brown, but you have to acknowledge one thing Mr Cameron did do to become the least estimated man at the moment, he earned that status all by himself.
Changing his ways is not going to alter things, people have long memories and for the absent minded few, they are going to be well reminded over the coming months of Mr Cameron's shortcomings.
The way to build respect on blogs or any where else is to earn it, censorship is not the answer neither is burying one's head in the sand, that is called self denial.

[Alex Swanson]

Surely the only sane or principled approach is to
(1) Decide, on the basis of pragmatism based on libertarianism, what policies will work
(2) Sell them

It makes me deeply suspicious to continually hear people say "We have to have these policies because they're the ones people will vote for". Such an idea is certainly unprincipled and would if carried out result in a government which did not have the correct approach to the problems it had to deal with and would therefore fail. In which case what's the point.

Defend policies on their merits or adopt better ones.

[TomTom]

And David Cameron is the least - at the moment. Run with the fashion, Tom Tom. That's the way to build respect on the blogs.

Posted by: tapestry | June 30, 2007 at 18:23

David Cameron is a flibbertigibbet - the word could have been coined to describe him

Gordon Brown is Prime Minister and on matters of national security the Prime Minister benefits and the Opposition does not.

Cameron has sold the pass over the past 18 months and will lose ground over the Summer recess and have to think about a relaunch. If Steve Hilton gets a peerage from Labour we shall all know why

[Bill]

Well said TomTom. Cameron has completely misread the scenario.

[John]

Joseph:

So you feel reassured at being lead by the safe hands of Gordon Brown do you?

He gives the most difficult brief in government to someone with no departmental ministerial experience.

Within 3 days there are three separate terrorist incidents which seem to have slipped by the security forces radar and only through the courage of individuals is disaster averted.

Well I'm glad you feel safe!

The more I think about Brown's cabinet the more comfort I have that the bounce will have gone before Christmas.

That just leaves Cameron to prove he can lead the country!

[Bill]

John

I agree the Cabinet is nothing to have confidence in; but is the Shadow Cabinet any better? Cameron gave defence to a medic and sacked Mercer without replacing him. I hope but see no reason to think Cameron's appointments would be more adroit.

[John]

Bill:

My own view is that it is still too early to judge Cameron. He has yet to outline his Shadow Cabinet andindicate whether he has learnt from the mistakes of the last few months. He has yet to take on Brown. The next six months will probably make my mind up.

As to the Shadow Cabinet. At this moment I would have far more confidence in our security if David Davis was Home Secretary at this moment. I've just seen Jacqui Smith on TV and she looks completely out of her depth.

[Joseph]

John, where did I say I felt reassured?

Mr Cameron wishes to become PM and you say quote:

"He gives the most difficult brief in government to someone with no departmental ministerial experience" I find that quite laughable.

Can you remind me which brief Mr Cameron has held or Mr Osborne for that matter, but then perhaps you think the post of PM and Chancellor is not quite so important as that of Secretary of State for The Home Office.
Have you never heard of Civil Servants or Whitehall Mandarins, not to mention the Security Services? I think they are there to advise the Home Secretary would you not agree?

As for "Within 3 days there are three separate terrorist incidents which seem to have slipped by the security forces radar and only through the courage of individuals is disaster avertedtary".

Can you give me a rational explanation as to how you arrive at your conclusion, that this is due to the fact we have an inexperienced Home Secretary?
I would certainly imagine these things take time to plan and organise or do we now have terrorists who can read Gordon Brown's mind and would know exactly whom he would place at the H.O. They must be really good at predicting a persons intentions as everybody, press and media included were taken by surprise by that appointment.
I certainly cannot fathom your logic.
As for feeling safer, I am a great believer that the day I enter the "Happy Hunting Ground" was stamped on me the moment my Mother brought me into this world. Nothing you, me or anybody else will alter that.

[William MacDougall]

I actually agree with Portillo that the Party needs to appeal to the Centre. I just fail to see how the following current policies do that:

1 - Campaigning against grammar schools.
2 - Choosing inferior candidates because they have the right skin colour or gender.
3 - Trying to be more extreme than the Greens on the environment.
4 - Promising the same tax levels as Labour.
5 - Breaking Cameron's only leadership promise - to leave the Eurofederalist EPP.
6 - Claiming to be heir to Blair, when he is at his most discredited.

