« Boris Johnson suspends green measures to protect small businesses | Main | Cameron-Osborne's bravest decision »

Comments

I can understand that you're upset because Heffer can be a hard hitter however when he say "Capitalism is deeply moral and hardly needs the adjective to qualify it. It is moral because it is about the exercise of free will between buyers and sellers: and few things can be more moral than allowing someone to be free. Capitalism is about the link between effort and reward. It is about the creation of wealth according to the quality of one's enterprise. Without wealth creation there is no scope for the taxation that enables the functions society deems moral: a welfare state, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of law and order." I believe he makes a good defence and if he could just hold back a little on the jibes he is making a serious point.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

Well he's right about Cameron trying to be all things to all men, and failing to appeal to anyone really.

Heffer is a circus act. He does not aspire to persuade. Just to entertain.

I never read Heffer any more, I think he has lost touch with reality.

The Daily Telegraph should be ashamed of this. It's just a rant.

Seems like typical Simon Heffer fodder to be honest, I'm sure if it could all have been set in CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS it would have been.

Shame really that there's not more thought and less hubris behind the article.

The only point to add is that governments did not expand the money supply for the hell of it.It happened for two reasons. First ,there was a conscious effort to lower interest rates and to provide liquidity after 9/11-possibly justifiable for a few weeks but carried on for years.
Second,the fractional reserve banking system got way out of hand with its liabilities as a much greater multiple of its cash and liquid assets than it had traditionally been and its contingent liabilities which 30 years ago were tiny had become a towering inferno.
Simon Heffer is quite right to stress the moral virtue of capitalism and it is also worth pointing out that the more capital there is the more is the demand for labour and the better labour is rewarded.

Personally I gave up on Heffer years ago. He isn't a serious commentator, he has even gone beyond the realms of self-parody!

Heffer is the sort of journalist who gives exaggeration a bad name.
His posturing is that of a professional wrestler, not that of a savant.

The Heffer statement, totally unqualified, that "capitalism is deeply moral and hardly needs the adjective to qualify it" shows what a limited, blinkered and simplistic mind Heffer really has in contrast to Cameron's. The latter clearly understands that one can believe that overall capitalism truly is the best system for spreading wealth but at the same time recognise that its more "shades of grey" rather than so utterly "black and white" as Heffer trumpets.

Give me Cameron any day who believes in capitalism but recognises that its capitalism "wharts and all" and who wouldn't mind just trying to do something about the "wharts and all" so that it genuinely serves the majority of people.

Does anyone who matters really bother to read the Telegraph? I honestly would rather have the Sun, because it doesn't pretend to be a serious paper, and of course page three is always worth a look. We should worry more about getting the Sun's endorsement, than fret about the pseudo-intellectuals at the Telegraph. Dave C. is doing a good job, which is why he is being attacked by non entities everywhere.

Cameron's speech deserves a critique but this ranting discredits the critique.

Message to Will Lewis: Get some grown up commentators!

Thanks for the link which I might otherwise have missed. You seem overly-sensitive, Tim. I have long found Cameron's effusions a mixture of the bizarre, the banal and the worrying.

This entry is more evidence that Tim Montgomery is sucking up to the Tory leadership.

Whatever you think about Heffer's intemperate tone, he has rumbled the principals-lite, vacuous, political class Cameron good and proper.

At least Heffer didn't beckon Tory MPs to give Blair a standing ovation.

Simon Heffer is now truly off his trolley.

"This entry is more evidence that Tim Montgomery is sucking up to the Tory leadership"

It's called loyalty, in the run up to an important election it's essential.I grow tired of all the sniping directed at D.C. Who is without a shadow of doubt the best leader we have had since Mrs T. Tim is doing what we should all do,ie working for the benefit of both the party and the nation.

I fail to see how Mr Heffer isn’t a very sad & bitter man anyhow! After all, having to look in the mirror each morning must leave a bitter taste in your mouth!

The Tories will win the next election, but the conservatives under the "all things to all men" banal, timid leadership of Cameron, will lose. We must hope that the leader of the Tories does not actually mean much of what he regurgitates, but it just is a means to an end.
My sympathies are with Heffer and with conservatives. My days of voting for the lesser of two evils are over; Britain will inherit what it deserves.

Why be surprised Tim? Heffer openly supports UKIP. He is opposed to the Conservative party and chooses instead to align with 2% of the voters.

He has in the past even praised Brown which shows how poor his judgement is!

"We must hope that the leader of the Tories does not actually mean much of what he regurgitates, but it just is a means to an end."

D.C. is P.R. Nuff said!

the man is wired to the moon. literally.

