Brown's not so big tent

Iain Martin explains the true purpose of the Labour conference in today's Telegraph:

"This week was about killing David Cameron and the Conservatives; not defeating them or inflicting a set-back but wiping them off the map. It is important that the nature of this project is properly understood. The smartest ministers know that Cameron is still the best of his Tory generation. They will not want him around much longer and sense that his party will disintegrate if they can inflict a heavy defeat quickly. Brown's building of a big tent is cleverly designed to stress that he runs a national government so all-encompassing that there is no requirement for that old-fashioned concept of a functioning opposition."

Whilst Gordon Brown was too big, too consensual to mention the Conservatives once in his hour long speech, his lieutenants have had plenty of licence to go on the attack.

Ed Balls criticised Cameron's crude, socially divisive education policy for being not back to basics but "back to privilege, back to the past", creating a world-class education not for all but "for the privileged elite". He continued to wage class warfare with his description of Boris Johnson as "a gaffe-prone, TV quiz-show clown – a Bullingdon club throwback to a bygone age". Hazel Blears continued the theme:

"The last thing a modern, diverse, international-class capital like London needs is a fogeyish, bigoted and upper-class twit for its mayor. For all Cameron's claims to localism, his is the party which abolished London's city government, starved councils of cash, and created a centralised government worthy of Napoleon. The Tories have never trusted the people, whether they were single mums, miners, or the millions on the dole, and no amount of open necked-shirts will make us forgive or forget".

Ken Livingstone also got in on the act of attacking the Conservative Party's "backward blond element" by declaring what a pleasure it was for him to deliver the "first annual Boris Johnson memorial lecture".

Defector Quentin Davies got a standing ovation for saying that his former leader had made a "Faustian pact with his own extremists" on the EU, and that he said "such consistently foolish and superficial and transparently contradictory things" on education and the economy.

Alan Johnson laced his speech with references to the bad old Tories:

• "The Tories always had ministers who could stitch you up, we've got one who can cut you open as well."
  
• "The public doesn't view history in neatly divided chunks, defined by which party was in government. Whilst they will remember the trauma of long waiting times, shabby buildings and a crisis every winter in the Tory years, it's a fading memory, and their concerns are about the future."
• "As Nye Bevan said when the NHS was created, "the service must always be changing, growing and improving. It must always appear inadequate." While we champion clinical change, the Tories oppose it. Nothing illustrates more clearly how unfit to govern the Conservative party has become."
• "The Tories aren't the future of the National Health Service, they're still catching up with the past. They say they support the NHS, having opposed its creation vehemently sixty years ago. And they say they are committed to the additional funding that they voted against just three years ago. At the last election they proposed that NHS money should fund people to go private. At worst they are regressive; at best they are a major risk."

As did David Miliband:

• "And to every Tory MP we should say: there are 8 members of your shadow cabinet who voted against a referendum on The Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Europe has divided them for 15 years and it's not going to divide us."
• "Some want distance from America. Others want distance from Europe. The Tories want divorce from both."

Not forgetting, of course, that Kinnock wants to "grind the bastards into the dust".

And that's just some of the things said by senior figures from the main stage...

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Teck]

The least we can do is to close ranks, unite and attack the Labour failures - on the NHS, the economy, crime, education, etc. We need to highlight these.

Self-flagellation IS painful, destructive even.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Do other people get the impression that the press as a whole are getting a bit fed up with the Labour Conference? Coverage in the Times , Mail & Telegraph is almost wholly negative.
I'm not suprised. It seems there is n 'big idea' and few small ideas.Just a series of soundbites and aspirations. Perhaps after 10 years in government Labour really have run out of steam.
Let us hope ours is better or pity this poor country.

[Mark Fulford]

I think the opinion polls are working against Gordon Brown’s plan for a swift defeat. The polls and press show little dissatisfaction with his leadership, meaning there’s no justification for him to seek a mandate. Were he to go for a snap election, it would be plainly opportunistic politics that would damage his standing.

However, the prize might be too tempting for Gordon to resist. From what I’ve seen on this site, I think Labour are right that a post-defeat Conservative Party would surely tear itself to bits. They’re also right that Cameron is the best Tory of his generation.

[Tony Makara]

One again the same bitter and twisted inverted snobbery from Labour. The vicious attacks on David Cameron and Boris Johnson in particular amount to a form of social racism. Rather than stressing that all of us in Britain are united by our nationality, Labour are ripping our nation apart with their vile class distictions. Labour have lost the intellectual argument and have reverted to type by promoting their politics of envy.

[englandism]

Spot on Mr.Teck

'unite and attack'

The Labour government and wee Gordy in particular are vulnerable on so many levels and we need to 'grind the bastards into the dust'.

The dust of Iraq and Afghanisan where Brown is culpable in unleashing hell on earth.

Where death is routine and unremarked, where British soldiers die for the want of body armour but are patronised by Browne, the part time defence minister, with facile tax breaks.

Labour : The party of war. The party that lied to the British public on the pretext for war. Gordon Brown newly wrapped in his union jack like the body bags of the soldiers that he committed to an illegal war and yet utterly failed to support with adequate resources or duty of care.

A letter to Gordon Brown from a serving soldier :

"I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow-soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.

I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize."