These and other policies are designed to appeal to left wing and Green voters who will never vote Tory, if they are targeted at anyone.

Centre-right parties in France, Canada, and Australia have shown that a coherent conservative programme targeted at the concerns of the centre is the way to win.

[Bruce]

John - So you feel reassured at being lead by the safe hands of Gordon Brown do you?
He gives the most difficult brief in government to someone with no departmental ministerial experience
At this moment I would have far more confidence in our security if David Davis was Home Secretary

Er... might I point out that Jacqui Smith has considerably more ministerial experience than Davis, she having been a minister for 9 years and in the cabinet for one, he being a junior minister for 5 years and never in the cabinet.

She also has a reputation for being extremely tough and hard headed, and making good calls under pressure.

I agree with Tom and others, most sensible people would prefer a PM with 10 years' experience at a time of national emergency, so on that basis Brown is the man for now.

[John Moss]

I agree with William and would repeat my long stated view that the centre-ground represents the issues which concern the electorate, but it is the credibility of the parties' respective policies on those issues which determines who wins.

The natural human instinct is to go along with the state doing things for you, even if they do them badly. This is known as the principle of least effort and works up to the point where a critical mass of people decide that isn't good enough and rise up. This has led to bloody revolution in the past, or simply a change of Government.

Our task is to highlight how much better things could be with our policies. The policies need to focus on the real concerns people have about crime, safety, community cohesion and race relations as well as the perennial "schools'n'hospitals". They need to be different from our socialist opponents, be they red or yellow socialists, and they need to be built on the theme that Cameron has oft repeated, namely, trusting people.

That said, trusting people ought to mean education vouchers and social insurance based healthcare, alongside elected sheriffs and more power - and more taxes - going to the town hall rather than Whitehall.

It remains to be seen how much of this radical approach to the centre ground issues the Party - and the country - will stomach, but I believe we are at the point where the people have had their free ride, they will demand more and expect to do more in order to get it. The era of least effort is over.

We must catch that wind.

[olivepeel]

Centre ground is where parties shift it to by voicing concerns of electors.
Suspect that we have a woman in the home office for a nimble shift on immigration, and out-flanking Dave.

[TomTom]

Within 3 days there are three separate terrorist incidents which seem to have slipped by the security forces radar

This is such a funny comment....are you seriously suggesting a Conservative Government would know the location of every planned terrorist event prior to it taking place ?

That would certainly anger the people of Northern Ireland to think that between 1979 and 1997 the Security Forces had advance warning of every terrorist outrage....

I don't recall these in London being prevented

City of London April 1992 and April 1993,

London Docklands February 1996
Manchester June 1996

Airey Neave March 1979

Brighton Hotel Bombing 1984

AS you said....which seem to have slipped by the security forces radar

[Bill]

A danger for Cameron and his fellow Notting Hillers is having slagged off the right (trad Tories and potential/actual UKIP voters) they might be tempted to vote Labour if Brown's inclusiveness experiment works. Me, I'd never vote Labour but Cameron may have to switch his focus a bit from his luvvie target market to avoid this. Which despite his call to "keep it real", given his form, he may find it hard to achieve.

[Joseph]

That said, trusting people ought to mean education vouchers and social insurance based healthcare,

John, the moment David Cameron tries that one on the electorate, you can kiss good bye to any chances of being elected.
The minute anybody tries to introduce paying for health care you can forget it, Tory chances would be nil.
Labour will grab the chance to frighten the daylights out of people by reminding them that if you are wealthy, you will enjoy good health care, if you are not so fortunate you will end up on the scrap heap.
Do you not realise how this subject frightens people and they would simply close their ears and minds to any rational argument. This one is a non-runner for any political party.
It frightens the daylights out of me and we could afford to pay for a modest ammount of health care but anything major we would be charity cases. And we all know the horror that people have of the health care system in the USA which most people would think ours would become like and start the comparison which is unfavourable to the less fortunate and well off.
Thanks but NO thanks.
You will not catch the wind with that suggestion, only reap the whirlwind with a vengeance.

[Raj]

The analysis from Lord Ashcroft after the GE2005 found that it was the image of the party that mattered. Our policies were correct but they did not address enough issues.

HF is right. When asked about Tory policies, people generally liked them. They didn't like them when they found out they were Tory.