I have found for a year or so now that Wednesdays are much improved if you don't buy the Telegraph since Simon Heffer and the cadre of ex Daily Mail journos that came with him have dumbed the paper down.

I don't need Heffer to tell me that the Cameroon message is undeveloped and needs more depth. What is the alternative ? The conclusion I have come to is that Heffer actually wants and is campaigning for another five years of Brown and Labour. Perhaps that is how his newspaper's proprietors have instructed him ?

As anyone who works in the City can tell you; people who think that the model of capitalism we have lived under for the past twelve years is just fine are living in la la land. Does he really think that capitalism hasn't already been Sovietised ? He should walk down to the end of my street and talk to the small baker that is being suffocated by the Tesco Metro next door. Efficient markets at work ? Perhaps. But the baker that employs local people was open serving its community in the icy snows of Monday whereas the Tesco that drives in low paid immigrants from God knows where couldn't open.

There, he's working his malign influence again and getting me irritated. I shall take a good book tomorrow morning and ignore is increasingly poor newspaper. I'm reading "A Tale of the Tub and the Battle of the Books" by Jonathan Swift. Now there was a conservative who really knew how to write effectively.

For a change, a bit of mature analysis of a Simon Heffer article.

Cameron "People are angry with capitalism". True of course but it seems Heffer wants to keep his head in the sand. Thank heavens Cameron and not Heffer is protecting capitalism.

Cameron " Markets are a means to an end not an end in themselves." True for 95% of the population at least. You know, the voters.

Cameron "The devil is in the detail" Of course it is, time and again Heffer's favourite government messes up because it gets the detail wrong after the rhetoric. (Gordon's world saving bank bail out being a case in point though I never heard Heffer critisize it.)

Heffer "Sovietising capitalism" I suppose Heffer would have opposed legislation in the 1830s to stop shops selling sweets with poison in to kids.

Heffer, as usual bears little relation to realities. Frankly I honestly think he has psychological problems and rants against a Tory leader like a mixed up teenager rants against their parents. I assume the Telegraph employs him because they think they are competing with the Sun for simple minded readers.

On the other hand, Heffer has drawn attention to the speech which most of the media, of course, ignored. And most people reading Heffer's comments will like Cameron ever more.

Heffer is right and is too kind to Dozy Dave and Boy George. The Camerloons are unprincipled charlatans who will say anything to curry favour with the Guardianistas and BBC scum in the grubby pursuit.

They criticise Thatcher's record, reject free market capitalism and talk up Red Toryism at Marxist think tanks. It is Bullingdon Buffoons who are the immoral spivs who are destroying Conservatism is this country.

I am Better Off Out of the quisling Tory party under these leftist imposters. Unlike the Camerloon collaborators in Conservative Way Forward, I stayed loyal my Conservative principles rather than sell them out for a Parliamentary career.

The closer The Conservatives get to Office, the more the silly man rages at what he, as deluded as Brown, believes was his destiny.

What a curious post from Tim.

Heffer has been consistent in bemoaning the lack of any clear, gutsy vision from Cameron and wasting the opportunity of a lifetime.

I have no idea what Cameron would go to the baricades for other than playing a waiting game. I want more red meat as this country slowly abandons everything it ever stood for.

With Mary Riddell with her feet under the table at the Telegraph Heffer is one of the few to keep the faith.

Heffer is pretty pathetic. His very deep personal loathing of D Cameron shows through every time. The great unelected journalist lectures on business and politics. God save us. I stopped buying the telegraph because of his stupid ranting.

It is very arrogant and presumptious for Camerloon loyalists to demand the Heffer toes the Tory line.

Heffer has admitted that he supports UKIP so why should he betray his party and principles to get the Leader of an opposition party elected?

Why aren't the Camerloons demanding that Kevin Maguire or Polly Toynbee support Cameron unquestioningly?

Their demands of Simon Heffer are a form of thought policing - typical of the authoritarian Cammunism now called Red Toryism.

Cammunism - good one!

"So long as traditional capitalism has defenders as personally offensive as Simon Heffer - and it does need defenders - it really is in poor shape."

Tim, I agree totally with that comment.
But, sadly, I barely even check out the Three Line Whip anymore either. Iain Martin's last couple of posts regarding his fellow Scots were IMHO, downright offensive.

I'm amazed at the knocking given to Simon H. I have been in his company when he describes his existing Conservative MP as pretty good but, because of boundary changes, he is given (in SH's view, a pro eu candidiate) and he will not vote Conservative at the next GE.

While many may knock SH he is an authentic voice of Conservatism; please remember what we stand for rather than a watered down version of Blairism.

Well done Simon Heffer.

Contrary to what some "conservatives" are saying on this website; it is David Cameron and the "modern" Conservative Party that is utterly ridiculous.