Siegfried L. Sassoon. July 1917

[Edward]

We need to come out swinging as well. Not Cameron (who must show real passion and guts but leave off direct or personal attacks) but others must now step up to the mark and *really* attack Labour in the same way, to show the country what phoneys Brown and his cronies really are.

[Nick Young]

Spot-on, Tony. Inverted snobbery of a particularly vicious sort has been Labour's trade-makr for a long time. Interesting, given that they were led by an Oxbridge-educated public schoolboy for so long.

[Sean Fear]

Trying to appeal to class prejudice won't work for Labour, so I'm fairly relaxed about it.

The impact of a fourth Conservative defeat would depend on the nature of that defeat, and the impact on the Lib Dems. The Conservatives could probably survive a hefty defeat which saw the Lib Dems swept off the board at the same time.

[Londoner]

You quote D Miliband: "And to every Tory MP we should say: there are 8 members of your shadow cabinet who voted against a referendum on The Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Europe has divided them for 15 years and it's not going to divide us."

By my calculation that means there are 19 members who cannot be attacked for having made (or gone along with) that mistake. In case the boy cannot do maths, that is 70%. This is just a reminder of how untainted they are by past baggage. As for his "15 years" of Tory division on Europe, I know he's a youngster but it seems he can't do history either, as any politically literate schoolboy should know that the divisions on Europe were a major factor in the lead-up to toppling Mrs T, from about 1988 at least. This means he is acknowledging that we have been united on Europe since about 2003. I'll settle for that. Memo to DM: it's now 2007.

[Letters From A Tory]

It is only through uniting that we can fight back. If we get any dissenters at the conference, we are going to pay a heavy price.

[Londoner]

IF there is an early election, and Brown wins it, (I still don't expect the former and therefore do not envisage the latter) Ian Martin's article demonstrates that we should not fall into the trap of automatically ditching another leader. My own strong inclination in such circumstances would be for Cameron to stay, or at least announce that he is willing to serve well into the next Parliament before making any decision about the future. Even if a different leader eventually fights the subsequent election, they would then have the advantage of novelty.

So, let's put it about that the Party would want Cameron to stay if by some mischance he didn't quite make PM at the first shot. If that helps to put Labour off an early election, so be it.

[Napoleon]

Anyone who hasn't worked out why there is massive public contempt for the political process at the moment should have been listening to the Today programme this morning either side of 8 o'clock.

First up we had Boris Johnson explaining that he would be a Mayor who would leave matters to the London boroughs and wouldn't interfere - and then explained why he wanted to interfere in planning decisions to preserve Victorian terraces. He seemed upset when it was pointed out that he'd just flatly contradicted himself within about 30 seconds.

Next it was Jack Straw launching his traditional "I'll let householders shoot burglars" speech - which comes round every 4 years or so and is the best evidence yet that a General Election is imminent. He couldn't quite explain how his latest idea would actually put right the problems with the current law, and seemed very upset when it was pointed out that the person who was Home Secretary when the law started going wrong was, er, Jack Straw.

How stupid do these overpaid idiots think we voters are?

[Londoner]

Great quote from S Sassoon, Englandism.

But it's clearly invalid as he was a toff, Etonian I believe. Clearly incapable therefore of any genuine understanding of how ordinary people felt (oh, have I read the wrong bit off my Labour HQ "line to take"?).

[Teck]

englandism (Sept 27, 2007 at 10:14), that letter from a serving soldier - I salute him - however received by you is a powerful indictment of the poodling and the arrogance of former master Tony Blair, now aimlessly continued by Gordon Brown.

It did not escape notice too the irony of the symbolic disintegration of the Union, with its various flags flying with the Union Jack in the backdrop of the centre stage.

Labour is an absolutely vile and hypocritical party. Expose them, take down their mask!

[Teck]

Absolutely not, Londoner (Sept 27, 2007 at 10:42). Whatever internal differences, it would be bloody electoral suicide not to unite behind David Cameron.

Hey, if your brother is weak in Biology or Physics at school, would you put a dunce cap on him and boot him out? Hell NO, you would help him, even shield him from abuse.

Ah so, sorry, it's the heart of the Orient!

[passing leftie]

How unfair of them. Boris Johnson is the model of forward-thinking Conservatism, and isn't a stereotype at all. Just read these senstively chosen, definitely not racist words:

"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.

They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."

What's laughable about this is that the Telegraph and other right wing rags were trying to pretend that when he said picanninies, he was talking about any children. It's obvious in context what he meant, and when he talks about "watermelon smiles" and tribes in the Congo, I'm sure we all know where he is coming from.

[Chad Noble]

"who would leave matters to the [people] and wouldn't interfere - and then explained why he wanted to interfere

Now that is Cameroonism perfectly defined, imho, Napoleon.

Expect to hear lots of "we'll set people free to decide for themselves" next week (to paint a contrast with Brown) followed by how they then propose to interfere centrally in more and more areas of our lives.

[Griff]

Recalling the tv screenshots and pictures in the newspapers of Brown looming over us after his speech, and then reports on him wanting to kill off the tories, I realised just how frightening he is. Let's hope the public see him for what he is - Orwell's 1984 Big Brother incarnate.

[Iain]

Napoleon, I've just taken a look at the Conservative 2005 manifesto, pretty much all that Labour have gone on about in their conference has been lifted from that.