Cameron had been successful in showing the Conservatives in a more positive way, or at least that their leader was "better" despite the fact he didn't have any big policies. But after the party started turning in on itself - AGAIN - the public started to decide Cameron was the only good thing about the Tories.

Yes, Cameron needs to outline detailed policies to win an election - he said he will do that over the coming weeks. But to force a sudden change of direction and go for a hard-right agenda will cause confusion and send you guys back to the back old days where the normal polling was at 30% or so.

As I've said all along, get real and realise a moderate, centre-right platform is the only future. Offers of tax cuts didn't work at three previous elections, so why will they now? Stop avoiding what people are repeatedly telling you just because you don't like the answers!

[Joseph]

Raj, you are deluding yourself if you think the electorate is going to vote for Mr Cameron. I am not going to say that you would not pick up some seats at a GE, you probably would since Labour has been in power for over a decade now.
However if you think he is going to gain a majority I think you are sadly mistaken and now quite honestly I cannot even envisage a hung parliament.
He had his chance people are not going to hang around for ever waiting on his policies. As there are such a lot of people involved in these "Think Tanks" how much of his findings will still be confidential and as there are leaks in government departments what makes you think that Mr Brown does not already know which way the cookie is crumbling on the new policies and use that to his best advantage.
Cameron has been too slow on the uptake and Brown will up the Ante.
No good screaming that the government has pinched the best ideas when they are in the process of going through parliament. People will not be interested in him bleating and will only conclude that Mr Cameron was too slow for his own good and it should not have taken all this time to make decisions
I know nobody wants to show their hand too soon as others will steal their thunder, but all this length of time and still nothing. People are reaching the conclusion that he thinks he will get there by charm alone and cloning Mr Blair just at the time people have had enough of spin. The only person who does not seem to realise this is Mr Cameron himself and his dwindling band of supporters.

[tapestry]

So far Cameron has been playing Blair. He has done it surprisingly well - in the eyss of the media and the general public, if not from his own side of the tracks.

There is now a new game in town just beginning - called the Browning of Britain...unpleasant thought isn't it. It has different rules, so as you would expect, the play will be different. Why not listen to what Cameron is now saying? He's well up to speed. You are all exptrapolating the past onto the present. I guess things are moving too quickly for you to keep up.

[Joseph]

There is now a new game in town just beginning - called the Browning of Britain...unpleasant thought isn't it. It has different rules,
I wish you would enlighten me tapestry as to the new rules, I think if anybody is "exptrapolating the past onto the present" I would look closer to home if I were you as I am in the dark as to where and when you either read them, heard them or imagined them.
Mr Brown has hardly had the time too make too many comments on what he is going to do after all he has just announced a huge reshuffle and then on top of that he has had a terrorist outrage to deal with and not even 3 days to do it in..

[John]

Joseph and others:

As someone who had the fortune to leave a South Quay building and walk past the lorry that was the Docklands Bomb some two hours before it detonated (I worked in one of the buildings closest to the bomb) I am fully aware of the carnage and the psychological impact this type of attack has on people.

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that David Cameron or anyone in the opposition parties should do anything but offer support to the Government whilst this emergency is ongoing.

The point I am actually challenging is the fact that you feel safer in the hands of Gordon Brown.

So I will ask you a couple of questions.

How do you think those who have undertaken these attacks will have viewed the transition over last few weeks?

What conclusions do you think these extremists will have come to with the appointment of a woman in charge of the department responsible for National Security who has no perceived previous related experience?

As all three attacks so far have failed do you think they were carefully planned?

That is why I question whether Gordon Brown is as 'safe' as you suggested.

At this point the Government must lead the country in this emergency and I hope they do so successfully.

Finally, and most importantly I am very thankful that there have been no casualties and sincerely hope that there are no casualties in the future.

With that I must go.......

[Joseph]

How do you think those who have undertaken these attacks will have viewed the transition over last few weeks?

I doubt very much that they would be worrying about the change of government, they will be only too busy thanking God that they are safe and what a lucky escape they have had. The ordinary man in the street is not interested in politics like we here are. They only start thinking of governments during the run up to a GE.

As all three attacks so far have failed do you think they were carefully planned?....We will find that out at the trial.

That is why I question whether Gordon Brown is as 'safe' as you suggested.....Do you think the man is a fool?