Reading some of the comments above, it just goes to show you how far left the Conservative Party has moved. It is now a big government, high-tax, high-spend, statist, politically correct, pro-European, marketing machine. It is completely redundant as a political force and no longer has the guts to fight the ruling political establishment that have spent the past 40 years undermining this country. In fact, it now openly praises it and courts it's members; conversely Polly Toynbee and countless other weirdos from the Soviet Left now line up to praise Cameron's Conservative Party. It's beyond the bloody pale.

I do not support UKIP; they're a joke. I do not support the BNP; I do not believe in collectivism. I am a conservative; I have nowhere else to go except the Conservative Party and yet I have no faith in it at all.

I am a working-class lad under the age of 25 working bloody hard to net just over a grand a month. I haven't a hope in hell of getting on the property ladder (even now) and all the Conservative Party is concerned with is being inclusive of minorities and sounding nice and being green and not offending those on the far left who got us into the mess we're in.

Simon Heffer give em' bloody hell.

Anthony Scholefield is only partly right.

By neutering the Bank of England and transferring regulation to the infantile FSA the conditions were right for a disaster. This was fuelled by an everly relaxed monetary target of 2% on a gerry-mandered inflation measurement. What the BoE was not allowed to bear in mind, and politicians had no understanding or motivation to do so, were the twin dangers of asset (eg house) price inflation and the deflationary effect of Far Eastern goods prices.

Seems the outcome was genuinely a surprise to many.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Heffer is the offensive face of a party thankfully behind us. The Telegraph should wake up to this fact and sack him. He does not speak for any wing of the Conservative Party and underminds the role of the political journalist. I like many have stopped reading his pathetic rants long ago.

I thought real Conservatives were supposed to support freedom of speech and expression? Simon Heffer is entitled to his views and whilst sometimes his language is quite strong, most Telegraph readers are intelligent enough to differentiate fact from opinion.

Perhaps there are some Tories out there who think the Conservatives will win the next election because of Dave’s policies and leadership skills. The rest of us think the Conservatives will win simply because they are not Labour. It’s 1997 in reverse.

Cameron's not perfect, but almost single-handedly, he's ensuring a Conservative government after the next general election.
Hold your nose Heffer and be bloody grateful.

I'm sorry, but the Heffer has a point here. It is a good point, but it is not well made. David Cameron must not dump Capitalism simply because he thinks it may be unpopular in the University of Essex. Tough decisions will need to be made when David becomes PM, and he will need to do things which will be unpopular with the left to get the economy back on track.

Well said Essexboy. I read the Heffer article and can't for the life of me think why Montgomerie deems it "personally offensive". It's robust, but then what do you expect from a columnist? He is not (thank God) obliged to tow the Tory line.

The Telegraph's only saving grace these days is that every now and again Janet Daley pens an article for them.

Heffer is rather extreme sometimes but very often he does present the viewpoint of the ordinary Tory voter or activist a species that has been entirely marginalised and disenfranchised by the Hilton dominated Cameroon agenda. As such it is not surprising that he is angry, I'm angry too at the betrayal of all things conservative that is occurring as the leftist entryists continue on their so far successful mission to destroy conservatism from within.

And you know what, it isn't even working electorally since it is Labour's failure that is bringing Conservative poll gains not the raft of Blue Labour nonsense that passes for Conservative party policies these days.

I am as dismissive as Heffer is of the wet neo-Liberal Cameron, who appears to have only one merit in my view and that is he's NOT Gordon Brown.
Essexboy @2258 is right all through his piece especially "I do not support UKIP; they're a joke. I do not support the BNP; I do not believe in collectivism. I am a conservative; I have nowhere else to go except the Conservative Party and yet I have no faith in it at all." I have said this many times here too.

The man dithers over Europe and makes the party a laughing stock. He's bitten by the false propaganda of the Warmist Tendency and proposes to spend money we haven't got in curing Carboin ills we don't suffer from.. He talks philosophical blather in the middle of the greatest national crisis since 1940.

So Heffer goes OTT sometimes in his language, but - hell - this isn't an English essay exam. It's about time someone called a spade a b***y shovel.

More power to him - he';s more often right than wrong ande in this particular article I say 'Hear Hear' to every paragraph that Tim quotes here.

Tim - Simon Heffer has used critical, not rude, words about David Cameron. There IS a difference!

I agree with Adam.
Janet writes thought provoking articles, with a cutting edge, but sadly there are fewer people like that writing.

I still take the Telegraph, particularly on Sundays, and one or two other days, but rely more on the FT in the week as they cover very interesting subjects simply unreported atall elsewhere.

