David Cameron to set out the four aims of "Progressive Conservatism"

David Cameron is making a speech to Demos this afternoon in which he will set out the four aims of "Progressive Conservatism" as:

• a fair society
• a green environment
• safety for citizens
• equal opportunity

The Evening Standard characterises the speech as being designed to show the party's desire to "use Conservative policies to achieve traditionally Left-leaning ends such as the abolition of child poverty and increased social mobility", thereby attempting to appeal to Labour and Lib Dem-inclined voters.

Tim is going to be attending the speech, so check back here later for full coverage and analysis of what David Cameron has to say.

Update: Tim has posted here.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

The Grand old Duke of York he had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up
And when they were down, they were down
And when they were only halfway up
They were neither up nor down.

[Iain]

"thereby attempting to appeal to Labour and Lib Dem-inclined voters."

The same voters who voted for policies and parties which has got this country into one big mess, and now the Coservative high command are going to pander to them. How wonderful!

[Sally Roberts]

Yes, very good Henry! And your point is?

[Sally Roberts]

One thing which strikes me about Conservative values is that David Cameron has made the point that Conservatives believe in trusting people and that the more you trust people, the stronger they and society become. Labour on the other hand believes the worst of people and puts no trust in them - thus weakening them and weakening society.

[scribbler]

I hope to goodness he says more than that. Those aims fit every political party from Trots to BNP. We need to know in outline (perhaps not detail or Labour will nick it) HOW he intends to do this. I am heartily fed up with aspirations.

[michael]

This is very good news. Cameron has moved the Party back to the centre ground where a winning one nation Party needs to be, but there's still work to be done.

Opportunity for All was at the heart of John Major's political philosophy - it's something I think should be associated with the Party again.

[NigelJ]

I assume "Henry Mayhew - Ukipper" is referring to Nigel Farrage, but needs to be told he is in dream land if he thinks as many as 10000 men (or women) will vote for his busted flush of a party. Most people have realised that a vote for UKIP at any election is a vote that keeps Gordon Brown happy. As I have said many times, a vote for UKIP is a vote for Gordon

[Joe Mooney]

I think he should add to the list Sound Money.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I wonder if Jack Stone will fin it within himself to congratulate Cameron for this?

[David_at_Home]

"As I have said many times, a vote for UKIP is a vote for Gordon"

The joint Tory/Labour “Green” energy policy alone will destroy what remains of our industry.

We should all vote for what we believe. Since the policies of the Conservative Party are now virtually indistinguishable from those of the Labour and LibDem parties this leaves little UKIP as the party of choice for we (you will find out how many we are in June) who are in despair about the decline of our country, its economy, it sovereignty and its traditional freedoms.

I do not know whether the United at least we will have tried to preserve it.

[Cicero]

So when do we get actually conservative policies? Is there no longer a conservative party in this country that will fight for freedom, the national interest, the rights of property, sound money and a robust approach to crime?

Of course we should broaden our appeal but this seems to be a straightforward leftward shift.

[Julian L Hawksworth]

"Left-leaning", it says in the post. That's putting it mildly! What a vague and unimaginative list! Some of these look uncannily, as if they could easily be misinterpreted. Disappointing.

[Malcolm Stevas]

michael:
"This is very good news. Cameron has moved the Party back to the centre ground where a winning one nation Party needs to be, but there's still work to be done."
Is this tongue in cheek? "Moved...back" - ? On which planet do you live, I wonder: the recent history of the Tories shows them fighting tooth & nail with everyone else trying to occupy the precise geometrical centre of the fence, that Social Democrat Nirvana in which all exist in a perfect condition of non-judgmental egalitarianism, ruled by a benign State that takes away most of their money to spend it for their own good... The sort of low-tax small-government nation in which individuals preserve their money, their self respect and most crucially their liberty doesn't get a look in.
I dread to think what sort of "work" you imagine is "still to be done": even more Green Nazism, confiscatory taxation, coercive egalitarianism..?

[Michael McGowan]

Sally, how do you reconcile your statement that the Conservative Party trusts people with David Cameron promoting Ken Clarke? KC is an old-fashioned 1960's corporatist who is viscerally hostile to the localism agenda. Before you tell me that his brief is shadow business secretary, since when has his job title ever stopped him going off piste?

[Mr Angry]

This is not the centre ground, it is noticeably to the left of the centre ground and begs the question why would long standing leftish voters decide to switch to the Conservatives just to support things that Labour & the LibDems already promise to them anyway? If you want so called "progressive" (which has always been code for soft socialist) politics then the correct place for you is Lab or Lib, what is there going to be now for the millions of right of centre voters?

[Paul Oakley]

Jonathan - is there any indication of the details of the "green environment" policy yet?

Recycling, the protection of green spaces and encouraging energy efficiency are all to be applauded as they will stop our country being turned into a rubbish tip.

Let's hope this is as far as it goes. Policies in line with the false science of manmade global warming will be disastrous as we head into a depression.

[David_at_Home]

Should have read:

I do not know whether the United Kingdom, as we have known it, will survive but at least we in UKIP will have tried to preserve it.

[pp]

Like others have said - I hope those four aren't supposed to be comprehensive...

Money brings choice - enable/allow people to earn a living and they can make their own choices.

'Social Justice' is very expensive (if equal opportunites, green stuff etc really generated wealth then you wouldn't need legislation to enforce them...) - if you want that stuff, then you need to be creating the wealth to pay for it. I don't see anything about generating wealth, or giving people choice there.

I'll look forward to seeing the whole thing.

[NigelJ]

David_at_Home: You make a fair argument, and I do respect those arguments. However, the system we have is one where minority parties provide little more than a repository for protest votes. If you really care about the UK and your fellow countrymen and women you need to VOTE CONSERVATIVE, not just at the GE, but also at local and also Euro. If we fail to make a big impact in the latter it provides succour to Labour and Brown who are destroying our country - they are far more of a threat than your hated EU is. So I am afraid I repeat my mantra: A VOTE FOR UKIP IS A VOTE FOR GORDON

[Sally Roberts]

Michael McGowan - I have absolutely no problem in reconciling the two. As I never cease to tell people (perhaps ad nauseam), the Conservative Party is a broad church and the return of Ken Clarke confirms that view.