[Joseph]

Sorry that should have read

"The ordinary man in the street is not interested EITHER in politics like we here are"

[TomTom]

How do you think those who have undertaken these attacks will have viewed the transition over last few weeks?

What conclusions do you think these extremists will have come to with the appointment of a woman in charge of the department responsible for National Security who has no perceived previous related experience?

Probably the same approach the USSR had when a former Education Secretary became Prime Minister in 1979 being the first incumbent with no wartime experience.

I really don't think we should run the country based upon the distorted perceptions of dysfunctional Muslims who have a death wish

[Martin Cox]

The BBC euphoria at the advent of the Clunking Fist must not be allowed to cloud the fact that Brown was up to his neck in every aspect of the incompetence, profligacy and deceit of the Blair dictatorship. And some that were uniquely his: theft of pensions on a scale that Maxwell could only dream of, cut-price sale of our gold, a true count of over five million unemployed under various disguises, and claimed full employment by boosting the public employees by almost a million. Not to mention the huge losses on computers, on advertising fatuous hints on how to live.

These failures must be reiterated daily, particularly on PMQs, just as Blair did with his false figures, which sink in by repetition. And bickering must stop, between MPs and also on Conservative Home. Only united support of the leadership that we have will achieve success. No doubt we would all choose a fantasy ideal team, but the one we have is the best in years, and must be given wholehearted support.

[TomTom]

just as Blair did with his false figures, which sink in by repetition.

The public knows all this but discounts it because ALL politicians are self-serving crooks but Brown is the Devil they know

[Raj]

Joseph

Raj, you are deluding yourself if you think the electorate is going to vote for Mr Cameron.

Err, so why did the polls improve for the Tories after he became leader? Because he was something different. The party itself didn't gain at all in popularity according to polling data - it was pretty much all Cameron.

The only delusion is coming from the people that see Cameron as the problem rather than the only asset the Tories have.

[Yet Another Anon]

How do you think those who have undertaken these attacks will have viewed the transition over last few weeks?
I think it is likely that there is no coincidence in the timing of the attacks and notably of targeting Glasgow Airport and Gordon Brown having been made Prime Minister, but that is a perception in the minds of the terrorists and if David Cameron had just become Prime Minister then there would have been some kind of attacks anyway, although perhaps to a different pattern, because they are hoping to influence foreign policy of a new Prime Minister and remind people that they are still there and regardless of who had just become Prime Minister then that would have happened!

[Joseph]

Err, "so why did the polls improve for the Tories after he became leader"
Raj:

Two reasons the first being hardly anybody knew him and did not know what he stood for. Come to think of it a year or so further down the line and we still do not know what he stands for, he changes his mind so often. Perhaps we should ask his mentor Tony Blair he should be able to tell us what he would have done then Mr Cameron can copy it.
The second being, that is because it was around that time Tony Blair became really, really became unpopular.
Please do not ask me the one about the local elections, I voted Tory as a Labour supporter to have my dustbin emptied once a week and not because of anything Mr Cameron may have or may not have said.
This is the trap that a lot of Tories including William Hague and a few others are falling into. They see good local results and then try and equate them to that of a GE. It is misleading for the very reason I have given you regarding my own vote. Plus the fact it is a good opportunity for the electorate to safely give the government of the day a good kicking without doing too much damage.

[Joseph]

Martin: Your very first paragraph is well written and I take my hat of to you.
However you place that post in front of the ordinary man or woman in this country and not only will it go over most people's heads they would change the subject abruptly.
This sounds more like Oliver Letwin ans David Cameron than it does Mr and Mrs average.
To reach out to people it has to be more simplified not all of us enjoyed an Eton education.
I am not saying that I am a fool and did not understand it but it did take a bit of digesting. Most people simply would not bother.

[Bradford]

Err, so why did the polls improve for the Tories after he became leader?

Where ? I think you may well find the Tories are c 29% in Yorkshire and that is with North Yorkshire raising the average.

In 2006 and 2007 Council elections the two largest cities in West Yorkshire saw a swing against the Conservatives in both elections.....I think West Yorkshire has 29 Parliamentary seats and Lib Dems hold 1 and Tories hold 1....which was once held by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Marcus Fox.

If Cameron is so popular why is he making zero inroads into West Yorkshire ?

[malcolm]

There is a whole country outside West Yorkshire although from your posts Bradford you wouldn't think it.

[Bruce]

John, with respect, you are being ridiculous.

What conclusions do you think these extremists will have come to with the appointment of a woman in charge of the department responsible for National Security who has no perceived previous related experience?

TomTom's response (above) is spot on. I would also add that the idea that terrorists were waiting to see who was going to be appointed Home Secretary, before putting into action a carefully planned attack within 24 hours, is laughable.

"It's ok lads, Reid's gone, Straw's been given Justice and Denham has gone to Education. Phew! And the bonus is, now we're dealing with a woman! Let's get this show rolling..."

[Bradford]

There is a whole country outside West Yorkshire although from your posts Bradford you wouldn't think it.

Posted by: malcolm | July 01, 2007 at 10:21

You are so right Malcolm....West Yorkshire is unimportant in electoral terms....it is north of Watford after all.........better to concentrate on Essex where Malcolm Dunn will be a dominant force

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

Raj said "Err, so why did the polls improve for the Tories after he became leader? Because he was something different. The party itself didn't gain at all in popularity according to polling data - it was pretty much all Cameron.".

Are you sure it had nothing to do with the leadership campaign and the way it was conducted? The way in which the contenders debated and aired views that struck a chord with mainstream opinion? The reminder that people were given about our core beliefs being popular with the country at large was a significant factor.

Cameron could improve his poll standing by telling people more often about what the party does stand for and why Labour is bad for the country; and telling people less about what we do not stand for.

[Joseph]

The way in which the contenders debated and aired views that struck a chord with mainstream opinion?.......
Absolutely correct Councillor Sharpe but when one airs one's views one usually follows up by deeds.

Do you really want me to tell you what Mr Cameron has done since becoming leader?
Somehow or other I do not think you would wish that Pandora's box to open up.
Just a taster though, "Heir to Blair"..Hoodies..Huskie..Windmills..Flip Flopping..Grammar Schools and not forgetting Museams.

Yes all those have struck a chord with the electorate and no mistake.

[Raj]

Tony

He can get his message across only as much as it is reported - when he is in the spotlight, the polls have improved.

However, the point is that getting rid of Cameron or forcing a hard-right agenda on you guys won't win any more votes - it will probably help Labour, just as Foot's ultra-left policies helped Thatcher.

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

Raj, far from getting rid of Cameron I want to see him demonstrating leadership. People want ideas, principles of substance.

You talk of the folly of forcing a hard-right agenda. Is lower taxation hard-right or common sense? If you went to the country and said: "Look, instead of people filling in a 17-page form to claim back tax from the state; and instead of the state employing thousands of administrators at great cost to run the process, we will simply reduce the amount of tax you pay to save you and the state time and money" do you think that would be taken as hard-right politics or efficiency?

If you told the country that, at a simplistic level, to compete in the world we need a dynamic low-tax economy that helps business and employs more people so we can sell goods and services around the world - and that those countries which are doing well have such economies - would that be seen as hard-right or good for the country?

Or should we stick with the current taxation regime which equates to taking huge sums from people and spending it on unreformed public services, resulting in waste and little improvement in service delivery? And when that fails, to simply take more tax and throw more money at the problem.

I am just having trouble Raj in squaring this confusion between what actually constitutes a 'hard-right', 'mainstream' or 'effective' policy agenda.

[TomTom]

When students are paying tuition fees (or their parents) and people are paying privately for operations and drugs the NHS cannot provide, and Council Taxes have doubled; why shouldn't taxes be reduced ?

To pay £6.85 for a prescription means earning £11.42 gross.....most countries give tax relief on medical costs but Britain imposes Income Tax on Prescription Charges

[Martin Cox]

Joseph, thank you for your reply to my comments.
Surely it is the message that matters? The speaker will change the language to suit the audience.
Oh, and I didn't go to Eton- just to a State school in Cardiff, a very long time ago.

[Simon Denis]

Mr Portillo's analysis is fundamentally a counsel of despair. He partially admits it when he suggests that Cameron should die in the attempt to shift the tories to the left. A man more confident of success would not be talking of death at all.

The problem, as he correctly understands, is that the old liberal vote which went to the conservatives in the twentieth century has cut itself adrift again and is now distributed between all three parties.

Where he errs is in not seeing that what can rationally be done to repair this break up has already been done. Now we simply have to wait. This sounds complacent but it is in fact merely patient.

Kutuzov in War and Peace knew that battles should only be fought with a strong chance of success. Labour is in a position analogous to the Napoleon of 1812 in that its lines of supply are hugely stretched. After ten years of power the left is making itself heard and felt. The various long term blunders of the Labour governments are likewise sowing doubts in the public mind. Many liberals on the right have already crept back to the tory fold. When the public turns more broadly against the left, it will want somewhere to go.

Like Kutuzov, we on the right must strike at the right moment. We should also be harrassing the Labour government with endless skirmishing. Our amunition is doctrine. Throw that away and we have nothing to throw at our opponents.

To conclude, a word on Mr Portillo. He is an intelligent commentator who offers many insights into the current state of the country. There is, however, a basic flaw at the heart of his message. He accepts - has openly accepted - that "right wing" solutions to current problems are rational. Indeed, he has said that this is the most difficult thing about arguing with people on the right - that their diagnosis and proposed treatments are eminently reasonable. Voucher schemes and selection in schools; an element of private insurance in health; a reassertion of democratic sovereignty - all appear to enjoy his intellectual respect. He then claims, however, that they can never be offered to the British public, which he views as socialistic. So, he proposes that we abandon such positions the better to woo that socialist public.

The obvious problem with this is brought out by analogy. If a man is addicted to morphine, it is no use offering him some weak solution of laudanum. First it has no appeal; second, it maintains the essential addiction. We should glory in being the party which seeks to wean the country of its addiction to corrosive forms of high public expenditure.

Secondly, how on earth are a group of people - activists, MPs, political journalists et al - going to hide or conceal their real political convictions?

Thirdly, even if they succeed, could this really be described as honest? And if this question is dismissed as naive, then just consider the scale of corruption in a democracy in which the politicians routinely dissemble their true opinions.

Fourthly, what would really be the point of power? Would it not be Major all over again, office without power? I have said this before, but it bears repeating - there is no use in becoming captain of the ship if you do so on the understanding that you will NOT steer the vessel away from the iceberg.

Finally and most importantly by drifting left after labour the tories allow the national debate to narrow further and further, seriously threatening freedom of expression. Opposition to large scale immigration; a belief in academic selection; an attachment to free trade, sound money and low tax - all positions for which Mr Portillo, I believe, has still some respect - gradually fade from the radar and become "extreme", therefore unmentionable.

It would surely be a sorry day when we cannot voice our fears, or our beliefs because both parties are conniving in a left wing stitch up.

[Londoner]

It is worth noting that the first City bomb was set off on the Friday night after Major unexpectedly won the 1992 election, i.e. about 18 hours after most people's expectations of a new Labour Government under Kinnock has been confounded. It was therefore meant to intimidate a new Government (which, as it happened, had failed to win the election). Similarly in 1979, the IRA had got their retaliation in early, by murdering Airey Neave just before the campaign began (which the IRA correctly judged Mrs Thatcher would win).

So there is nothing new in our current brand of murderous thugs greeting a new Government this week with an attempted "spectacular" designed to rattle a new Government, particularly as they had weeks to plan for a definite change of Government on a pre-set date. When you think of it, why on earth was the security rating not upped to the top level on about Sunday last week?

Is this another case of our governors being ignorant of even quite recent history? This is evident these days in so many areas of policy that I suppose we should not be surprised that the security services etc are the same.

In the meantime isn't it rather disgraceful that Brown allowed this to disrupt the smooth completion of filling the junior ranks of his Government? This smacks of thinking "this means we won't get the sort of publicity we planned". Did Mrs T cancel the last day of the Tory Party Conference in 1984 - like hell she did!

Apart from giving the thugs the pleasure of seeing Brown blown off course (even if their execution was bungled so that, thank God, they didn't kill anyone), wouldn't it have been rather better, if there is a challenge, for all Ministers to have been at their desks tomorrow morning instead of some junior Ministers still metaphorically wandering around like headless chickens. Interestingly on Saturday the No 10 website had a full list of the junior appointments but one Undersecretary down there as in Communities was simultaneously appearing on the Schools Ministry website as one of their new junior Ministers. This indicates confusion, which might particularly have been noticed by the terrorists as the individual concerned happens to be Asian (possibly Muslim), the MP of Gloucester. It's too late at night for me to be bothered to check whether the discrepancy is still there (or indeed the gentleman's name) - hey we're a team here so perhaps someone else would like to check it out early in the morning.