Folks I know it's late but can anyone really believe Mr Heffer is this angry.
Perhaps some of Mr Cameron's phrases are relatively vague because he's addressing a broad cross-section of people (you know, the British electorate).
After the election we will see the conservative coalition blossom.

All say together: We...can...do...nothing...in...opposition...

Heffer by name, useless "F"er by nature, if ever a person has a name that suits them to a tee, this man has it...

This is what the UK has become. I'm still waiting for one Conservative MP to show an ounce of nerve. Your children could be next.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14964

Heffer is entitled to his views, I don't generally agree with them though. As for the Telegraph sadly I stopped buying it as its a shadow of its former self. It declined about the same time Heffer came on board although he isn't the sole flaw in that paper.

I am a grass-rootless Conservative - where I live there is not a Tory MP within even Herculean spitting distance. We are stuck with a fairly faceless LibDem MP and a wonky LD council that could get overthrown by Labour in June because of the way that Brown's hegemony dishes out the money. From 1997, after years of voting LD tactically, I decided to vote Conservative even though they always come a poor third just to show I was on their side.

All we have ever had from the Hefferlump since David Cameron became party leader is vitriolic attacks because, in his opinion, "Dave" is not Conservative enough. Well, I have a message for "Si" - I want David Cameron to lead us into an emphatic general election victory over this terrible Labour government. Then, and only then, can we have the luxury of internal navel gazing about the "true" nature of Conservatism.

If Heffer can't understand this then I suggest he gets himself a job as a university lecturer so he can spout his 19th century brand of Conservatism to the few people with seven or more GCSEs who will listen to him. The rest of us are tiring of his tirades.

Heffer is not without intelligence (he has written several rather good books) but he is clearly emotionally unstable.

David Cameron's success has got under his skin to such a remarkable degree that he can't even mention the man without slipping into demented invective.

Someone should give him a bit of love.

To Simon Richards,

They may not be four letter words but "infantile"... "ignorant"... "all-things-to-all-men".... (I could go on) is still rude.

As I wrote at the end of the post: capitalism needs to be defended and I don't like Cameron's flirtation with so-called Red Toryism but there are ways of making an argument with it becoming personal. Heffer oversteps that line by some distance.

What would be the point of surfing Cameron into power when he's just going to leave us in the EU and be Obama's lapdog? Obama got into power by revealing very little of policy and the narrative of ending racism in USA politics along with base support. Cameron is copying Obama but he's posh, he doesn't have the same story as Obama that would make the country love him. He's sucking up to the Guardian and the BBC constantly. I liked Cameron at first but I expected more substance from him before having to cross a box for him. I'm looking forward to seeing if he has the courage to offer an unbreakable pledge on giving the UK a vote on major EU issues.

I can see that Heffer has touched a nerve with many wet Conservatives. Good job, Heffer! The Conservative Party needs a rethink.

Despite the nature of some of the criticism (personal and otherwise) "dumped" (to borrow Tim's term) on Heffer by some here, I am not sure whether it is what Heffer says,or how he says it that most upsets them. It is probably both. Good for Heffer I say. Many Tories will need more than a nerve touching before they wake up to the fact that this country needs more than the Cameroons presently have to offer to get it out of the mess it is in. Otherwise an incoming Tory government will be little more than a slow motion replay of Heath's disastrous government.

Look, at ever step of the way over the economic crisis Andrew Lilico has opposed Cameron and Osborne's economic plans and has been proven right.

The fact that Heffer does not feel any obligation to be charitable or polite in his criticism of Team Cameron's poor Red Tory decisions like Andrew has been, does not make him wrong.

Face it Tim, you know Cameron is going down the Red Tory/Blue Labour route, and it will be a disaster for Britain.

Cameron/Osborne's poor economic judgement leaves no confidence that they are the right people to clean up the mess after Labour.

@GB£

There are trends in Conservative thinking I don't like but there are ways of winning arguments by keeping channels open and there are ways of losing credibility by getting nasty. The Angry Right is an ugly thing.

Don't get worked up by Mr Heffer, he's just a newspaper columnist who wants to maintain a high profile and carry on earning a good living, and if the way to do that is to write "gritty" articles then that is what he will do.

Tim:
"They may not be four letter words but "infantile"... "ignorant"... "all-things-to-all-men".... (I could go on) is still rude."

Not sure I agree with you here, ignorant is patently untrue but infantile and all-things-to-all-men (note no women!) can be seen as objective comment.

Politics is a rough old game lets not get too precious about a few words.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but I read Simon as wanting to restore the values that Labour has cast aside over the past 11 years - sound money, freedom to act independantly of the eu etc.

Heffer is a national treasure. One may not always agree with what he has to say, but he is the last of a dying breed.