[Conand]

'Left Leaning'?? How many of you don't want these things? Talk about Mr Angry, you people make me want to scweam.
If you really can't agree with the majority of those aspirations you should get on your bike and join one of the nutter parties.
I'll pay a higher subscription and work harder as an activist to make up for it.

'I think he should add to the list Sound Money.' - Joe Mooney @ 11:25

That is a Conservative means, yes. It's also our policy.

I take issue with: 'thereby attempting to appeal to Labour and Lib Dem-inclined voters'

No, it's because it is what he (and I) believe.

I'd rather it was: 'thereby appealing to all voters*.'

*admittedly some will find it less appealing when they realise the person saying it has a blue rosette, c'est la vie.

[Michael McGowan]

Sally, a broad church has little credibility when leading and very vocal members of the congregation can deny the existence of God without comeback.

[David_at_Home]

Concerning fairness and equal opportunities, please will one of the Cameroons define what is meant be these words?

In reality, society is not “fair”. Some are pretty and some are ugly, some are intelligent and others not so, some are healthy but others have to live with chronic illness.

However, all other things being equal, and as IDS has made clear recently, the best start any child can have in life is to be born into a family with two happily married parents. Sadly, this start is not available for all but we could, of course, make life more “fair” by removing children from their natural parents at birth and giving them to the state to bring up. This, indeed, as what some extreme socialists want and underpins their constant undermining of marriage. I doubt that this is what the Tory leadership wants.

If the Conservatives had a policy of improving the state education system (not necessarily by throwing lots of money at it) so that it was more able to provide ladders of opportunity for those who whished to climb up, then I am sure nearly everyone would agree. But the outcomes would still not be equal for as long as children have parents

[Mr Angry]

Sally Roberts; The Conservatives can only remain a broad church whilst there is something for each part of that church within party policy. If the party finds itself "changed" into being NuLab Lite or the LibDems in drag then there will be nothing for actual conservatives or those in the genuine centre or to the right of it left anymore. That won't be so much a broad church as a major schism.

[Matt]

Pandering to the sandle wearing Guardianistas again Dave? Trying to impress Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot?

We seem to be coming at this from the wrong angle. Trying to wrestle the 'progressive' agenda off Labour will never work, and it makes us look opportunistic. Tony Blair never claimed he was more Conservative than the Tories, he simply fitted ideas that had previously been 'owned' by Conservative thought into Socialist thought, creating the so-called 'Third Way'.

Some of the above themes may well fit into a conservative political philosophy but we really need to know WHY they do. This whole conservative means, progressive ends agenda threatens to completely destroy conservatism in general. We need to know how the ENDS are conservative as much as the MEANS.

[Pulvertaft]

Note to self. When staring into the abyss of economic and societal collapse always remember to appear nicely dressed, keep a chirpy demeanour and to share your feelings with the group. Possibly suggest a group hug and share recipes and possibly sing a nice song about dolphins and lentil derived flip-flops.

WTF? Mass unemployment and a re-run of the Weimar Republic is crashing toward us and we are still stuck in the mantra of centre ground loveliness way beyond its sell by date.

Look up ceteris paribus, David. Things ain't the bleeding same and it is time to put aside childish things (hat tip Obama) and shout it like you mean it.

Lightweight (hat tip Obama).

[Iain]

"A VOTE FOR UKIP IS A VOTE FOR GORDON"

No its not, in 'progessive' parlance its sending a message.

[Cary]

Yes, but what about motherhood? And apple pie?

And - to cut right to the chase - does DC believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows?

[RichardJ]

"a fair society"

How do you define fair? I think it's unfair that people can get money for not working and that if you earn over a certain amount, almost half of that income can be confiscated. Furthermore, there are some things that might be considered "unfair" things (e.g. children who are born with richer parents than others) that can't be rectified without engaging in socialism.

"a green environment"

How green? No environment can be fully green unless you abolish industrial civisation.

"safety for citizens"

Which will involve using measures decried by the Left as "reactionary" i.e. making prisons tougher, giving householders more rights etc. In any event I thought we were subjects?

"equal opportunity"

Will only be achieved if you take every child away from their parents at birth and raise them in state-owned nurseries. Equality of opportunity is just as impossible as equality of outcome. Some people either through inherited wealth, connections, IQ, interested parents etc will always have better opportunities than others.

[David_at_Home]

NigelJ,

If you stay within the Conservative Party and so attempt to improve the (now near desperate) lot of our country then I respect your choice. A few years ago I very nearly joined the Conservative Party myself with the intention of doing just this but I found that I just could not go along with the main thrust of the Howard/Cameron policies so I decided to throw in my lot with UKIP.

Of course not everyone in UKIP is as pure as the driven snow and there are certainly numerous petty jealousies and squabbles too, like any political grouping. However if you look up the UKIP policies on the website I hope you will find that these are generally sensible and well thought out. We in UKIP are not very likely to form a government any time soon but, just by existing and challenging the Con, Lib, Lab consensus at elections on a wide range of issues, we can, perhaps, influence events.

I am well aware that there are many sensible and competent people in the Conservative Party (and some in the Labour Party too, maybe even in the LibDems). I respect the position and integrity of such people and would certainly not wish to insult them.

[Sally Roberts]

I understand your dilemma, David and do respect your integrity (just as I know you respect mine). However, I must agree with NigelJ on this. I am afraid that a vote for UKIP is indeed a vote for Gordon Brown. Just imagine the scenario (a very unlikely flight of fantasy admittedly) that UKIP does well on 4th June and the day after the results are declared we wake up to headlines that would delight Labour's heart. That would not please you any more than it pleases us in the Conservative Party, I feel sure!

[Steve Tierney]

David_at_Home makes a lot of sense. i suspect most of us, if there *wasnt* a Conservative party, would be UKIP members.

But luckily there is a Conservative Party.

Everybody may not like its current shape, but the core ideals are there and arguments about future policies can be reviewed once we're in government.