[Tony Sharp]

People seem to forget David Cameron was elected with a two-election strategy in mind. We have not had the first one yet, so there should be no attempt to challenge the leadership regardless of the result.

The Conservatives are already listened to and are setting the policy agenda, as demonstrated by Labour's desperate attempts to mimic our plans and identity.

Labour has nothing to offer. It is intellectually bankrupt and morally deficient. The only strategy they have is personal attacks and trying to woo weak yet ambitious climbers who think they will get something more quickly out of defecting.

As a party we should be asking the questions about Labour's policy shifts that the media is failing to. We should be promoting the thought out policies that will be adopted and exposing the sham imitations Labour tries to pin its flag to. And we must, absolutely must, focus on those key issues that are a priority for people up and down the country.

All members and supporters have a role to play, by uniting behind those things we have in common with each other and the country. Brown and his band of hypocrites and turncoats can be shown up for what they are if we all work together to do so.

[Richard]

The Maastricht Treaty 15 years ago, the Miners' Strike 20 years ago, the foundation of the NHS 60 (!) years ago... does anybody outside the Labour rank-and-file actually care about these things though?

PS I am a young man who wasn't aware of the Miners' Strike at the time. I recently read a short chapter on this, however, written in 1984 by Lord Denning, and was shocked at how the reality (e.g. that the miners were originally offered suitable compensation, that Yorkshire miners drove down to Nottingham to illegally stop people from working) differed from the pro-strike propaganda that has been everywhere in the last 10-15 years.

[Rachel Joyce]

Unite, attack. All Brown does is re-announce old announcements, and make pronouncements with no substance behind. Like his big words on Burma yesterday (when the Shadow team have done far more than the Govt to highlight problems there) followed by failure to achieve anything at the UN (lack of international leadership from Brown there).
And point out that Brown's message "a government of all the talents" is code for destroy the opposition, have in effect a one party state.

[john]

Re the press getting fed up with the Labour Conference. (Malcolm Dunn)
Try to read Simon Carr on Brown in The Independent. He slaughters him.

[Oberon Houston]

And with this threat right there from Labour (and it is real), we have a large percentage of bloggers, many not Conservtives (and certainly not 'small c' conservatives), but dissafected single-issue supporters not remotely interested in government, spending most of their time and effort on this site undermining, not the Labour attack on the Conservative's, but the Conservative Party as well.

I'm interested in rebuilding the fortunes of the Conservative party and heading off this threat from Labour. There is a greater good than low tax, the EU or Victorian values that deserves protecting here - the Conservative Party itself.

[Mike Christie]

Oberon, why is the party a greater good than the principles it should uphold?

If the Conservative party were to drift leftwards, offering policies that differed from those offered by Labour in only minor details and continually failed to defend the country from big-government socialism, should it be defended? Or should it be taken out and shot to put it out of its misery?

[Tanuki]

Oberon Houston @11:57 says "There is a greater good than low tax, the EU or Victorian values that deserves protecting here - the Conservative Party itself."

This view, to me, is part of the problem. No party or any other organisation has a sort of enduring divine right to exist or expectation of 'protection'. If the Conservative party [or any other brand like the NHS or the BBC or Great Britain] fails to represent/embrace my views, aspirations and desires then I won't carry on supporting it out of some blind sense of loyalty.

Loyalty in the political-party context needs to be earned and re-earned - that's an ongoing process which requires above all two things: credible leaders and a sense of mission.

[Edison Smith]

People seem to forget David Cameron was elected with a two-election strategy in mind. We have not had the first one yet, so there should be no attempt to challenge the leadership regardless of the result.

Here here Tony.

[Chad Noble]

"People seem to forget David Cameron was elected with a two-election strategy in mind."

LoL. first time I've heard of that Tony.

He certainly wasn't elected to increase Labour's majority though

[Malcolm Dunn]

I must say it makes a very refreshing change to see the vast majority of posts on this thread being suportive on this blog. Long may it continue!
I've just read the piece by Simon Carr,John it's a shame being in the Independant that hardly anyone else will!
I strongly suspect that the more the country sees of Gordon Brown the less people will like him but if the BBC is right and he calls an election next week will they find out in time?
The success of our conference becomes evermore crucial.

[Simon Denis]

Funny how in Blundering Blears's multicultural paradise there's room for everyone - apart from members of the indigenous population.

Johnson may be many things but he's no bigot. Blears - in ruling him out on nothing more than the basis of his background - is the bigot around here. She is the Prize Bigot. She is also almost as remarkably thick as Boris is intelligent.

As for Livingstone - the man who calls a Jewish reporter a concentration camp guard has no further part to play in the deliberations of rational people.

[Mark Fulford]

Passing Leftie, "Johnson's remarks may have been in bad taste, but they were plainly satirical, and have been blown wildly out of proportion." So said Andrew Gilligan in The Guardian.

Anyway, shouldn't you be appalled that, in search of Conservative supporters, your “man of substance” is spinning himself even more to the right than Tony Blair?

[Bill]

If the Tories are under threat of annihilation from Labour then it's their own fault. If Brown is stealing traditional Tory clothes then the Tory Party is at fault for not championing those causes. The modernisers just can't accept their responsibility. The Tories could have built on their achievement in the last general election. Instead in my opinion that advantage was thrown away. It all started with chocolate oranges. It would be funny if it were not tragic.

[Oberon Houston]

Mike Christie: I am here to uphold the conservative tradition of the Conservative Party. It is currently under threat from the Radicals on the right who prefer radical free-market policies and a return to Victorian values over and above the founding principle of the Conservative Party - 'scepticism of change'.

I believe most of the electorate are with me on this - but we are currently ham-strung by those that hold up radical right-wing policies as the 'principle of the party' - which 200 years of history will tell you they certainly are not.

A good book that articulates this is 'After Blair: David Cameron & the Conservative Tradition' by Kieron O'Hara: its really a critique of conservatism and how the party have drifted dangerously from this founding ideal. I repeat, I am a committed conservative, and want this to be reflected in the Conservative Party.

[Matt Wright]

Well folks, if this is the best Labour can do they are the ones heading for oblivion at some point fairly soon. Funnily enough its Brown that is vacuous and full of spin and he is hiding as usual behind his silly little cheer leaders. He knows only one trick, pull ever more furiously at the levers of Govt and hope something happens.

[Mike Christie]

Oberon, I was careful to ask my question from a hypothetical point of view, because I disagree with the notion that the party should be defended regardless.

Scepticism of change is all well and good, however, when all the evidence points to the necessity for change we should be fearless and as radical as necessary.

Conserve the best, improve the rest.

The NHS and the education systems are no longer suitable for the needs of the nation, no amount of tinkering round the edges and promising that new Conservative detergents will kill more bacteria in wards than Labour ones will fix that.

Radical free-market polices aren't suited for all areas of life, there needs to be genuine on-the-ground competition, hence the disaster that was rail privatisation.

However, on the whole, free markets tend to deliver better services at lower costs.

[Alex Swanson]

Oberon - it's not a matter of "tradition", it's a matter of what principles to uphold and which policies follow from those principles. I couldn't care less what Peel or Baldwin did except as historical lesson. The idea that we should be guided by their policies, simply because they happened to belong to the Conservative Party of the time, is bizarre.

If you just follow the mantra of "scepticism of change" then you are effectively saying "whatever Labour does, we'll go along with it". Is that really what the party's for?

[passing leftie]

"Passing Leftie, "Johnson's remarks may have been in bad taste, but they were plainly satirical, and have been blown wildly out of proportion." So said Andrew Gilligan in The Guardian.

Anyway, shouldn't you be appalled that, in search of Conservative supporters, your “man of substance” is spinning himself even more to the right than Tony Blair?"

I read the article. Satirical or not, I think it's plainly racist. What do you think?

Your use of the word "spinning" suggests that you don't believe he is actually right wing, and I agree with you. I think he's reclaiming patriotism from the right, using populist language. I don't like Jack Straw's initiative at all; there simply isn't a problem with people bashing burglars - prosecutions are incredibly rare, and the courts interpret "reasonable force" very broadly for householders attacking burglars.

Thatcher crushed the useless 1980s Labour party, and I'm sure you were pleased about that. Of course they want to crush the Tory party. Wouldn't you like to be in their position?

[Bruges Group NG]

One of the most revealing aspects of this weeks Labour Party Conference is how poor some of their ministers, or "rising stars", are when closely quizzed by neutrals. Andy Burnham and David Miliband were both awful against Neil and Paxman. This morning I heard Jacqui Smith completely floundering on gun crime and deporting non-EU illegals who commit crime, so bad was she that she resorted to platitudes about "building a safer community for hard working families...etc etc". It is clear that Smith has been grossly overpromoted and was only made Home Secretary because she was a. English, and b. A Woman.
As Richard Littlejohn brilliantly pointed out, Osama Bin Laden will really be worried now that an ex- schoolteacher from Reddich is on to him.

My point is this. Where are our guys to aggressively challenge these lightweights ? Nick Herbert and David Davis should be having a FIELD DAY against the likes of Jacqui Smith. So, how about it?

One other thought:

The inevitable defection of a little man from Buckingham with a lot of ambition to Labour next week, and a General Election called the day after.

[Anonymous]

Just a thought - if as many so-called Conservative activists invested as much time helping in marginal seats as they do slagging off the Party Leadership and each other a snap election may look a little less attractive to Brown and his advisers. Discipline is essential to any campaign and this party has got to pull itself together. That means the dinosaurs of yesteryear have to accept the world has moved on and those young enough to knock on doors should do so. Anyone who is unwilling to pull in and fight a united campaign has no business claiming to be a part of the team.
There are plenty of marginal seats which need the help.

[Jim Tague]

If more people voted Conservative than Labour across England in 2005, then it would seem logical for Labour to steal those policies - after all, this is where the Conservatives will look to make most ground.

Step one for the Conservatives was to get a better hearing, and that has been pretty much achieved, but why significantly change the message, rather than build upon it.

If we had a poor public image in 2005 but still amassed more votes in England, then surely with a better image, and better presentation, you would hope the (same or similar) message would be even better received today.

David Cameron is the only Conservative that could present such a view and be taken serious. Ddavid Cameron and the party deserve complete unity during the conference. Any other stance with a willing meida will ensure disaster awaits.

[Iain]

" if as many so-called Conservative activists invested as much time helping in marginal seats as they do slagging off the Party Leadership "

What leadership? We have had weeks of Labour reigning down blows on the Party and what? Nothing from the leadership, not attack , no rebuttal, it is almost as if the Shadow Cabinet has gone to ground somewhere leaving its troops to take the beating from the cluncking fist. The psychology of this is awful, and is going to have an awful effect on the party that just a speech at the conference isn't going to repair, and if the no show of Conservative MP's and Shadow Cabinet is not bad enough, the Conservative party members have to watch a troop of traitorous Conservative MP's and senior party figures defect to Brown. I now gather its odds on the Bercow is going to defect to Labour, so is the party leadership just going to wait for this to happen?

[James Burdett]

The leadership are adopting the right approach, there is a time to attack and a time to not do so. Yes the Labour mob have been having a bit of a field day, they are beginning to look arrogant and over-confident. If every time Labour did something you had a Conservative spokesman popping up saying basically 'hey, that was our idea' people would have just assumed we were bleating and bemoaning our lot.

It is far better to watch the Labour party get ahead of themselves in over-confidence and hubris, then use the week of guaranteed attention to full advantage. I expect that that is the plan and I am sure that the old adage about a week being a long time in politics still holds true.

[Don Collier]

I take great comfort from the continued and increasingly frenzied attack by the Labour party and in particular its now rather tired and bedraggled looking ministers.

Let see if you were only trusted by your leader to talk for 8 minutes, wouldn't you want to make sure you were talking about the things that really mattered. Of course they were silly me.

What really matters to them is that we are starting to be seen as an alternative. That we are making a dent. That we are slowing up their attempt to drive this country into some ideological hell hole based around the failed dogma of Karl Marx.

Never forget the old adage of there is no such thing as bad publicity.

No one truly believes the new labour spin any more and the more they talk about us the less people will believe what they are claiming we will do. Just like they dont believe them on Taxes, Health, Education and .......

[Bruges Group NG]

Iain

I agree. The most high profile Tory in recent weeks has been an 81 year old lady, wearing a red dress on a trip out for tea.

We will know our fate by the end of next week, lets hope a few of our Boardroom Generals can muster the enthusiasm to rally us poor troops.

How comes Labour still burn with ambition and a hunger for power, having had it for ten years, while our lot seem to have gone into political hibernation ?

[Mark Fulford]

Your use of the word "spinning" suggests that you don't believe he is actually right wing

Passing Leftie, my use of the word "spinning" suggests that Gordon Brown's "substance" is, in fact, crap. I believe he's a cynical, deceitful individual and I detest every inch of his God-fearing pension-wrecking body. Apparently Labour supporters (and Gordon) used to intensely loath Margaret Thatcher (before the love-in ended all that). I now understand the depth of that loathing.

I really couldn't give a monkey's what Jack Straw said.

As for Boris, I think that, among his thousands of articles, he wrote one five years ago that allowed his critics to shout “racist”. Whether the article was racist all depends upon the meaning he intended for “piccaninny” and “watermelon smile”. I agree they were unfortunate expressions, but did Boris Johnson mean that the Queen likes to be photographed with small black children, or did he mean small niggers? I think the former, but only Boris knows for sure.

The more pertinent question is “do I believe Boris Johnson is racist?”

No.

Do you?

[Alex Swanson]

'if as many so-called Conservative activists invested as much time helping in marginal seats as they do slagging off the Party Leadership'

I for one have invested plenty of time in marginal seats over the years, thanks. In fact I live in one now, and two yards away from me is a bag with the rest of the leafleting I promised the candidate I'd do this month, and which will be finished tomorrow morning. I do not need lectures on such things.

Commenting on this forum is not acting against the party's interests - it's pointing out reality to people who seem determined to avoid it. I can assure you that I have many other things I would rather be doing, but this is part of my duty as a citizen. I apologise if that seems rather "traditional" to you.

[Andrew Lilico]

There's not going to be a General Election. But if Gordon Brown were to choose to call one, and if he were permitted the constitutional outrage (it would be quite unprecedented to call an election after 2 and a half years when one has a secure majority - it never happened in the 20th century, and I would consider it a highly retrograde constitutional innovation. If he is permitted to call an election in November, whatever next? Come late January, if he's feeling bored and there are still a few Conservative supporters about, will we have another General Election? And maybe another in May? The Prime Minister is not constitutionally entitled to call a General Election just whenever he feels like it.) - anyway, if he were to make one of the truly worst political gambles in history and were nonetheless to win (and that is by no means certain, whatever the opinion polls say), then obviously, *obviously* we should not ditch our leader. What possible reason would we have for ditching Cameron - a man who so scared the government that they were panicked into calling a General Election after only two and a half years!? Perhaps someone here would say: "But what if Brown gets a large majority?" What of it - Brown already *has* a large majority. Brown cannot gain anything material from calling a General Election now. All he can gain is psychological - if we let him spook us, if we let him make us panic, if we let him drive us into changing leader yet again (yawwwn! how boring would *that* be? Is there someone here that thinks anyone else would really do any better??), if we let him make us change anything at all - only *then* could Brown gain from a General Election.

So, if Brown is insane enough to call a General Election, it will up to you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Will you turn Brown's folly into wisdom, his madness into genius? Or shall we shrug and say: "Well, if you're daft enough to have an Election and give us a chance to push you out of office, thankyou very much! We'll take it. And if we lose, so what? We didn't have power before the Election, and if we lose we won't have power afterwards either. Nothing lost. Let's carry on with getting our house in order, and once we've done that then we can win some arguments and persuade the voters to give us a go."

Your call, guys.

[Malcolm Dunn]

A very fine post if I may say so Mr. Fulford. If you were making this speech in a public forum rather than on a blog I would be giving you a standing ovation for that.

[Iain]

"How comes Labour still burn with ambition and a hunger for power, having had it for ten years, while our lot seem to have gone into political hibernation ? "

I really don't know, I came onto this board some months ago to remonstrate about the failure of Osborne to hold Brown to account for his economic polices as Chancellor , a failure I felt was going to cost the Conservatives dear, unfortunately it has, yet it seems the malaise extends to most of the Shadow Cabinet. There seems to be a general lack of application. If the Conservatives were seeking office, they had to have the desire to make a sustained attack on Labour and its policies, yet they haven't, they haven't even bothered to protect their own political territory in seeking to extract a heavy price from Labour if they sought to U turn on to Tory ground. Today is a prime example, Straw U turning to give home owners better rights, should have had Tory MP's queuing up to humiliate them for this U turn, but? Nothing. What is going on?

But its not just not bad politics, its atrocious for the moral of the party, what is the Conservative leadership thinking of by abandoning the membership to the cluncking fists attack? This is the time when the leadership needed to show it was there, and had some fight in it, but nothing!

[Andrew Lilico]

Incidentally, as far as I can work out the closest situation to the present one would be the run-up to the 1923 General Election, in which Baldwin sought a dissolution from George V despite the Conservatives having an overall majority. There are two key points to note about that case.

1) Baldwin sought a General Election because he wanted a mandate for Tariff Reform, an issue on which Conservative MPs were significantly divided, so the Conservative Party's notionally secure majority was just that - notional.

2) George V turned him down, and asked Ramsay McDonald to form an adminstration instead.

I would be inclined to suggest that Elizabeth ask Cameron to see whether he can run an administration, following this clear precedent from the previous next-closest occasion. Unfortunately our position on this would be very weak, given that Cameron previously (ill-advisedly and unconstitutionally) called on Gordon Brown to have a General Election when he took over from Blair - even though the UK is not a Presidency.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to notice that recent constitutional precendent suggests that if Brown requests a dissolution, the Queen ought at least to test whether an alternative administration can be formed. Obviously if Labour stays resolved, and votes down the Queen's Speech of alternative administrations, then a dissolution would eventually become necessary. But whether Gordon Brown would still be the Labour Leader by that point is an interesting question...

[passing leftie]

<<
Passing Leftie, my use of the word "spinning" suggests that Gordon Brown's "substance" is, in fact, crap. I believe he's a cynical, deceitful individual and I detest every inch of his God-fearing pension-wrecking body. Apparently Labour supporters (and Gordon) used to intensely loath Margaret Thatcher (before the love-in ended all that). I now understand the depth of that loathing.
>>
If you loathe him, I'd guess he's doing something right. He is an extemely intelligent politician who has master his brief in a great office of state for over ten years, seeing off ridiculously lightweight Tories. Seriously, do you really think that that pipsqueak Osborne compares with Brown?

<<
As for Boris, I think that, among his thousands of articles, he wrote one five years ago that allowed his critics to shout “racist”. Whether the article was racist all depends upon the meaning he intended for “piccaninny” and “watermelon smile”. I agree they were unfortunate expressions, but did Boris Johnson mean that the Queen likes to be photographed with small black children, or did he mean small niggers? I think the former, but only Boris knows for sure.

The more pertinent question is “do I believe Boris Johnson is racist?”
>>

Piccaninny is an outmoded racist term for black children. Watermelon smile, likewise. He is either a racist or so utterly out of touch with people outside his own little clique that he is in any case totally unsuitable to be Mayor of London. I suggest you see what he thinks of the people Papua New Guinea, too.

[David Lindsay]

Time was when any Labour MP who became an "adviser" to the Tories would have had the Whip withdrawn on the spot, and been expelled from the Labour Party very soon thereafter.

But now that Tory and Lib Dem MPs are "advisers" to Gordon Brown, why doesn't David Cameron use his Party Conference to announce his own "advisers" from among the more dedicated Brown-haters on the Labour benches? What could Brown possibly say or do?

And what could Ming Campbell possibly say or do, having allowed Matthew Taylor to "advise" Brown, if Cameron conferred such positions on, most obviously, Nick Clegg and David Laws?

Not that this will happen, of course. Last year's Tory Conference never discussed a single policy (not one, all week), and I doubt that this year's will discuss so much as a single political machination. In fact, is anyone even going to turn up? If so, why?

[englandism]

BoJo's remarks, as taken out of context, were in the context of taking the pith out of Tony Blair for behaving with his usual evangelistic pomposity in touring Africa donned in pith helmet and condescending to the natives.

That is why the language was Kiplingesque and the intention, actually, was to cast Blair as a racist and imperialist throwback.

This is the only guff that King Newt has managed to trawl up and it is full of more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.

[Chad Noble]

Oh come on Andrew. As noted here previously, they're even taking reference to the old dear off our passports (citizens of the EU now and all that).

No government really gives a stuff what the queen wants or thinks. It's just a bit of pantomine.

[seasider]

"Johnson's remarks may have been in bad taste, but they were plainly satirical, and have been blown wildly out of proportion" said Andrew Gilligan.

A pity that Boris could find only Gilligan to defend him, a man hardly respected for accuracy.
A new low when it comes to endorsements.

[Oberon Houston]

Alex Swanson: being a 'conservative' in the tradition of the Conservative Party does not mean going back 200 years. This is a philosophy, not a period in time. The scepticism of change philosophy is not a hard and fast rule either Mike, it just places the burden on the proposer of change to demonstrate that it will achieve the desired outcomes. Examples of changes where mortal man cannot control the outcomes are: the Iraq War, Devolution in Scotland, Central NHS Targets, Constitutional Reform etc. etc..

It is difficult to describe a complex issue in a blog like this, that is why I directed Mike to the Kieron O'Hara book. For a purely philisophical version, Roger Scruton is a great start. I hope more folk in the party read this stuff as it really provides the basis at least for a new way forward that isn't New Labour or Radical Tory. I believe the electorate will not only vote for it, but indeed ARE it.

[Oberon Houston]

Actually, Gents, the scepticism of change philosophy can be traced back to 500BC and Socrates! But it was really Edmund Burke (what a guy, and Irish to boot, but then again so was Wellington!). Yes it was he that managed to sort this all into a political theory that would make sense to a 'conservative' today (note the small 'c', which doesn't mean every party member is one, or CH bloggers!), yes and he did that in the midst of the chaos of the French Revolution for context.

[Bill]

Oberon

Although I generally disagree with your views I share, as I am sure many others do, your knowledge of Socrates, Burke, Wellington and the history of the Conservative Party.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Er what did Gilligan get wrong Seasider? Not a damned thing in my opinion and that of just about every sensible person in Britain. Blair was very, very lucky with Lord Hutton,or did Blair know he would be 'lucky' when he chose him.

[Edison Smith]

It is far better to watch the Labour party get ahead of themselves in over-confidence and hubris, then use the week of guaranteed attention to full advantage. I expect that that is the plan and I am sure that the old adage about a week being a long time in politics still holds true.

It's an interesting point James.

Certainly the blanket coverage of the Labour conference offered by a sychophantic BBC has been one of the most dire few days for public service broadcasting.

Only Andrew Neil earns his wage.

The vibe I have picked up is that 'Labour Labour Everywhere' has not been all that positive for Labour. They look arrogant and obsessed with electoral victory, rather than actually running a country. Labour do not look great under the spotlight of over-exposure: Every Hazel Blears appearance ensures a few thousand viewers change their voting intention away from Labour immediately!

Unlike the relative 'talents' of the Blair years, the current Labour mob are a bunch of political and intellectual dwarves. Just look at Miliband on Newsnight earlier in the week: wide-eyed and chocolate wristed!

Better to save energies for Blackpool, where the party can get across - clearly, concisely, positively and easily - what difference a Conservative government would make.

Of course, one moment of disunity and it will all fall apart.

Hold on to your hats...

[Traditional Tory]

Oberon Houston: I am here to uphold the conservative tradition of the Conservative Party.

Well. You could have fooled me. I thought you had 'Cameroon' running through you like a stick of Blackpool Rock.

A good book that articulates this is 'After Blair: David Cameron & the Conservative Tradition' by Kieron O'Hara

Oh puh-lease. And who is Kieron O'Hara when he's at home?

Why not try reading Burke's 'Reflections' or if you want something a little more recent, anything by T E Utley?

[Mark Fulford]

Piccaninny is an outmoded racist term for black children.

I like your semblance of certainty, but the outmoded meaning was not at all racist:

1657, from W. Indies patois, from Sp. pequeño or Port. pequeno "little, small." As late as 1836 applied affectionately to any small child or baby, regardless of race.

Etymology aside, in order to seize upon that article as an example of racism you’re having to ignore the context and voice. Writers are entitled to use even offensive words as devices to conjure with.

Unfortunately, just as I don't suppose that Boris could ever have won your vote, I don’t suppose we’ll ever agree on this.

[Alistair]

I'm afraid your attempt to excuse Boris Johnson's racist language falls flat, Mark.

Sir Herman Ouseley and other distinguished members of our black British community have identified a string of appalling statements which Johnson was doubtless hoping would not leak out.

David Cameron has rightly condemned and punished other right wing Tories guilty of racism.

I challenge him to condemn his fellow Old Etonian Johnson and to remove his approval as Mayoral candidate.

If he fails to do so the "Nasty Party" will be seen to live on.

[Oberon Houston]

Traditional Tory: Kieron O'Hara is a lecturer in politics, a journalist, and of course an author.

He argues, along with Gray, Scruton and Wheatcroft etc. for a return to traditional tory values.

[Traditional Tory]

He argues, along with Gray, Scruton and Wheatcroft etc. for a return to traditional tory values.

I can't see Roger Scruton bracketing Cameron with 'traditional Tory values' somehow. Not sure about Geoffrey Wheatcroft. Some of his ideas wouldn't suit the current regime.

Do you mean John Gray? He used to be a libertarian but he's no Tory.

[Thu Laerba Partei]

the whole labour project has been to destroy the tories and as a secondary effect possibly to destroy tory attitudes, ie the British class system which is still very much alive. When people talk about labour being like the tories they obscure this simple fact. Labour's triumph remains at the level of social semiotics, ie reconfiguring Britain as a modern country rather than an imperial remnant.

There is going to be an election and you're going to get murdered. Don't discount the elvel of class hatred still exisiting, it doesn't mean we're all Marxists, but it means you're on the wrong side of history.

[Edison Smith]

Oberon - I've read Keiron O'Hara's book and it's an excellent read.

Why doesn't Traditional Tory not dismiss it out of hand and get himself a cheap second-hand copy off Amazon to muse over?

[Oberon Houston]

Traditional Tory: (again: appologies) I do think Wheatcroft and Scruton are in line with Cameron, although I rather think it is Cameron trying to line himself up with them rather than the other way round....

[Simon Denis]

What a paltry, unmeaning thing is Oberon Houston's conservatism. It seems to consist of nothing more than a conspiracy of those who benefit from the status quo. As such it might find itself applied to any political situation, no matter how vile or unjust. The late but little lamented Edward Heath was conservative in this sense, bewailing the unreasonable behaviour of the students in Tiananmen Square; standing up for his good friend Chairman Mao; rebuking the vulgar desire for democracy among Europeans.

Mr Houston then goes on to stigmatise those of us who stand for something more than our bellies as part of some radical right wing bloc. In fact we are classical liberals. No, Mr Houston, not the employers of child labour and all that sub-Dickensian rubbish, but the broad school of thinkers and activists whose ideology has consistently ameliorated and improved the condition of human life. It is mere conservatives like you who threw up their hands and gave the little children over to the grasping coalmasters. As for Shaftesbury, he was like many Victorians, only nominally conservative in that what he stood for was the already Liberal polity of England. He applied its attention and its conscience to a scandal and took steps to clear it up.

Finally, I put it to the readers of this thread - all three of you - that the Houston conservatism, huddling around what little advantage remains to it in a more and more socialist world, is inherently and fatally passive, cowardly and doomed. It is only the dynamic, radical, pro-capitalist outlook of the Thatcherites which stands a chance against the subtle, pervasive and ruthless forces of the left.

[Traditional Tory]

I've read Keiron O'Hara's book and it's an excellent read. Why doesn't Traditional Tory not dismiss it out of hand and get himself a cheap second-hand copy off Amazon to muse over?

I may scan the 'remaindered' pile some time after the general election.

Google reveals that Kieron O'Hara is a senior research fellow in Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton, so he is naturally well qualified to write about Conservative philosophy.

He is also the author of numerous articles (mostly for the Yorkshire Post) bearing such disinterested academic titles as 'Tory Dinosaurs Stalking Dave the Chameleon'.

In other words he is a Cameroon activist posing as a philosopher.

I rather think it is Cameron trying to line himself up with them rather than the other way round....

Certainly Cameron wrote a sycophantic review (in The Guardian) of a book written by this man, who promptly brought out a new edition with the subtitle 'David Cameron and the Conservative Tradition'.

So the love-in would appear to be mutual.

But judging by today's Telegraph headline, 'Cameron orders a shift to core Tory values', O'Hara's analysis may already be out of date.

Ho hum. 'Lurch to right' etc, etc, etc.

[englandism]

Thu Laerba Partei

Look everybody it's a triceratops or possibly a dodo. Class warfare is just sooo history my friend, rather like socialism and beer and butties 'round at No.10. The only antediluvians still preaching your class warrior guff are Chavez loving Ken and the clearly barking George Galloway.

As I was only saying to my butler the other day.

[passing leftie]

If you think he's not racist, take a look at this:

"He was also quoted by the Observer to have said, whilst in Uganda: ‘Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies.’ He has written of Africa that ‘the problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more’; has described South Africa under Nelson Mandela as the ‘majority tyranny of black rule’; and he has written in relation to African people that ‘left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain’"

Cameron sacked someone over far less. Maybe he's too chummy with Boris to sack him?

http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=15476&grp=66&cat=442

[Bexie]

My Vox Pop of "man in the pub" would show that people really dislike this shower, and would like to be rid of them. They are fed up with being punished for working, punished for saving, punished for owning a home and told how to live their lives. My spider sense tells me that these opinion poll leads may be a mile wide, but only an inch deep.

[Simon Denis]

It should by now be perfectly clear even to such partial, partisan and blinkered commentators as the passing leftie that Boris's remarks about picaninnies were the sort of provocative bait to which only a PC prig would rise. Now that you are hooked, passing leftie, let's reel you in. You object to Boris's defence of the Empire. You presumably think that Africa's problems ARE Europe's fault. How then do you explain the drop in living standards after the eclipse of the colonies? Have the likes of Kaunda and Mengistu and Mugabe been acting on British orders? Were they obliged to borrow; to spend the proceeds on themselves and their cronies; to murder vast numbers because of some deal with the foreign office?

Had the European powers been given the time to withdraw from empire more gradually; had the rule of law been allowed to settle down in the former colonies; had the malignant influence of the Soviet Union been absent, then yes, Africa would be a much happier place today.