He is an opinion former and thus is fully entitled to his point of view.

Whilst I support the broad thrust of Cameron's tenure as leader of the Conservative Party, he does not deserve a free ride bereft of scrutiny.

"The Angry Right is an ugly thing

Give me ugly and right over pretty but wrong every day of the week.

To Tim Montgomerie in response to his comment to Simon Richards.

It was Cameron who got personal with Simon Heffer and The Freedom Association. It was Cameron who banned Better Off signatories from the frontbench and standing as PPCs. Yet supporters of Euro membership and the Lisbon Treaty, especially Clarke and Gummer, are welcome on the frontbench, chair policy group and can stand in key target seats. That's shows where Cameron really stands on the EU.

It is little wonder that many in the Freedom Association have little time for Camerloon factionalism. I was a victim and left the Tories. Three years later I am still getting letters begging me to come back and donate. They are desperate for money but who wants to fund Cammunism?

I no longer read anything Heffer writes. If they were written by hand, they'd be in green ink. But perhaps it would be better to complain to the Telegraph, as well? No doubt it pays him generously for such a prominent column. By giving him such a prominent article, there is a risk that other carpet chewers out there will think this is a normal point of view.

To have someone who is consistently wrong on every issue - reverse indicators - is incredibly useful in any line of business. So when a reverse indicator says eg this is the moment to invest in China, you know it's time to exit China fast.

Simon Heffer occupies this role for us in politics. So long as he continues to slate the 'not Conservatives' I know we're on the right track.

The really worrying day will be when he suddenly announces we have a good leader, good policies and deserve to win the election.

@Richard:

I think there may be a lot of truth to Simon Heffer's arguments for capitalism. My concern is that he goes OTT and discredits the causes he seeks to uphold.

GB£.com
"Face it Tim, you know Cameron is going down the Red Tory/Blue Labour route, and it will be a disaster for Britain"

Do you understand what Red Toryism is? Or are you simply appalled by the seeming mixing of philosophy that it suggests?
The reality is that there has not been a Tory administration since WW2, that wasn't at heart Red-Tory.

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

Is worth a read, and points out the fundamental difference between the British and Canadian types of Red-Toryism.

The One Nation and "allowing the little man to participate in the economy", as well as support for the Welfare State are essentially Red Tory concepts which almost all of us embrace to some degree.

Editor,

I suggest you overwrite GB£'s last comment for sexism unless he confirms immediately that he was talking about men AND women.

Thank you.

Good to see such a reaction - sadly alot of what Heffer writes is correct. It worries me that we shall get another half-baked Heath-like conservative government. I hope and pray that we have more intellectual rigour. Most of the posts critical of Heffer have not addressed the issues he raises. A gentle reminder that it was not that long ago that the Shadow team could only offer 'sharing the proceeds of growth' rather than being ahead of the curve and identifying as number of us had, the problems that were going to hit the UK.

As John Redwood has written and I quote ' Mr Blair’s success in speaking for the public mood caused the Conservatives no end of trouble for the first five years or so of this government. I remember being a lonely voice behind the scenes arguing to the Opposition that it was no use our trying to do what Mr Blair did. If we spent money on polls and focus groups they would tell us that we were living in a Britain where the public liked their PM and believed in the lines that were being trotted out by Number 10. Of course they did, because those lines from Number 10 were informed by their polling to find out what people thought!

It was a nonsensical circular loop, which could only in the end work if the government walked the walk as well as talked the talk. If they did what they said and it worked the Conservatives would continue to lose. If, as I thought, the government failed to deliver the better world it said it was creating, the Opposition would win in due course. Opposition needed to highlight the mistakes, warn about problems ahead, and show it was different from the public mood. One example of an early disagreement was over Bank of England “independence”. The leadership told me correctly that people believed the government when they said they were making the Bank independent, and it was popular. I said that may be so but it was not true and would end in tears.

Sometimes in Opposition politics leadership comes from telling the public something they do not yet believe or even want to hear. Always in government successful leadership requires not just winning the immediate battle of the sound-bites, but making the recommended action and making sure it works.

George Osborne’s decision to oppose the VAT reduction was an important moment in modern British politics. It was decisive rejection of what could have been a popular government move. Because it was right, public opinion followed the Opposition’s move. It has been followed up by the Opposition rightly pointing out that the government is spending and borrowing too much. The government’s sound-bites about the global crisis, and doing something, may suit the focus groups, but they will not save them. What matters is what the government does and whether it works.'
So at least more recently GO and team have made a step in the right direction, but we need to offer a more rigourous alternative of how we operate even if in general terms.