The country cannot afford our division right now, guys. If we don't win the next election there wont be anything left to win the time after that.

[CDM]

Yet more insubstantial hogwash. One of the advantages of being a party of the right is that we don't need to chain ourselves to such vapidly pious sentiments as those expressed above.

Who in British politics is actually opposed to those four aspirations?

[rugfish]

I fail to see why David Cameron is talking about "progress" with the very people ( Blair's accomplices ), who wrecked the Liberties and Freedoms and People Power which this country enjoyed prior to his pathetic ( Blair's ) so called leadership.

Who exactly in a Labour "think tank" and supporters of Tony Blair, is he trying to convince, and more to the point, WHY?

Also, DEMOS are aligned with Julia Middleton of Common Purpose fame and millions of people know this too. David Camron can't keep his attachment to it a secret much longer and his steps of "progressiveness" are foreshadowed by the need to step back to regain what we already had before they were taken from us by Labour.

What is the man up to please, and how does DEMOS sit with the Conservative Party when I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole?

Also. Where does DEMOS get its funding? Because if it's the same places as Common Purpose ( which David Cameron knows about ), then there's something amiss with his train of thought on this.

[David_at_Home]

The most recent published annual report for DEMOS shows that it receives most of its income from "projects" which are generally funded by public bodies. Similarly Common Purpose receives most of its income from delivering “leadership training” which is also largely funded by the public sector.

There are a lot of organisations like these, kept by the taxpayer even if the taxpayer does not realise it. Some like Common Purpose masquerade "charities”.

Slash and burn? I do not think the Cameroons will cut off the streams of money to these sorts of organisations if they become the government.

This is just another reason why we need UKIP to provide an alternative view which is not informed by the narrow political consensus.

[Sally Roberts]

David, I simply don't understand the kerfuffle which ensues every time people discuss Ms Middleton or her organisation Common Purpose! I have read her book "Leadership Beyond Authority" and to my mind it is an excellent management organisation which trains up leaders of the future and gives existing leaders new skills so that they can be visionary and not merely think INside "the box"! I wish someone would invite me to take one of their courses - I believe it would be invaluable.

[NigelJ]

Iain:"A VOTE FOR UKIP IS A VOTE FOR GORDON"
No its not, in 'progessive' parlance its sending a message.

You are right, Iain, it is sending a message: a message to Gordon Brown that he can keep stuffing up the country. It is imperative that the Centre Right unites in the Conservative Party, sets aside differences and defeats this terrible idiot who is UK PM.

Once we have a Conservative Government, and if you don't agree with its policies then by all means if you feel the urge, vote for UKIP then, or any other protest party.

[Calm down]

You are all very angry people. do you not have jobs and families to keep you calm? He is appealing to voters so that he can win the next election. that's the point right?

[David_at_Home]

Sally,

You may agree or disagree with Julia Middleton and Common Purpose as you wish. That is your privilege but it is mine too.

The point is why should the taxpayer fund these activities, which are overtly political even if not party political, and why is Common Purpose given special privileges as a "charity"?

There are now many such organisations funded by both government and EU. In principle, I am in favour of the taxpayer funding genuine scientific research but these organisations are openly trying to "inform opinion", which means spread propaganda for their way of thinking. This is particularly so for the many "Green" organisations funded by the EU.

[resident leftie]

Progressive conservatism is an oxymoron.

Sally,

Common Purpose has joined the Bilderberg Group, the Gnomes of Zurich and the Illuminati as a bugbear for those who believe in the New World Order. If you see anyone mentioning any of these as a secret threat, you can give them as much credence to them as you do to David Icke.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

David Cameron was careful to say that the key difference between the parties was about the means to achieve desirable ends.

A "fair society" under a Conservative government must be one that gives people opportunities and not one that penalises success. It must be one that remembers that we are innocent unltil proved guilty rather than treating us all as suspects which is the non-Conservative way.

A green environment can be achieved by harnessing the ability of a capitalist system to innovate and adapt to the looming energy crisis. A Conservative government should legislate to guide and control this process as necessary.

Safety for citizens - and absolute priority but the Conservative way would allow people to take risks and responsibility for their own lives. We would need to put the rights and safety of the 'good citizen' and the victim above those who threaten the safety of the rest of us.

Equal opportunity - who does not agree with this? A Conservative approach would treat everyone as being equal and stop the eternal focussing on differences. The inequality industry would have to accept that there would be no special deals for anyone. The difference between the Conservatice approach and the rest would be that the others measure equality by equivalence of outcome while we value greater opportunities for all. The socialists would like to get in the way of those who use their initiative and opportunities to get ahead while we would not. For example think of all the Labour ministers who have taken advantage of privileged educations which they would deny to others.

[rugfish]

Posted by: David_at_Home | January 22, 2009 at 14:02

Thanks David, much as I thought. I did some study on these two outfits last year and went into a lot of detail. These groups have far reaching political persuasions and amount to third columnists who's costs are met by Joe Public and business leaders out for a kick-back and some influence with government. However, regardless of who says what about them, the public have a right to know what they do, including using selection techniques which would make Hitler blush, and of who meets the cost of it all, and whether the public itself is happy with it's money being paid to Common Purpose to give "leadership training" at £3,000+ a pop, whilst calling itself a "charity" and all whilst being bound by Chatham House rules of secrecy.

It pains me to see David Cameron shuffling up to these people rather than scalp hunting on behalf of the public. I remain very dismayed at his giving his attention to it and I can only wonder why he's so attached to it, given that it is anything but in favour of his 'public' mutterings on Europe.

What is David Cameron up to and which side of the street is he walking?

[Sally Roberts]

Resident Leftie - for once I totally agree with you! But you forgot the Freemasons and the Jews in your Little List! ;-)

[Sally Roberts]

David - read the book (and by the way I got the title slightly wrong - it is in fact "Beyond Authority - Leadership in a Changing World" and then let me know whether you still think it is not worth funding.

[David_at_Home]

"Common Purpose has joined the Bilderberg Group, the Gnomes of Zurich and the Illuminati as a bugbear for those who believe in the New World Order."

Well I don't believe any of this, Resident Leftie. In fact I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories since they would be far too difficult to keep quiet.