Everything that Heffer says is undeniably correct, hence the vitriol from the Cammunists (I like it) on here.
Cameron's speech seems to be addressing swing voters in Lib Dem marginals, as ever.
Looks like the SDP-entryists in the Conservatives are the party's Militant Tendency.

he Cameron speech was - in my opinion at the time - so vacuous and lacking in content that I only gave a brief mention in my own list mailings. On reflection it would seem I was wrong. The speech was dangerous , shallow and designed to appeal to the unthinking, those with a mass of ingrained prejudices.

I am glad therefore, that Heffer has pulled it to pieces. His style is often not to the taste of many, especially to those who don’t like controversy, but here it is measured and important. There is nothing OTT about it at all. Tim's attack was unjustified.

It would seem that we will be asked to choose at an election between two parties - one that has wrecked our economy and one that proposes to wreck what’s left of it! What a choice! You can see why people flirt with the extreme BNP - it’s desperation.

The chaps at the 19th are very much of the view that Heffer reflects the feelings of true Brits. Thank God the Telegraph has a few big hitters - Heffer, Randall and Janet Daley.
The country faces massive problems which will not be solved by wet Tories.

Simon Heffer could not be more correct. The hysterical reaction of some Cameron supporters underlines this - they can't take the criticism and even less hate to hear the truth. There is now no party that a true Conservative can honestly vote for in any forthcoming election. The choice is only between New Labour or Newer Labour, both show their socialist origins only too clearly.

You don’t win an argument about someone being rude by being ruder yourselves! Perhaps DC winds Heffer up as much as he seems to wind many of you up.

Examples: “Heffer is a circus act. 20:47, I think he has lost touch with reality. 20:47, Heffer is utterly vile - but not taken seriously by mature adults! 20:53, Simon Heffer is now truly off his trolley. 21:30, I fail to see how Mr Heffer isn’t a very sad & bitter man anyhow! After all, having to look in the mirror each morning must leave a bitter taste in your mouth! 21:53, the man is wired to the moon. Literally 21:43, Frankly I honestly think he (SH) has psychological problems and rants against a Tory leader like a mixed up teenager rants against their parents. I assume the Telegraph employs him because they think they are competing with the Sun for simple minded readers. 21:53, Heffer is pretty pathetic. 22:19 Heffer by name, useless "F"er by nature, if ever a person has a name that suits them to a tee, this man has it..00:28. Hefferlump 01:13, Heffer is not without intelligence (he has written several rather good books) but he is clearly emotionally unstable.01:20.”

Tim 08:01 you say “There are trends in Conservative thinking I don't like but there are ways of winning arguments by keeping channels open and there are ways of losing credibility by getting nasty. The Angry Right is an ugly thing too”.

The Angry Centre is an ugly thing too Tim!

My Nan always said "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar".

A little bird has told me that the reason Heffer has such a grudge against Boris is not that he has problems with his personality or policies (what he wrote in that infamous column were probably excuses to himself) but because he was passed over for the editorship of the Spectator by Conrad Black who gave the editorship to Boris. He was similarly outraged when Black didnt fire Boris for running for Parliament, something Boris promised not to do.

heffer not usually right is right on cameron's pathetic davos speech , it was an attack on capitalism , not a defence of capitalism as it should have been

"Simon Heffer could not be more correct. The hysterical reaction of some Cameron supporters underlines this - they can't take the criticism and even less hate to hear the truth. There is now no party that a true Conservative can honestly vote for in any forthcoming election. The choice is only between New Labour or Newer Labour, both show their socialist origins only too clearly."

No true conservative party to vote for and of course no true Labour Party. The Lib-Dem's' are not liberals or democrats.The BNP are simply not right wing enough.UKIP are way to into Europe to be taken seriously. The Communists are not Communist enough.
Don't vote, Because there is no party that you can support, they are all sell-outs.
A bit like the exclusive plymouth brethren, it seems everyone is wrong except we three.

I find Simon Heffer very useful.

I keep some of his articles, I show them to local Conservative activists, and tell them "Never, never, say or write anything that sounds like this".

"a-tracy

My Nan always said "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"."

Your Nan is a very wise woman indeed.

I have now looked up Max Hasting's view on Simon Heffer :-

"I have always felt that Simon's talents would have yielded him greater rewards, had he been willing to test prejudice, an armoury of implacably held opinions, against some contact with the humbler realities of human affairs."

He has certainly ruffled a few feathers here and no doubt David Cameron & Co wish he would go away, but it`s not going to happen.

Heffer is not always right, but I think he is on this occasion.

@12.01 - to take your comment more seriously than perhaps it deserves, what is the point of voting for any party which no longer shares and defends the interests of its core supporters? I repeat there is now no party which reflects Conservative thinking and philosophy. For whom should a Conservative vote in these circumstances ? The other rag tag and bobtail you mention are just irrelevant to a Tory supporter and to support Cameron will just encourage him on his march to the left.
To an earlier comment - the words Simon Heffer used might be offensive, although not four letter ones, but they are nevertheless very true unfortunately and aptly describe the man.

JS, I think I took your comment far to seriously. It's quite obvious that you are disaffected "I repeat there is now no party which reflects Conservative thinking and philosophy." Which is exactly the complaint we get about the Labour party from the SWP or the Conservative party from UKIP. D.C. is no more a left winger than Boris is. When did being sensible and pragmatic become the same thing as being a communist. D.C. is a P.R. specialist, NU-labour has been in power for far to long and have imposed their PC thinking on everyone of us.
For now the important thing is for "Dave" to woo the "people". We cannot win the next election with a rabid right wing manifesto, it will not work. Neither can we win the next election by pandering only to the very small number of far right extremists who still cling to outdated dogmas for their own sake.
To cap it all we cannot win a sizable majority without appealing to the vast number of people who are either of the centre or to its right. Do you really belive that when we are in power we will be a socialist party? Of course not, we will be right of centre. Would you prefer we stay in opposition for ever? It might well be that under those circumstances we could represent the views of just the most Conservative. This kind of sniping against Dave that so many people indulge in may well make them feel superior, but it undermines our leader which in its self is not a Conservative thing to do, now is it? To win a landslide we have to become an inclusive right of centre party, there is no other way.

Personally,I think Heffer is a baffoon. Not because I disagree with his petulant rantings, but because in spite of being no doubt intellectually clever, is one of those rather sad individuals who is, rather like Mr. Toad or Gordon Brown, incredibly vain and faintly ridiculous.

This is most typified by a very strange desire (possibly due to some childhood or youthful disappointment) to make out he is much older than he is. Best examples of this are his references to periods of recent history as though he remembers them (such as the Premiership Alec Douglas Home)when he is simply not old enough to do so (he is only 48!!); and his deliberate old fashioned terminology not used by people of his age, such as "the wireless". Basically he is a sad and disappointed wierdo, and therefore highly suited to UKIP. The UKIP trolls on here are welcome to him

Personally,I think Heffer is a baffoon. Not because I disagree with his petulant rantings, but because in spite of being no doubt intellectually clever, is one of those rather sad individuals who is, rather like Mr. Toad or Gordon Brown, incredibly vain and faintly ridiculous.

This is most typified by a very strange desire (possibly due to some childhood or youthful disappointment) to make out he is much older than he is. Best examples of this are his references to periods of recent history as though he remembers them (such as the Premiership Alec Douglas Home)when he is simply not old enough to do so (he is only 48!!); and his deliberate old fashioned terminology not used by people of his age, such as "the wireless". Basically he is a sad and disappointed wierdo, and therefore highly suited to UKIP. The UKIP trolls on here are welcome to him

Give me ugly and right over pretty but wrong every day of the week.

Spot on. Heffer has some valuable things to say and he articulates the concerns of the Tory Right with passion.

@16.37 - I'm afraid we must agree to differ. Let me assure you that I am far from a right wing extremist (I support our membership of the EU 100%).However for me you have blown your argument when you say 'D.C. is a P.R specialist.' That phrase encapsulates everything that is wrong with Cameron. No depth, no substance, no principles - except the pursuit of power, the childish longing to be all things to all men and to be blindly led by the nose by public opinion and focus groups. Absolutely the same as Blair in fact. A real leader leads from the front and has the power of true convictions and his own ideas. That is what the country wants and needs so badly at the present time and that is exactly the choice the country does not have at the moment. I may be short sighted in your opinion, perhaps I am, but at least, unlike Cameron, I am true to Conservative principles, philosophy and beliefs. I am afraid I could never vote for anything but a Conservative party - alas that option is not, for the time being, open to me. I understand you'll violently disagree with me and I respect your view that this approach is not pragmatic but at least its honest. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the present dreadful Government shot out of office but if its just to replace it with more of the same what's the point ?

Simon Heffer is honest enough to say that Dave is not the answer for the Tory party.

Such a shame we didn't get David Davis as leader.