However, as a taxpayer, I do object to funding think tanks and charities whose main purpose is to spread political ideas, whether or not I agree with the ideas, since this is not the right use for the taxes to which we all contribute. Your New Labour friends have been very active in supporting such organisations as has the EU Commission.

[David_at_Home]

Sally,

Even if I agreed with the views expressed by Julia Middleton and Common Purpose and even if DEMOS were to become highly EU sceptic, I still would not think that such organisations should be funded by the taxpayer or given the status or charities.

[David Belchamber]

"Who in British politics is actually opposed to those four aspirations"?

Surely this is the whole point, CDM?

These are four aspirations common to the three parties but we have seen, after eleven years, that Labour is a "spend a lot but achieve little" party.

We can only hope to progress towards these goals but we must try. We will never achieve equality of opportunity, for instance, but it is better as a goal than equality of outcome and it better to try than "do nothing"!

The trick is to find ways of finding policies that will work in practice. With Labour the law of unintended consequences is the usual outcome. This is why the gap between the rich and the poor has actually widened, why social mobility has been reduced, why serious crime has increased etc.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Mr Angry at 12.27:
” If the party finds itself "changed" into being NuLab Lite or the LibDems in drag then there will be nothing for actual conservatives or those in the genuine centre or to the right of it left anymore.”
Whaddya mean, “If” - ? The Tory Party has rolled over and swallowed this metamorphosis – exactly the same pragmatic rejection of core values that Blair & Co imposed upon Labour, for the same short-term ends – like a puppy wanting its tummy tickled, or to be tossed a biscuit, and with little more moral or intellectual value than that. Not that the Tories ever represented a shining beacon of hope that appealed to those of us who cling, in our stubborn old fashioned way, to a desire for political liberty, small government, low taxation, and the freedom of the individual within a sturdy, self reliant nation. Then we have Conand wagging his finger:
”If you really can't agree with the majority of those aspirations you should get on your bike and join one of the nutter parties.”
Thanks very much for further evidence that quite large swathes of us are not just effectually disenfranchised, but even the Party that ought to be appealing for our vote doesn’t actually give a toss. Steve Tierney suggests that with the Tories, "the core ideals are there," which prompts the question Where? In a locked cupboard in the cellar, perhaps, behind a door marked "Beware Of The Leopard" - ?

[Sally Roberts]

David - even if it enabled the management of those organisations to work more efficiently and effectively?

I think there is a difference in mind-set between myself and some people here. I see an effective and influential organisation and I want to "play"! There are other people who see an effective and influential organisation and immediately put themselves on the defensive and believe that organisation is a wicked conspiracy which is working against them...

[rugfish]

"However, as a taxpayer, I do object to funding think tanks and charities whose main purpose is to spread political ideas, whether or not I agree with the ideas, since this is not the right use for the taxes to which we all contribute. Your New Labour friends have been very active in supporting such organisations as has the EU Commission".

Posted by: David_at_Home | January 22, 2009 at 15:02

Ditto.
I agree.
I'd also like to know why the EU can provide funding upwards of £2.4 billion for propaganda, and how the National Lottery, the EU, Councils and Police can 'fund' these people with our money, for programs which we the people are supposed to know nothing about despite we're paying for it all.

Equally, the public being excluded by a 'vow of secrecy' of an organisation which has a political agenda, funded by taxpayers and completely removed from any democratic process or scrutiny as far as they are concerned, despite their "selection programs" are now geared toward their children.

Leading beyond authority eh ?

Yes indeed. Totally beyond all authority by the looks of it and it stinks as much as Labour's sicko ideology.

Cameron had best act with clear leadership quickly because no one but the blind are fooled.

[Sally Roberts]

http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home.aspx

There are a large number of very reputable companies, organisations and charities who have participated. Have a look and judge for yourself.

[hjs525]

Main Entry: progressive

Definition: liberal; growing

Synonyms: accelerating, advanced, advancing, avant-garde*, bleeding-heart, broad, broad-minded, continuing, continuous, developing, dynamic, enlightened, enterprising, escalating, forward-looking, go-ahead*, gradual, graduated, increasing, intensifying, left*, left of center, lenient, modern, ongoing, onward, open-minded, radical, reformist, revolutionary, tolerant, up-and-coming*, up-to-date, wide

Antonyms: conservative, moderate

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/progressive

[michael mcgough]

a fair society offering equal opportunity?

like postive discrimination in favour of ethnic and female candidates?

or ensuring promotion to the shadow cabinet of an ex bog standard comprehensive school pupli?

[JS]

'..luckily there is still a Conservative Party' Steve [email protected]. Sadly this statement has been untrue ever since Cameron got his hands on the leadership. Another wishy-washy speech full of high sounding platitudes trying to please everyone, but satisfying no-one, just proves what a true left wing copy of Blair he is. What a pity he didn't stick with public relations where his skill might be valued. The country is crying out for strong leadership holding deep, tried, trusted and genuine Conservative principles and proposing policies supporting these principles. In any election what is the point of voting for change when none is offered ?

[Peter Bailey]

I'd really rather Cameron made just three points and outline that they will be the planks our 2010 election victory will be built on:

Crime
Europe
Immigration

[David Lindsay]

Phillip Blond is a friend of mine. And good luck to him, because he is going to need it.

Call it what you will, but this country needs pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war movement of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots.

In the tradition of the trade unionists and Labour activists who in the early twentieth century peremptorily dismissed an attempt to make the Labour Party anti-monarchist, and resisted schemes to abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence.

In the tradition of the Attlee Government’s refusal to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was “the blueprint for a federal state”, and the restored party of Gaitskell’s rejection of European federalism as “the end of a thousand years of history” and liable to destroy the Commonwealth.

In the tradition of Bevan’s ridicule of the first parliamentary Welsh Day on the grounds that “Welsh coal is the same as English coal and Welsh sheep are the same as English sheep”, the restored party of those Labour MPs who in the 1970s successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution not least because of its ruinous effects on the North of England, and the restored party of those Labour activists in the Scottish Highlands, Islands and Borders, and in North, Mid and West Wales, who accurately predicted that their areas would be balefully neglected under devolution.

In the tradition of the Parliamentary Labour Party that voted against the partition of the United Kingdom, the restored party of the Attlee Government’s first ever acceptance of the principle of consent with regard to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, the restored party of the Wilson Government’s deployment of British troops to protect Northern Ireland’s grateful Catholics precisely as British subjects, and the restored party of the Callaghan Government’s administration of Northern Ireland exactly as if it were any other part of the United Kingdom.

In the tradition of the Catholic and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against abortion and easier divorce, the restored party of the Methodist and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against deregulated drinking and gambling. And the restored party of those who successfully organised against Thatcher’s and Major’s attempts to destroy the special character of Sunday and of Christmas Day.

In the tradition of Attlee’s successful dissuasion of Truman from dropping an atom bomb on Korea, the restored party of Wilson’s refusal to send British forces to Vietnam, the restored party of Wilson’s use of military force to safeguard the right of the people of Anguilla to be British, and the restored party of Callaghan’s successful prevention of an Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands.

And in the tradition that helped to provide the backbone of the Police, the Armed Forces and the Prison Service in much better days for all of them, and to call millions onto the streets to celebrate such events as the Coronation in 1953 and the Silver Jubilee in 1977.

It must conserve or, where necessary, restore national self-government (the only basis for international co-operation, and including the United Kingdom as greater than the sum of its parts), local variation, historical consciousness, family life (founded on the marital union of one man and one woman), and the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West. Agriculture, manufacturing, and small business. Close-knit communities, law and order, civil liberties, academic standards, and all forms of art. Mass political participation within a constitutional framework, and respect for the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death. The constitutional and other ties among the Realms and Territories having the British monarch as Head of State, the status of the English language and the rights of its speakers both throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and the rights of British-descended communities throughout the world.

It must counteract the corrosion to nought of everything set out above by the “free” market, both directly and because it drives its despairing victims by the million into the arms of Jacobinism, Marxism, anarchism and Fascism, all of which feed into neoconservatism.

It must defend and promote the universal and comprehensive Welfare State, and the strong statutory and other (including trade union) protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, the former paid for by progressive taxation, the whole underwritten by full employment, and all these good thing delivered by the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government. That includes by giving a political voice to trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions, mutual guarantee societies, mutual building societies and similar bodies.

It must resist both the decadent social libertinism of the 1960s and the decadent economic libertinism of the 1980s. Both the European Union’s erosion of our self-government and culture, and that erosion by global capital and by American hegemony, And both the unrestricted movement of people and that of goods, services and capital.

It must uphold the concept of society on the grounds that if “there is no such thing as society”, then there can be no such thing as the society that is the family, or the society that is the nation, and to oppose the “free” market on the grounds that there cannot be a “free” market generally but not in alcohol, gambling, drugs, prostitution or pornography.

It must maintain and further liberty (the freedom to be virtuous, and to do anything not specifically proscribed), equality (the means to liberty, and never to be confused with mechanical uniformity) and fraternity (the means to equality) as inseparable from nationhood (a space in which to be unselfish), family (the nation in miniature, where unselfishness is first learnt) and property (each family’s safeguard both against over-mighty commercial interests and against an over-mighty State, therefore requiring to be as widely diffused as possible, and thus the guarantor of liberty as here defined).

It must protect the family, private property and the State on the basis of their common origin and their interdependence, such that the diminishment or withering away of any one or two of them can only be the diminishment and withering away of all three of them.

It must realise as the basis of the State and of all public policy the doctrinal and moral principles (including the cultural patrimony) of classical, historic, mainstream Christianity, including the duty of assistance and protection towards all those throughout the world who profess those principles, and including by giving a political voice to the churches and agencies that so profess.

It must expose, halt and reverse the erosion of our sovereignty, liberty, democracy and identity by a heavy reliance on imported goods, rather than on a domestic manufacturing base By a heavy dependence on imported food instead of the maintenance of a thriving agricultural sector, characteristically a bastion of strong family ties, and therefore also of strong community spirit. And by the ownership or control of much of our agriculture, industry and commerce by persons who are either not our citizens or not resident within our borders for tax purposes.

It must expose, halt and reverse the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers’ rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will. The enforced bilingualism or multilingualism that transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white. And the process whereby, far from our having grown richer since 1979, we have in fact grown vastly poorer in real terms.

It must resist hysteria over climate change, campaigning in favour of high-wage, high-skilled and high-status jobs for the working class, and campaigning against any attempt to use climate change as an excuse, either to retard or reverse economic development in the poorer parts of the world, or to restrict travel to the rich.

It must give a voice to working-class opinion in rural areas, and in London and the South East. To the agricultural and fisheries sectors, which are being driven out of existence by European federalism, globalisation and the “free” market. To the North of England, the Midlands, the West Country and East Anglia. To the Highlands, Islands and Borders of Scotland. To North, Mid and West Wales. And to Northern Ireland specifically as part of a political movement embracing the United Kingdom as a whole.

It must give a voice to those who wish this country’s dealings with the wider world to reflect white working-class and other family ties to the Commonwealth Realms of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere, and Afro-Caribbean and other family ties to the Commonwealth Realms in the West Indies and elsewhere To those who desire partnership with Russia, who reject out of hand both the Union of the Mediterranean and any treatment of Turkey as a Western country, who resist without compromise any Islamic secession from Christian countries, and who are concerned to protect the Christian communities in the Middle East To the heirs of Sobieski and Solidarnosc.

To those who are equally unyielding, both in their determination to preserve the existing true, non-Eurofederalist unions of Latin and Teutonic peoples, and in their determination to preserve and develop those unions’ respective social democracies as expressions of Christian principles, including the safeguarding of that union, of that social democracy and of those principles by the Crown in one case, and in another case by another monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. To those who are equally unyielding, both in their demand for freedom and democracy throughout Latin America, and in their insistence on the sovereignty of each Latin American state and on its duty to pursue social justice as a sovereign state. And to those who are equally unyielding, both in their demand for freedom and democracy throughout China, and in their insistence on the indivisibility of China, from Taiwan to Tibet.

To those who refuse to allow globalisation and its multiculturalism to relegate them to Untouchable or lower-caste status. To those who refuse to define their Jewishness in terms of uncritical support for the Likud State (with its Sharia courts for certain ethnic minorities), including those who reject as a blasphemous presumption the creation of a Jewish State by human initiative, prior to the divine initiative of the sending of the Messiah. To those who reject alliance with the brutally repressive Gulf monarchies. And to those who would encourage and celebrate the high culture and emerging democracy in Iran.

It must promote friendship and co-operation between the people of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish descent, and the people of West African slave descent, on the basis of their common heritage, including Christianity, the Crown, the Common Law tradition, the English language, and the two peoples’ very extensive blood ties.

It must promote friendship and co-operation with the American people on the basis of common interests such as family values, the protection of workers and consumers, strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, fair trade and fair tax, constitutional checks and balances, universal health care, national security, Social Security, energy independence, environmental responsibility, Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, Civil Rights, America as an English-speaking country, and foreign policy realism: the Obama Coalition of economically populist (i.e., economically patriotic), morally and socially conservative foreign policy realists.

It must stand in and with the Australian tradition of B A Santamria and his five primacies: the integrity of human life, support for the family unit, decentralism, patriotism (including economic patriotism), and Judeo-Christian values, in equal and vehement opposition both to Marxism and to capitalism.

It must stand in and with the French tradition of good conservative dirigisme in opposition to the capitalist corrosion of everything that conservatives exist in order to conserve, and inseparably therefrom, of an independent foreign policy drawing on the glorious battles against all four of German occupation, Soviet infiltration, American domination, and the unbalancing of the nascent EU by British accession.

And it must cultivate Russia’s sense of herself as an integral part of the Biblical and Classical civilisation that is the West, and as that civilisation’s bridge both to the world as defined by Islam, and to the world of the Far East, while acting as the West’s gatekeeper against subjugation to Islam or to anything Far Eastern, sharing that historic role with all the Slavs.

Phillip Blond is a friend of mine. And good luck to him, because he is going to need it.

[Hopeful Candidate]

"David Cameron is making a speech to Demos this afternoon in which he will set out the four aims of "Progressive Conservatism" as: (1) a fair society; (2) a green environment; (3) safety for citizens; (4)equal opportunity"

Dammit. I've wasted hours on a draft election address which promises an unfair repressive dictatorship with high pollution and an escalating death rate....

[dcj]

There is one point which some of those posting on this thread seem to have overlooked. Before we can carry out ANY policies we have to win power. To win power (in the present state of the electoral system) means gaining at least 42% of the votes (with variations as to geographiocal spread, concentration,etc).

I think it will be accepted that there is a rock-solid, hard-core 30% who will vote Conservative whatever (that being the 1997 figure, eroded a little by emigration, influx of immigrants who are unlikely to vote Conservative, etc)

Therefore if we are to win over the missing 12% we must put forward policies which will gain the support of those who did not support us in 2005 or who have never supported us. This means addressing their concerns, and we must realise that since 1997 there has been an incessant drip-feed of propaganda on left-wing issues (such as the global warming scam) fed into the schools. Anyone who comes of voting age in 2009 has throughout their school days lived under this regime. They have formulated ideas and concerns as a result of this brainwashing. They know from bitter experience that Labour's solutions are false and make matters wose: they need to be convinced that other solutions will work, so we need to talk in the terms in which they have been conditioned to think. Even the BNP talks to people now in greenish terms.

In my better moments I hope that this is what Mr Cameron is doing. In my most cynical I fear he has swallowed the garbage himself. If we win and IF we do not reverse ZANULab's policies or bring in more watermelon policies ourselves THEN is the time to break away to UKIP.

But as I have said before the next election is not a choice between Margaret Thatcher (of blessed memory) and Mr Cameron. It's a choice between Mr Cameron and ZANULab.

I think the regrettable modern phrase is "It's a no-brainer."

[David_at_Home]

Of some 90 or so Common Purpose “Sponsors” at least 50 are publically funded bodies, handing over your money any mine.

Furthermore, if we are to believe Wikipedia, Julia Middleton of Common Purpose used to work for DEMOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Middleton

DEMOS is largely publically funded. You can see this from the annual report available from their website. Should not such predominantly publically funded organisations be subject to the Freedom of Information act? Apparently they are not.

I put it to you, my learned friends, that public life is now dominated by a very narrow class of left leaning “Intellectuals.”

No, it is not a conspiracy with smoke filled rooms and secret agreements. It’s just a simple case of like favouring like and friends providing (taxpayers’) money for friends.

Rather like the bankers!

I rest my case.

[Malcolm Stevas]

dcj:
"There is one point which some of those posting on this thread seem to have overlooked. Before we can carry out ANY policies we have to win power."
There is one point which you and the other "you must vote Conservative" posters have overlooked. Before people can vote Tory, they have to be able to believe the Tories have the right principles.
As for David Lindsay, I have no idea who Philip Blond is but this is one of the most bizarre crypto-Socialist rants I've encountered.

[Patrick Harris]

In his "fair" society will the elderly English get free social care? they do in Scotland.
Will the English patients recieve life enhamcing drugs no matter how expensive? Scottish patients do.
Will English patients have to pay to park in NHS hospitals? they don't in Scotland.
Will English university students have to pay top-up fees? they don't in Scotland.
Will the Scottish blood, flowing through his veins, prevent the English from being treated equally with all other UK citizens?
Or,
Shall I remain a sour, uneducated and bigotted Little Englander?.

[David Lindsay]

The Red Tory tradition is that of those who were never completely convinced of the legitimacy of the state created in 1688, or, therefore, of its Empire or of that Empire's capitalist ideology.

Mediated by, in, through and as Catholicism, High Churchmanship (subsequently including Methodism and then also Anglo-Catholicism), Congregationalism, the Baptist movement, Quakerism and other things, all of them hotbeds of Jacobite sentiment, it long outlasted the death of the Stuart cause as such with Cardinal York in 1807.

And it went on to produce, among much else, the (Tory-led) opposition to the slave trade, the demands for (largely Tory-delivered) extensions of the franchise and other political reforms, the Labour Movement's amelioration of economic and social injustices precisely in order to prevent a Marxist revolution, and the opposition to the Boer and First World Wars.

As for Thatcher: the Single European Act, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the replacement of O-levels with GCSEs, the destruction of patriarchal authority within working-class families and communities through the destruction of that authority’s economic basis in the stockades of working-class male employment, the refusal to recogonise the Muzorewa-Smith Government because she was holding out for the Soviet-backed Nkomo - ring any bells?

Incidentally, is Phillip Blond the only person with such access who is also a member of Facebook's David Lindsay Appreciation Society - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=30885878729 ?

[Jennings]

I would'nt overemphasise labour's ability to brainwash children, having spent my entire secondary education under labour it is mostly ignored.
Cameron is doing a good job, anyway you don't come out all your radical policies before the election since you don't know what state the country is in. Besides Margaret Thatcher was much less radical before the 1979 election than after. Be Patient!

[Patrick Harris]

Will the "fair" society ensure that England is treated fairly and equally compared to all other UK citizens.
Will top-up fees for University education in England be abolished?
Will the Elderly in England still have to sell their homes to pay for care in old age?
Will the English still have to pay to park in NHS hospitals?
Will the English still have to pay for NHS prescriptions?
Will English patients gain access to life enhamcing drugs no matter how expensive?
Will the Scottish blood flowing through Dave's veins allow him to extend parity to England.
Or,
Will I have to remain a sour, uneducated and bigotted Little Englander?

[David Lindsay]

Is you don't know who Phillip Blond is, then you not only need to get more, but, as of this afternoon, you need to read ConHome more.

Radical Orthodoxy at the heart of what thinks that is going to be the next government. Who'd have thought it? And just as well that the Thatcherite flame-keepers are among all the other inherent, inescapable atheists who have never heard of it. Ayn Rand or Leo Strauss it certainly isn't. Thank God.

[Malcolm Stevas]

David Lindsay:
"Is you don't know who Phillip Blond is, then you not only need to get more...."
Get more what..?
"but, as of this afternoon, you need to read ConHome more"
I read only snippets of it. Life's too short to read more - it's not very edifying - and I'm too busy stocking my bunker with claret, biltong, bazookas etc.

[Mike Crahart]

Four vague, well intentioned and more or less meaningless phrases, or soundbites. Thinly diguising a reaction to being called a 'right-wing nationalist' rather than offering anything substantial to correct the assertion!

Out of the EPP, into the UEN, call it what you like Ken it's 'National Conservatism'!

[Jake]

"a fair society"

not if you are English its not.

The British state has now become a vehicle for systematic discrimination against the England and their country and Cameron knows this though he is trying desperately to avoid recognising it.

Only when the Conservative party adresses this fact head-on

- basically an English parliament and abolition of the Barnett Rules-

will it gather the massive support which it should already have had long ago bearing in mind this corrupt and abnoxious Labour administration.

[Iain]

Jake on a slightly different point, I think it was your post on a previous thread which listed the Parliamentary double dealing that went on in Westminster to push through the Act of Union, I meant to get back to it and give it a closer scrutiny unfortunately when I did the thread had already been deleted. If it was your post, and if you happen to have the information to hand can you repost it?

[RichardJ]

"Call it what you will, but this country needs pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war movement of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots."

National socialism then?

[RichardJ]

"It must defend and promote the universal and comprehensive Welfare State"

You mean the welfare state that undermined the family and helped create all sorts of social problems.

"and the strong statutory and other (including trade union) protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, the former paid for by progressive taxation, the whole underwritten by full employment, and all these good thing delivered by the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government."

Ah yes, the great socialist settlement that brought us such economic success and prosperity before 1979...

Please take your socialist authoritarianism elsewhere. I want to live my life free of bossy interfering government stealing money that I earned under the arrogant assumption that it knows better than me how to spend it. I will decide how much I drink or gamble, not you and your fellow arrogant authoritarians who think it is their business to micromanage my life.

[Patrick Harris]

I take it that the answer is NO, even under the Tories, with their "fair" society, England will continue to get shafted.
More and more English voters are becoming aware of the disparity of treatment within the UK, Dave can only hope (forlornly) that the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish electorate will come to the rescue. (picks himself up off the floor)

[The Bishop Swine]

" Labour on the other hand believes the worst of people and puts no trust in them - thus weakening them and weakening society."

I heard of good example of this today. I know a couple of people who have recently been made unemployed. They were shocked at how badly they are being treated at job centre plus. They are commented that "they will find any excuse to cut your benefit for 12 weeks" and said "they are bullying people","the assumption is that people are not willing to work". It seems the wip is being cracked as soon as a person becomes unemployed. Before we go down the same road lets not forget that most of the unemployed are only to willing to work, and that JSA is a benifit that a person is entitled to as a result of paying National Insurance.

[The bishops wife]

"Call it what you will, but this country needs pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war movement of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots."

National socialism then?"

Christian democrats perhaps ? The biggest downfall of National socialism was the criminal class that ran it. I suspect that if the National crisis grows much worse (and it will) then National Socialism will attract a lot of folk. Probably we should avoid getting ourselves labeled National Socalist if we possible can...it has a bad history !

[Jake]

Here it is Iain

Unionist says
"Jake, are you saying England, with all its people and might, had the British union forced upon them?! "

You got it in one, Unionist. If you ever get around to reading up the history of the inception of the British Union , ie basically the union of England and Scotland, you will see that it arose principally in Scotland and dates right back to the late 16th century.The English were never particularly interested, those that were tended to be actively against the idea. Driving the idea were a small group of Scots nobility and in particular the House of Stuart.
The first words spoken by Mary Queen of Scots at the birth in Edinburgh of her son the future James1/V1 were " This is my son whom I hope shall first unite the two kingdoms of Scotland and England". That was on 19/06/1556.

When James V1 of Scotland duly became also James 1 of England in 1603 he tried to bounce the English parliament into having him proclaimed King of Great Britain.He tried three times 1603-5 each time rejected out of hand by the English parliament.

There were two brief unions in the 17nth century, in 1641-dissolved in the civil war, and in 1654-9 under Cromwell- ended at the (English) restoration by the English parliament. Neither involved unions of parliaments by the way- they were military, foreign policy and economic unions only.

The next big push by the Scots and English tiny yet emerging British political class was in 1702-3 when Commissioners from both countries met for 10 weeks over Christmas. At the end of that the English side walked away unconvinced of any benefit to England and dismayed at the potential disadvantages.This despite the urgings of the(Stuart)Queen Anne to reach agreement.

It should be noted that up until this time hardly anyone in either country,Unionist or non Unionist, had conceived of a parliamentary Union. A free trade union and a naval/military union were about the extent of it. This remained true right up to October 1707 when the proposed articles of Union were published in Scotland. Not published at all in England you will note.

The final push for Union in late 1707 was mainly in Scotland where the debate in the Scottish parliament was

1. long(from 3/10/1706-to 16/01/1707)

and

2.in detail, article by article(25 articles)and word for word. Gone through twice over!
It was finally passed by a large majority ie 110 votes for and 67 against.

The idea of federal Union, as opposed to Union of parliaments, was supressed largely because of the difficulties that Marlborough and Portland and Argyll- all strong unionists - had had in dealing with the federal Dutch states (14 of them) when raising support for the war with France.

Contrast that with the treatment of England.
Bill first read in the Commons 22/1/1707 and rammed through with a "committee of the whole House" and a short enabling clause ie effectively no dabate at all.

2/2/1707 Bill read out with no debate.

Committee in one day in one sitting.

29/2/107 Third reading, no debate and it was passed.

There had been plenty of opposition and it was mainly TORY opposition. The Whig government was desperate to avoid the crystallising of opposition and they were ruthless in doing so and damn the consequences.

In the Lords, the Bill was forced through its three stages in three days. Opposition here was more organised and yet energetically beaten down by the Queen(a Stuart Unionist) and her government. Just as in Scotland.
You might note that it was the Englishman Lord Haversham, who knew Scotland well, who proposed the idea of federal union.

Yes, Unionist, the British Union was forced on the people of England who had no idea what was being enacted in their name and were not consulted.

Posted by: Jake | January 11, 2009 at 12:46

[Mara MacSeoinin]

In 1970 Normal Thomas and Gus Hall, Communist party candidates, agreed not to run for office because the Republicans and Democrats had effectively taken over every plank of the Socialist platform, leaving them without one on which to stand. They observed that on close scrutiny both parties' policies appeared to be identical, save from their stance on financial matters.
In attempting to woo DEMOS et al the disturbing possibility emerges that Cameron, like Blair before him, is attempting to tread the path of the Third Way. If this is the case, there is absolutely no point in voting at the next election, as we'll just get more of same.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Norman, rather than 'Normal', Thomas. I am not qualified to say whether he was normal or not.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

3rd and final posting:

David Lindsay claims that Radical Orthodoxy is at "the heart of what thinks that is going to be the next government." A somewhat confused phrase and a grossly inaccurate one. Radical Orthodoxy is a postmodern movement within the Cambridge Univ. Theology circle, instituted by John Milbank and supported by Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward and others, which (in brief) believes that it is necessary to return to a pre-Kantian, Neoplatonist, numinous rather than analytical, reading of scripture and critiques modern secularism. Visit the Div. Fac. website or Amazon for further information.

[Patrick Harris]

Today it was announced that Kidney cancer patiants, in Wales, will have instant access to life prolonging drugs.
English patients will have to wait 6 moinths
Is that what dave calls "fair"?, if so he has a funny perception of fairness

[Sally Roberts]

"Out of the EPP, into the UEN"

Mike Crahart - do you know something the rest of us don't?

[Iain]

Thanks Jake.

[Julian Melford]

I can sense more and more people are finding the 'green' pretensions to be a bit naff, and if Dave doesn't listen, then he will come a cropper in losing mainstream votes.

Polls have shown that only about 8% regard 'the environment' as a top concern, and most of those are LibDem or Green Party types who wouldn't be seen dead voting Tory for other reasons.

One growing concern will be how to prevent large-scale power cuts and 'brownouts' in 2013-2015, which should coincide with the period when Dave seeks re-election as PM.

Finding a way of keeping our existing power stations running against LCPD directive obligations will go down well with the public.

Stunts like the wind turbine on the roof and hyping electric powered vehicles will not, once large parts of the country are left without light and power.

[Steve Foley]

The next General Election will I feel be a make or break for the Conservative Party. If won with a workable majority then it is game on. Cameron will, for good or ill, be the PM and in power.

If however the Election is lost and Labour and Brown continue in Government then unless the Tories ditch Cameron and Cameronism (assuming he does not copy previous defeated Leaders of recent times and fall on his sword that Friday afternoon) and proclaim David Davis as the new Leader then I can see there being a split in the Party.

I am not a Party Member. I used to be from 1968 to 1994 and was seriously considering re-joining but I'm afraid that that Cameron and his flirtation with the Green-Reds has put me off and the opposition to the Third Heathrow Runway, with no credible alternative such as a second runway at Gatwick being substituted , (Boris Island is too silly for words and would be grossly expensive)is making me very seriously consider my position at the next General Election although my strong dislike for the Labour MP in my constituency will probably swing me to the Conservative candidate in this marginal seat.

As far as the Euros later this year are concerned I have already made up my mind as to which party I will support.

[Dean Fincham]

hi
i don't know if i should email you on this but i am totally disgusted by the way i am being treated by the tax office i have always payed my taxes , never tried to fiddle them but i have been trying to get a tax rebate from the tax man since the middle of November 2008 i am a small business and i am owed over £11000 pounds which is a lot of my cash flow i was under the empression that this labour government was for the people well i don't see it, all i ever get at the tax office is that my money is being processed well I'm sure 10 weeks or more is pretty slow if the Conservatives were back in power i could ask my local representative if they could help but as always the labour party do not want to listen to poor out people like me.i hope you can help and look forward hearing from you