In which Case Js, isn't the reality that you do not want him to be your leader, in which case your agitation marks you out as no longer a party member. I can assure you, not because I know Dave (I do not) but I have spent time with one senior Tory in this Shadow cabinet, you are labouring under a number of misimpressions and I suppose I can relate to that. This shadow cabinet may well be the most right wing we have seen in a generation. “Dave” is a project, if you will. Maybe you do not agree with our strategy, or our morality, you are free to go. We cannot and will not lurch Britain overnight into a rightist state, it’s dangerous and it would stress the “people” beyond breaking in far to many cases. However to imagine that we are no longer conservative or have a traditional agenda is just wrong. Nothing has fundamentally changed. the One Nation has come home, that should not be a problem to you. We don’t want to turn Britain into a nut hatch. The real danger is that by the time we get the bank balance Comrade Brown will have spent the lot. Reality Check time, there are but a handful of people who can run Britain, Comrade Brown, Thick Nick or “Dave”, now it happens that the only right winger in the bunch is Comrade Brown who is a pinkie.
Having shifted the ground that far, it might appear that our boy is having to play much the same slight of hand. Well at least that is how its being sold right now. I don’t believe that our Eton educated wiz kid isn’t a winner, I know he is a winner. Js if you want the conservatives to win you must vote for him, there is no alternative. Boris is always in the sidelines for later on.

Heffer is right to warn about David Cameron's deviation from traditional capitalism.

In order to achieve anything worthwhile once in power, conservative parties need to hold fast to basic, classical liberal truths about markets, competition and free enterprise.

We know what the consequences are when conservative parties reject liberal free markets in favour of superficial, fashionable ideas.

Thatcher and Reagan embraced classical liberalism and were partly successful in reducing the scope of the State.

Those like Heath, Nixon, or George W Bush who abandoned small government in favour of Keynesianism or "big government conservatism" ultimately lacked any sense of direction on economic matters, and succeeded only in storing up problems for the future.

Robert Eve @18.36.I totally agree with every word od your post.

RossW[email protected] - you are right, I am no longer a member of the party but am, as I have always been and always will be, a Conservative supporter. Even, a long time ago now, when I was in active politics and a party member, I never agreed to any action being taken merely to gather votes. That is cynical and treating the public as fools. The modern tendency to do that is the prime reason why politicians are held now in the lowest public esteem. Produce the right policies and electoral support will follow. If you think this shadow cabinet is one of the most right wing we have had then it is clear you haven't been following politics very long. (God save us from a left wing one as well!) Cameron might be a winner but if so it will only be because of the increasingly complete and utter incompetence of Labour and not because of any merit of the present opposition. I agree with you that there is no one who inspires any confidence whatsoever across the whole political horizon at the moment - perhaps things have to get much worse before a real leader, a Churchill or a Thatcher perhaps, emerges. I'm afraid abstention is the only course if one wants to hasten that day. In the meantime the mind despairs !

"Looks like the SDP-entryists in the Conservatives are the party's Militant Tendency.

Posted by: Geoff Middleton | February 04, 2009 at 11:04"

Entryists like

Greg "Toynbee" Clark
David "useless" Mundell
Danny "inverse Midas" Finkelstein
Andy "Populus" Cooper
Rick "Sweaty" Nye

who scrwed up William Hague's leadership and are now Camerloonies.

Heffer is of course quite right. I do wonder slightly if Tim secretly agrees with some of the article and is condemning it in order to further publicise it, or engender debate, but that is perhaps too Machiavellian.

Dear Concerned Reader Henry @ 10:29 - don't worry on my account, I wasn't remotely upset by GB£.com's comment!
I have to say however, that it might be possible to be pretty AND right mightn't it?

Geoff Middleton - actually we DO have a "Militant Tendency" in our Party - but it's not the ones described as SDP-entryists - it's the BOOs and the borderline UKIPPERS!

Even though I do not always agree with what he writes and find his grim writing style rather depressing I do read most of Heffer's articles.
With David Cameron it is obviously personal for Heffer (I understand it's a dislike fully reciprocated by Cameron)and I think it clouds his already suspect judgement.
I think we on Conservative Home probably overestimate the power of journalists. I suspect those who read people like Polly Toynbee or Simon Heffer have made up their minds already.

Malcolm Dunn is probably right about people having already made up their minds.

I do believe, however, that Heffer would come out in support of Mr. Cameron if he gave us some real Conservative policies for a change. Not much hope of that I`m afraid, it`s the Blue Labour party now.

Simon Heffer is honest enough to say that Dave is not the answer for the Tory party.

Such a shame we didn't get David Davis as leader.

Posted by: Robert Eve | February 04, 2009 at 18:36

David Davis? Do you mean the Maastricht Treaty Enforcer (Chief Whip); the man now mounted on his white charger (a donkey) and is now complaining about the alleged treaty of a "British subject"in Git Bay; the man who dismisses the advice of the head of the Anti-terrorist Squad.
If he is your idea of a Conservative no wonder there are so many anti - comments above. Do us a favour.

What shall we do with Simon Heffer?

Does anyone know a good veal recipe?

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker