Former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, John O'Sullivan, has written a piece for The National Review about David Cameron's Conservatives. He contends that a lack of policy seriousness explains the hesitant nature of Tory support:
"Barring miracles, Cameron will be the next prime minister — handed victory by the sheer scale of Brown’s failure rather than as a result of confidence in the opposition. Why is there no enthusiasm for the Tories? Why have they actually lost their polling gains of last year? There are many possible answers, but the one that knits them all together is that the voters sense something not quite serious about the Cameron Tories. They share responsibility for the crisis because, like Labour, they assumed prosperity would continue forever. They went so far as to adopt Brown’s budgetary policies essentially as an exercise in political positioning and conflict avoidance. Even where they differed from Labour, as on Europe and immigration, they cannot benefit from the failures of government policy because they decided to downplay controversial issues. They avoided deciding matters that divided them internally, in particular foreign policy, so that open rows are now breaking out between Cameron’s senior colleagues over Iraq and Gaza. And across the spectrum they selected policies on the basis of their popularity with media liberals rather than because they would solve or ameliorate problems. In short, they abandoned a broadly coherent post-Thatcherite conservatism without having any clear idea of what might replace it. They are today ideologically and psychologically directionless. They hesitate and wobble indecisively even on so clear an issue of principle as free speech in the Geert Wilders controversy. They need something to believe in — so they flounder after silly ideological novelties, as in their recent flirtation with an interventionist “Red Toryism."
Read the full article here.
Monday 2nd March: Daniel Finkelstein has posted an open letter to John O'Sullivan, questioning his analysis.
I largely agree. Cameron's motto is "What would an opportunist do?"
I'd much rather see a proper right-wing alternative to Labour at the next election, so people know what they are getting. Does anyone have any idea what policies Cameron and Co will follow in their first term? It could be anything. I'm concerned that they will run around like headless chickens.
Posted by: resident leftie | February 27, 2009 at 16:23
A couple of points. There wasn't a government of whatever hue anywhere in the world who predicted the current economic meltdown.Equally there are none who have come up with a tangible plan to combat it.
It is also wishful thinking on John O'sullivans part to say that 'open rows are breaking out over Iraq and Gaza'. Really? Between whom?
And what was the recent flirtation with Red Toryism? How has that manifested itself? A figment of his imagination I suspect.
This article does nothing to further the interests of the Conservative Party which unlike the 'broadly coherent Thatcherism'of which he's so fond (which led to three stonking defeats) is now firmly ahead in the polls.
To achieve anything we must be elected.A fact which John O'sullivan appears to have forgotten. I would have expexcted far,far more from such a man.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 27, 2009 at 16:24
Red Toryism - is that Simlar to BluLabour?
What a shame this chap is probably right and a Conservative in name only government will be elected with power handed to the EU making parliament a piontless but very expensive talking shop and the country overun with EU and non EU nationals, some of whom will no doubt try to blow the rest of us up or trot off to Afganistan to kill what's left of our underfunded and overstreched army. Welcome to the brave new world of BluLabour. Vote Blue - Stay Red!
Posted by: Conspiracy | February 27, 2009 at 16:24
Ironic that he describes "the Tories’ current nightmare of staring into the prospect of failure because you copied other people’s mistakes" and yet completely misses the point that the Tories biggest policy failure of the last 12 years was copying the government's policy on Iraq!
But I guess that wouldn't suit his agenda!
Posted by: Rugg | February 27, 2009 at 16:24
The fact that someone who dislikes the Conservative Party as 'resident leftie' does, agrees with O'sullivan makes my point perfectly.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 27, 2009 at 16:26
What an incredibly unhelpful article! It was clear that after our crushing defeat in 1997 and further defeats in 2001 and 2005 the Party needed to modernise the find the Centre Ground and this is what has successfully been done under David Cameron, thus providing us with a very real chance of forming the next Government - perhaps by this time next year! Those who would drag this Party further to the Right should remember that this was tried in 2001 and 2005 and failed to make an impact (though in 2005 we did begin to make real progress in winning back seats. I disagree entirely that the Conservatives are not being taken "seriously" - on the contrary, the Party is being taken more seriously amongst people who would never ever have contemplated voting for us in the past than ever before. In Hammersmith we are finding Conservatives in wards which once would have been no-go areas for us and I am sure the same is true of other constituencies.
As for
"They avoided deciding matters that divided them internally, in particular foreign policy, so that open rows are now breaking out between Cameron’s senior colleagues over Iraq and Gaza. "
This is a disgraceful statement. How can the writer substantiate it? If he has proof then it is clear he has been party to leaks or breaches of confidence and if that is the case, who provided the information?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 16:29
John O'Sullivan is right. Cameron is winning because of the failure of Labour. I do not know a single person who is excited by Cameron becoming Prime Minister.
Posted by: Phyllis Crash | February 27, 2009 at 16:30
"I do not know a single person who is excited by Cameron becoming Prime Minister."
Could I suggest, then Phyllis that you meet some Conservatives? You'd be most welcome at one of our Events any time!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 16:37
There is something in what O'Sullivan says. There can be no doubt that the Labour Government is heading for a comprehensive defeat. As a non-Conservative, I can see that they are extremely well-positioned to win. This said, there is very little enthusiasm for Cameron's Conservatives as there was for Blair and New Labour in 1997. I remain firmly of the view that if there was a 'None of the Above' on the ballot paper at the GE, it would secure a very healthy level of support.
To some degree, the disillusionment is down to a vacuity / opportunistic tendency at the heart of Cameronism. But there's also a very significant element that the Great British public doesn't really think any political party knows what it's doing. As Malcolm Dunn points out, no-one truly foresaw what has happened economically and equally no-one seems to have a credible answer.
Posted by: Mark Hudson | February 27, 2009 at 16:38
Mr O'Sullivan is correct.
There is no strength of purpose or clarity of vision from the Cameroons.
Just clever but vacuous soundbites. Red Toryism. Hug a hoodie. General Well Being.
I have no confidence in Labour but little confidence that a team of Notting Hillbillies who have done nothing grown up in their lives can fix things.
Posted by: Nelly in debt | February 27, 2009 at 16:41
"Former advisor to Margaret Thatcher"
Who, of course, won in 1979 due to disgust with Labour, rather than any positive endorsement of her.......
Posted by: David | February 27, 2009 at 16:42
I agree 100% with Malcolm Dunn and Sally Roberts. Hasn't this nostalgia for Thatcherism delivered enough electoral carnage?!
Posted by: Johnny Kidney | February 27, 2009 at 16:43
"They cannot benefit from the failures of government policy because they decided to downplay controversial issues."
Much as I like Michael Howard, his prominent positioning of issues such as immigration and illegal gypsy camps hardly did us any great favours, so why would it now? Indeed most agree that it actually alienated a lot of voters in the centre. Cameron needs to win their votes so he is understandably hesitant to bang on about these issues. It makes sense.
Posted by: MrB | February 27, 2009 at 16:44
Other than the minor point that it's National Review (no definite article), spot on stuff. As for the risible claim that 'Thatcherism' led to three stonking defeats, that will come as news to a.) Mrs Thatcher (entirely undefeated) b.) John Major (hardly acclaimed by Thatcherites for the Thatcherism of his government, or 1997 election-losing manifesto) c.) Michael Howard (mod-ishly advised by Dave et al, and explictly unThatcherite) & d.) anyone older than 12, or, not hysterically, rabidly 'loyal' who can actually remember William Hague in 2001 (hint: shadow chancellor - Michael Portillo; further hint: shadow foreign secretary - Francis Maude).
Posted by: ACT | February 27, 2009 at 16:46
O'Sullivan stikes me as the sort of fool rightwingers have to put up with like Simon Heffer. He just sprays anti Cameroon insults around, that he has to invent some "facts" out of thin air demonstrates his lack of seriousness. It is also worth repeating the main point from the last election that voters liked our policies until they heard they were ours; I would suggest that it is because they heard the vindictive and ignorant nonsence of the likes of O'Sullivan and Heffer and thought they had better vote for a party not influenced by such buffoons.
Posted by: David Sergeant | February 27, 2009 at 16:51
I'm afraid John O'Sullivan might be good at policy, but he's not very good at politics.
The Conservative party has spent the last three years re-building its policy platform from scratch. Extensive reviews of all major areas were undertaken, often involving many outside interests and a lot of thought and consideration has gone into drawing up detailed proposals based on the findings of those reviews.
This takes time. The Cities Taskforce which I worked on concluded its work in 2007. Only this month did the party produce its blueprint for local government.
The party has announced one of the most radical shifts in education policy since Crosland got his way and took the wrecking ball to the Grammar Schools. They have set out other "direction of travel" statements on many other policy areas - welfare, immigration, prisons and energy spring to mind - admittedly with less detail, but why give our opponents ammunition to fire back at us and which might look undeliverable in the light of events or be stolen, repackaged and represented as their own by Labour?
The election will be on 10 June 2010, the last possible legal date Brown can hang on until. To publicly set out detailed proposals at this stage would be foolish. That's not to sat Maude's team is not hard at work behind the scenes on the detail, it is just sensible politics
Posted by: John Moss | February 27, 2009 at 16:57
I largely agree with the article too.
Posted by: Iain | February 27, 2009 at 16:57
"A couple of points. There wasn't a government of whatever hue anywhere in the world who predicted the current economic meltdown"
Malcolm Dunn, may be not a Government , but it was being predicted on this message board by a few of us who used to be called Conservatives, but now politically homeless, I suppose you would just call us right wingers now.
Posted by: Iain | February 27, 2009 at 17:00
"There wasn't a government of whatever hue anywhere in the world who predicted the current economic meltdown."
There were plenty of economists who saw it coming though. I'm not an economist but even I could see a credit-fuelled boom was going to collapse.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 27, 2009 at 17:10
"Those who would drag this Party further to the Right should remember that this was tried in 2001 and 2005 and failed to make an impact"
I don't know about 2001 what opinion polls during the 2005 campaign showed Conservative policies to be popular. It was the Conservative brand that was rejected rather than specific policy proposals. There was also a lack of balance e.g. too much emphasis on limiting immigration (which was popular and an important concern of the electorate but not enough to win us the election).
Posted by: RichardJ | February 27, 2009 at 17:14
I hope Cameron is 'bothered' by these valid words.
Posted by: michael mcgough | February 27, 2009 at 17:20
"It was the Conservative brand that was rejected rather than specific policy proposals."
I think this is probably true and that is why things began to change dramatically once we had a truly modernising leader.
You are right to mention the immigration issue and this I am afraid was the "nail in the coffin" as far as the 2005 Election was concerned. I remember talking to people who in general were amenable to hearing what we had to say but thought our views on immigration were unreconstructed and hardline. It was a matter of style rather than substance but nevertheless it labelled us as "same old Tories". I remember travelling on the District Line and seeing advertisements put out by a local firm of immigration solicitors which exploited the theme very effectively and I am sure lost us a great many votes.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 17:22
@Iain February 27, 2009 at 17:00
Didn't Howard Flight predict this economic mess?
Posted by: Onnalee | February 27, 2009 at 17:28
oh how wrong you all are if there is one idea tat killed conservatism it was Thatcheism. wwhat tis guy fogets is tht the market has its limits hence red toryism
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 17:30
I have said it before and I will say it once more. David Cameron will be PM for 1 year or less. The real motive behind 'Cameron' being leader was to modernise the party and he is doing this with some degree of success. Once he is elected he will be hounded out very quickly so that a real Tory leader can take over the party. David Cameron is less of a Tory than Gordon Brown is.
Posted by: josh | February 27, 2009 at 17:31
Malcolm Dunn, may be not a Government , but "it was being predicted on this message board by a few of us who used to be called Conservatives,"
Posted by: Iain | February 27, 2009 at
17:00
Sorry Iain, you and Malcolm Dunn, and the rest, did not predict it, all you did was make vapid anti-Cameron insults and "demanded" tax cuts willy-nilly without, of course, identifying the savings and ignoring why we lost three elections.
Posted by: David Sergeant | February 27, 2009 at 17:31
"Sorry Iain, you and Malcolm Dunn, and the rest, did not predict it, all you did was make vapid anti-Cameron insults and "demanded" tax cuts willy-nilly without, of course, identifying the savings and ignoring why we lost three elections."
Absolutely right, David Sergeant. As for josh's comment - I am afraid that is one of the barmiest conspiracy theories I have heard for quite a while! Are you really suggesting that the Conservative Party will show its gratitude to David Cameron for leading us into Government that within a year it will have knifed him in the back? In your dreams, josh, in your dreams...
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 17:37
Really Iain?Please point me to any posts anywhere on this board that accurately predicted the credit crunch or banking crisis. I've followed this board closely since its inception and cannot remember one.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 27, 2009 at 17:39
John O'Sullivan is spot on. Mr Cameron has long been obsessed with his acceptability with the liberal media. He has ached to have his party seen as "nice" and so has studiously avoided grappling with fundamental issues like the EU and uncontrolled immigration. Such a timorous, devious attitude may be acceptable to ra-ra metropolitan "conservatives" but it repels the broader conservative constituency.
Posted by: John Coles | February 27, 2009 at 17:39
There comes a point when you have to stop trying to put a fire out with cups of water and just stand back and admire the blaze.
Believe me, anything I could write in agreement with this bloke's views on the destruction of the Conservative Party and conservative Britain would bore me this afternoon as much as it would bore you.
Rock on Red Tories! It's all yours.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | February 27, 2009 at 17:42
Think you've got the wrong bloke David Seargant. I don't criticise DC very often and never, I hope, vapidly.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 27, 2009 at 17:43
Henry, we Tories Rock! You'd better believe it...
Posted by: Sally Roberts - Red-Blooded but Very Blue Tory! | February 27, 2009 at 17:47
haha it's quite sweet that you are that naive SR.
Posted by: josh | February 27, 2009 at 17:47
Touched you think so josh :-) I hate to rain on your parade but it's not going to happen.
Posted by: Sally Roberts - Red-Blooded but Very Blue Tory! | February 27, 2009 at 17:48
It really wouldn't bother me if it did or not. It is what I believe.
Posted by: josh | February 27, 2009 at 17:50
I've got a headache.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | February 27, 2009 at 17:51
josh, you believe what you like if it makes you happy! The fact is that the Conservatives are hardly going to get rid of a leader who has just won them an Election! Why on earth would they suddenly decide to ditch the policies that had just proved so successful in favour of reverting to ones which might then at the next Election consign them to the wilderness for the next ten years or so? I think what you are doing is finding yourself a little crumb of comfort to cling on to - a security blanket even!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 17:53
It's all that heavy rock you're clearly listening to Henry! Go and pour yourself a large drink.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 17:54
Can we get back to the subject please?!
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | February 27, 2009 at 17:56
I'm delighted that my piece aroused such strong reactions for and against. Obviously I prefer the favorable criticisms to the hostile ones, but I drew something from all of them, even if only the necessity to make one's meaning unmistakably clear.
May I make one suggestion, however. Some of the points levelled against my case are in fact considered and examined in the full article (to which Tim linked.) I don't claim that reading it will necessarily convert my critics, nor (to quote F.E. Smith) make them any the wiser, but perhaps better informed.
Posted by: John O'Sullivan | February 27, 2009 at 17:59
Oh josh, not that old "14 pints" chestnut again!! I am beginning to wonder if you have been downing 14 pints yourself today? David Cameron and his team are adults. They have adult discussions and they resolve matters. That is hardly being "bullied" as you put it. They are not "The Bash Street Kids"!
Can I suggest that you stop reading the Beano and perhaps start reading broadsheet newspapers instead? ;-)
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 17:59
OFF TOPIC COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.
Posted by: josh | February 27, 2009 at 18:00
Sorry Tim! :-(
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 18:00
Sally,
I read every single broadsheet every day for a start. And as for the '14 pints' tag. It was he who said it in an attempt to be seen as credible. That worked didn't it?
Anyway Tim says we better get back on topic. We don't want the thought police kicking down the door heheh.
Posted by: josh | February 27, 2009 at 18:02
Quite right, josh! Let's be sensible.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 27, 2009 at 18:06
The headline doesn't quite reflect what O'Sullivan said, does it? "Voters sense something not quite serious about the Cameron Tories" is rather different to 'Cameron's Conservatives aren't serious'. O'Sullivan makes good points. An awful lot of people are disaffected with the Conservatives. The most recent poll shows that voters are going elsewhere because they don't feel their opinions are being taken seriously and that the Conservatives don't represent enough of an alternative to the mainstream. Agreeing wholeheartedly with the government's fiscal stimulus is a case in point and has created huge anger amongst the population. Ditto immigration, the EU and transformation of a once-civilised nation into a police state. 'Red Toryism' and 'progressive Conservatism' were both heavily debated on this site about a month ago: the majority consensus was against this attempt to appeal to liberals in order to gain more votes by taking upon their principles. And their failure to support Geert Wilders was absolutely abominable. In order to succeed and win back voters, a strong, clear and above all uncompromising line needs to be taken on the issues mentioned above.
Posted by: Mara MacSeoinin | February 27, 2009 at 18:10
This is all hindsight.
Cameron has brought the Party back from the precipice, think now what a disaster David Davis would have been.( and I nearly supported him !)
Sure they have made some mistakes, but nothing terminal, and they are in a strong position to come forward with credible policies to deal with the unprecedented financial crisis that has now engulfed us
Posted by: Richard Calhoun | February 27, 2009 at 18:17
All those who actually campaigned in 2001 and 2005 will remember that Tory polices were actually very popular, but the electorate still hadn’t stopped disliking them and were still taken in by Blair and his spin machine. Now there is something of a role reversal, where Labour are disliked and the Tory spin machine has convinced enough of the electorate that they are now nice enough to vote for. Ironically when people do vote for them there polices will be similar enough to NuLabs to mean the only thing that will be different will be who is cocking them up. So Vote Blue – Stay Red
Posted by: Conspiracy | February 27, 2009 at 18:22
John O'Sullivan is right. Cameron is winning because of the failure of Labour. I do not know a single person who is excited by Cameron becoming Prime Minister.
Posted by: Phyllis Crash | February 27, 2009 at 16:30
---------------------
Here's another one. Can't wait, will prove a great leader.
---------------------
Really Iain?Please point me to any posts anywhere on this board that accurately predicted the credit crunch or banking crisis. I've followed this board closely since its inception and cannot remember one.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 27, 2009 at 17:39
-----------
Try harder. I remember many. This all began in 1997 with the destruction of our pension industry, followed by our banking friends.
Posted by: oldrightie | February 27, 2009 at 18:28
Oh what an opportunity for ukippers and fellow travellers to attack Cameron!Any excuse.
Posted by: Perdix | February 27, 2009 at 18:28
Sally Roberts, the party needed to modernise, but in no way did it need to move to the “centre ground”. What we needed to do was ensure we were on the “common ground” with the electorate. By shifting to the so called centre ground people who have gone looking for the Conservatives have discovered we are not at home.
Our manifesto from 2005 was ahead of its time. Now people can see for themselves that we had correctly identified the problems that have since come to pass and were suggesting feasible solutions, they find we have closed our carefully maintained shop and relocated to a market pitch down the road - where we seem incapable or unwilling to explain who we now are or what we are offering. The new punters we sought out are still unsure and unenthusiastic about us, and a lot of our former customers have lost some faith in us because our wares do not look to be of our former high quality.
If we had stayed principled and stayed put after 2005 I believe we would be attracting more support and enthusiasm than we are currently getting. You talk about those who would drag the party to the ‘right’. But many of the policies you seem to consider to be right wing are exactly what the country needs today and what many people wish we were still advocating loudly. At just the time a lot of people have discovered we were correct all along, we have upped sticks and gone downmarket, leaving vacant the common ground we would now be sharing with many more voters.
People are supporting us in the polls because we exist, they know our name and crucially because we are not Labour. They are not supporting us because we have done something that has rocked their world and made them crave us. Our poll numbers are soft and our prospects are still uncertain to a degree despite Labour’s best efforts to alienate the electorate. The focus on this legendary centre ground has done more harm than good.
Posted by: Tony Sharp | February 27, 2009 at 18:30
"They need something to believe in — so they flounder after silly ideological novelties, as in their recent flirtation with an interventionist “Red Toryism."
The NHS is not a silly ideological novelty anymore than our Welfare state is a passing fancy. Red Toryism is a fundamental building block of the Modern political reality.We must remain responsible in power. Any failure on the part of D.C. and Team to set the right note with the public, will be repaid by the withdrawal of recently committed votes. We may wish to reduce the burden of the state, but we will have to move in clear and easily achieved steps. We have no choice but to inherit the bloated public services and the massively unwieldy welfare state. How we transform these institutions is the business of Conservatives administration. Of course it appears to be Red Toryism, but that should not deter us from working towards a small state.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 27, 2009 at 18:39
Anyone with half a brain could have worked out Brown's boom was going to end in bust. And you did not need to be a genius to work out that the failure to deal with ridiculously low interest rates (and "irrational exuberance") almost a decade ago would end in tears for not just the US. There was no need for the Cameroons; it was just a question of time before New Labour's disasterous rule would cause the UK to implode and Labour lose support. There are now it seems lots of reasons for the electorate not to vote Labour but but few to vote Conservative other than the obvious one of their not being Labour. The prospect of the current bunch of Tories being in power does not fill me with the confidence it should do. I suspect a Cameron lead government will be no better an alternative to Labour than Heath's government was.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 18:40
My feeling is that Cameron is the 'Heir to Blair' in the sense that he is downplaying just how profoundly his party will change the political weather when in government. Just as Mr Blair kept tax & spend pledges to a minimum in 1997 to win by as much as possible with the Liberals egging him on to be bolder with regard to raising taxes & spending you have to wonder whether history is repeating itself in a way. You just wonder with the Conservatives talking about cutting public spending plans and talking the talk about lower taxes whether they might be as radical at reducing taxes & making government smaller as Blair was in expanding the public sector and seeing taxes rise ? After all the Liberals are the ultimate political weather vane - just as they wanted a bigger state & more tax in 1997 - now they want the opposite in 2009. The public mood is what politicians need to be in touch with and it is now in favor of cuts in taxes & public spending. So right-wingers are being shortsighted by feeling that our leader is being opportunist. He has to both capitalize on the resentment of government waste & high taxes while not scaring people who rely on essential public services - just as Mr Blair had to capitalize on the feeling that public services where under-funded in 1997 without putting taxpayers off voting Labor.
David Cameron is an intelligent man who knows that we need radical change - but he needs to win a landslide to have a mandate to get reforms through. So a la George W Bush he probably wants to fight as a centrist , govern from the right and hope that such radicalism delivers enough results to get him a second term. Politics is a big balancing act after all !
Posted by: Matthew Reynolds | February 27, 2009 at 18:41
Well said Tony Sharp. You are spot on.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 18:43
'"I do not know a single person who is excited by Cameron becoming Prime Minister."
Could I suggest, then Phyllis that you meet some Conservatives?'
I'm just trying to imagine what it might be like to attend a gathering of people expressing excitement at the prospect of Prime Minister Cameron... No, really (shudder) it's too awful! Bit like watching that scene in Lord of the Rings with Shelob the giant spider, clutching the armrests while trying not to whimper. God, I need a stiff drink... Presumably, Sally R, these are actual members of the Conservative Party; how many of them are there, again? Years ago I used to know a few "YCs" as they called themselves - excruciatingly awful on the whole, in the sense of being embarrassing, not worrying like the intense staring-eyed loons of the Anti-Nazi League or whatever.
Posted by: Malcolm Stevas | February 27, 2009 at 18:58
Cameron is the best on offer - if you prefer brown, then vote for him (if you qualify for a vote).
Brown is in his own little world of denial and fantasy, if you don't like him as he is - tough, he isn't going to change.
Cameron hasn't got too much 'baggage' yet - he can say 'I will listen' and (unlike brown) can't be asked why he said that a dozen times before and nothing changed...
Recent comments from the shadow cabinet really worry me - one by one shooting themselves in the foot - and cameron delivering on promises (ie. the EPP) is looking shaky to me - but if (at worst) they are 'adequate' then they are still in a completely different class to brown/labour.
Not a ringing endorsement but an endorsement and still the only possible choice - there is still time for them to improve, and I really, really hope they do...
Posted by: pp | February 27, 2009 at 19:08
Sally - you are absolutely right to insist that we all pull behind DC and make sure he becomes PM.
However, you're wrong to say that we had to move towards the mythical "centre ground" following our 3 defeats. This is a self-centred assumption that the world revolves around the Tory Party. It does not.
We lost in '97 because the country was sick of us. We lost in '01 and '05 because the British people felt - horrors - economically secure under Labour. Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.
Our central principles stand up at all times. The British people have always had concerns about immigration and these have re-emerged strongly in the last few weeks. Tax cuts and the small state are always worth fighting for. Osborne's conference speech on inheritance tax pulled us back from certain defeat had there been an election that October.
And as for the EU - well, this is an issue which will never go away. It's time we offered a real alternative to the other main parties. And you know what that is . . .
Posted by: Paul Oakley | February 27, 2009 at 19:08
Today’s Times crossword:
23 Across
Sal’s follower of unpredictable temper (8)
Volatile!
Posted by: John Anslow | February 27, 2009 at 19:21
you are all bunch of. free market liberal who know nothing About conservatism and should All join those neo-liberal in ukip who would sell the family silver
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 19:36
Some people never learn.
There are policies. Plenty of them. And there would be more out on the shelf, but for very good reason they will be produced nearer an election.
They have to pace themselves.
I am pleased the leadership is neither as panicky nor as naive as some would have them be.
Posted by: SallyD | February 27, 2009 at 19:36
What was "sharing the proceeds of growth" if not naive. And that would be the kindest interpretation.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 19:42
conservatism ha alwys put the stability of socity Above the MARKET ht was until THATCHER WENT MAD AND PUT HER FAITH UNREGULATED maRKETS THEE BY DESTROYING one nation conservatism
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 19:48
so rely cameron is A TRUE TORY
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 19:50
I think the Conservatives have policies on Education, Police reform, and Welfare reform that are themselves attractive to voters, conservative, and right.
I was rather young at the time, but I don't think Mrs Thatcher faced a Labour Party so willing to adopt Conservative party policy. That's a problem Messrs Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, and Cameron have faced with 'New' Labour.
Could the Conservatives be bolder? Possibly. I'd like to see them run on the Direct Democracy platform laid out in The Plan, and I'll read the election prospectus with interest. But I'm happy with most of what I hear from Cameron and Co, and we have the Tax Payers' Alliance to bang the tax cuts drum :-)
Posted by: Dave B | February 27, 2009 at 19:58
"one nation conservatism": whereby it didn't matter if the country sank provided we all went down in the same ship (albeit segregated into first second and third class compartments).
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 20:00
Is it worth pointing out that the '79 manifesto was one of the thinnest and least impressive the party has ever produced? Even Cabinet members admitted it was light. The outlined proposals the Conservatives have made for schools are - just in themselves - more weighty than that document. And I fully expect more detail in other areas in the coming months.
Posted by: David (One of many) | February 27, 2009 at 20:50
Just another example of a right-winger who as failed to learn anything from the last three elections.The last thing ordinary voters are looking for is another dose of Thatcherism.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 27, 2009 at 20:51
@Jack Stone
Mrs Thatcher is far and away the best Prime Minister in living memory. If she was teleported from 1979 to 2009, she'd win the electorate over, all over again.
Posted by: Dave B | February 27, 2009 at 20:57
Jack
The economy is stuffed mainly thanks to New Labour, its supporters, and a banking industry encouraged by "light touch" regulation and ridiculously low interest rates which permitted money supply and property prices to explode. Thatcher fixed the mess Labour's last lot made. It would be wilfully naive to assume the current mess can be rectified without resource to straight and honest policies.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 21:00
Whilst it is good that the party has modernised in some ways, I fear that it is going too far. The party needs to be far more right-wing, in order to satisfy both core supporters and many other people too.
A large number of ordinary voters are extremely worried regarding the tide of immigration, political correctness and high taxation. We have had enough of being dictated to and patronised, by a Government which is driven purely by self-interest and socialist dogma.
The public sector continues to place excessive demands on the taxpayer, whilst failing to satisfy our country's citizens. Instead of greater accountability, our public institutions are lumbered with targets and more unnecessary legislation. We desperately need a Conservative Government in power.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | February 27, 2009 at 21:32
Times change. The remedies Thatcher had then would not work now. We are living in a different age. People actually believe now that government can be a force for good. She never thought that which I think was her greatest fault.
Posted by: Jack stone | February 27, 2009 at 21:36
NO Britain faied n the 70s due to the unions nad innept leardership "one nation conservatism" is the true forrm of conservatism and itt caemrons succsss as leader thatw will depend onn this
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 21:38
James
Which nation does "one nation" mean to you given the differences now experienced between residents of England Wales and Scotland as a result of devolution.
I actually believe in one nation conservatism in so far as it means we are all in it together and have a duty to each other. What I don't believe in is the wooly wet patrican version which damaged this country and seemed to be predicated on letting the country go south with "managed" decline provided it was Tories managing the decline not Labour.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 21:44
The article rings true for me.
Conservatives are basically paternalistic socialists, which is why they didn't undo the works of Labour governments or offer a radical alternative.
Thatcher wasn't a Conservative, she was an old-fashioned Liberal, which is why lefties spit the name out even now. They could deal with Conservatives, they were more or less on the same ground. Thatcher was an attack from the blind side.
Posted by: cosmic | February 27, 2009 at 22:04
BILL
"I actually believe in one nation conservatism in so far as it means we are all in it together and have a duty to each other. ""i completly agree but do you not see Thatcherism as uuuundernin that sentient
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 22:17
James
No. If you were around at the time you will recall that before Thatcher the country was in an utter mess and had to go cap in hand to the IMF because thirty odd years of socialism had almost ruined us. Thatcher understood you could not help the needy in society unless you had the money to do so. She also understood the importance of financail prudence unlike the current mob. Her achievement was massive. We would not be in the current mess if she had been in charge.
Posted by: bill | February 27, 2009 at 22:28
Are Stone and Cullis communicating in a secret code or is it just that neither of them can spell? Cullis is twenty times worse than Stone on this point.
Posted by: Super Blue | February 27, 2009 at 22:33
Posted by: Matthew Reynolds | February 27, 2009 at 18:41
David Cameron is an intelligent man who knows that we need radical change - but he needs to win a landslide to have a mandate to get reforms through. So a la George W Bush he probably wants to fight as a centrist , govern from the right and hope that such radicalism delivers enough results to get him a second term. Politics is a big balancing act after all !
In other words, lie his arse off about being in the centre, and the take swift dart to the right after the election? It might get you in, but you'd better hope for antother Falklands War and a splintered opposition to get you a second term.
Posted by: resident leftie | February 27, 2009 at 22:37
thatcher was our greatst pm sine the war bu it is thatherism the ideollogy wh i cotend ruined briitish onservtism
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 22:46
"People actually believe now that government can be a force for good."
What is Jack Stone's home planet, I wonder.
Posted by: Malcolm Stevas | February 27, 2009 at 22:49
Who moved where? Why did New Labour win and why did that initial victory persist?
They got in on "No Comment", let the toxicity of failed Govt do its own work. They stayed in by "embracing the market with cool bells".
However as the market was not natural to Labour it unwound very quickly in delivery, but still kept them in Govt as the cool persisted/ Anti-Thatcherism won the last election.
So now to Cameron, who does not excite me, he is replicating the very succesful Labour strategy of "No Comment". What I dearly and sincerely hope is that IDS and the CSJ are coming up with solid policies that will refute the centre tenets of the main article. The policy appropriation of Labour is quite breathtaking , and I can understand to some extent the unwillingness to step forward to deal with such political thieves.
However it leaves things finely balanced in timing, and the risk is this: Go to full-term where limits dicatate the timetable, you can mount an effective policy offensive. Get caught out by an early rumour mill you may well screw up.
Posted by: snegchui | February 27, 2009 at 23:13
Oh, I don't know, Malcolm: an analogy for current public sentiment could be that of the divorce(e) who, when contemplating remarriage, knows that they desire in a prospective spouse the absolute antithesis in every conceivable way to the old one.
Posted by: Mara MacSeoinin | February 27, 2009 at 23:14
I and a few others have been making this criticism on this site week in and out for two years. What took him so long?
People hate Labour. They still don't know why they should vote for us except that its the only way to kick Labour out. We have a unique opportunity now to destroy Labour forever. We will have a mandate almost as broad as Blair's. Let's not throw it away like he did.
Do the thinking before the election, level with the voters and govern to save this country. Cameron could be Thatcher 2 or Major 2. Does he want a chapter in Britain's history or a mention in the index?
Posted by: Opinicus | February 27, 2009 at 23:28
I find myself largely agreeing with the article.
That John O'Sullivan should think (The Cameroons) selected policies on the basis of their popularity with media liberals is understandable. It seems the far too timid EU policy (when we may well be better off out), the absolutely disgraceful failure to stand for our basic freedoms, as shown by DC's refusal to support the Catholic adoption agencies' freedom to act according to their conscience and the appeasement over Geert Wilders, are positions that lead O'Sullivan to think this, as might supporting marriage-like arrangements for single-sex partnerships that raise their status thus undermining the importance of traditional marriage for society. It is understandable that it appears to many that, for the leadership, being 'nice' (as defined by the metropolitan liberal elite and their media friends) is more important than doing what's right.
However I don't think the importance of DC's policy on supporting marriage in the tax and benefits system should be overlooked, as it is well-known that the decline of the traditional married mum & dad family is a major factor contributing to brokenness is society. And there is the promise to cancel the ID cards project, and also the desire to build an economy that is not based on greed and unaffordable debt. These and other policies must show a DC-led Conservative Govt would be better than the current Labour one, and worth fighting for.
Posted by: Philip | February 27, 2009 at 23:45
Those who would drag this Party further to the Right should remember that this was tried in 2001 and 2005 and failed to make an impact
Sally, you at least have been around here often enough to have heard it explained why this is nonsense.
For those who haven't:
Thatcher won three general elections. John Major won one and lost in 1997. Anybody want to label Thatcher a centrist or Major a right-wing extremist? Don't all rush at once.
As for 2001 and 2005, if you actually go and read the manifestos, they're next to indistinguishable from the current Conservative and Labour positions (and in some respects milder). As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, voters have for years not had problems with policies, only with the people at the top of the party. And who can blame them.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | February 28, 2009 at 01:14
>>Cameron has brought the Party back from the precipice, think now what a disaster David Davis would have been.( and I nearly supported him !)<<
I like David Cameron and I think he's a pretty fair leader, but I don't agree that he 'brought us back from the precipice'.
Politics is a cyclical affair. Labour spent ten years proving comprehensively that their ideas don't work. People were already starting to say 'enough is enough' but the murmur takes time to grow.
If Michael Howard were still leader now, we'd be doing just as well. Or William Hague. (Maybe not IDS.) David Cameron is a good leader, but we have a fair few 'good leaders' available. He's the one we chose, but he didn't single-handedly 'rescue' us. We didn't need rescuing. We just needed time.
It wasn't that Michael Howard put people off with his policies, only that our cycle had not come around again. It takes Labour a certain amount of time to deliver their usual wreck of an economy and other political tomfoolery before the public say: "Oh yeah, we remember you now!" and push them out the door.
People are ready to vote Tory, with the exception of the tunnel-vision Labour supporters. The only reason we aren't 10% further ahead is our tentative stance on several matters.
I supported David Davis at the time and I believe he would have been a very strong leader indeed. But I wasn't unhappy with Cameron, I think he's got the right stuff too. I just want to see a bit more Tory and a bit less 'tactical politics' to really get excited.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | February 28, 2009 at 02:18
John Anslow @ 19:21 - LOL!!!!
"Sally, you at least have been around here often enough to have heard it explained why this is nonsense.
For those who haven't:
Thatcher won three general elections. John Major won one and lost in 1997. Anybody want to label Thatcher a centrist or Major a right-wing extremist? Don't all rush at once."
Alex Swanson -yes I have been around long enough to hear you and others explain why YOU believe it is nonsense! And No, of course I do not believe either Margaret Thatcher or John Major are extremists - neither are IDS or William Hague. However, it is as much about style as about substance (as I have also explained before). I reiterate my view that the immigration issue at the last Election cost us votes. We were (until David Cameron's leadership) seen by many as The Nasty Party. Whether that was true or fair is a moot point but that was how large sections of the public saw us. Even now we read posts from people on Conservative Home and Centre Right time and time again (and granted they may not all be paid-up Conservatives) who betray their intolerance of and dislike for homosexuality and those of non-white background. David Cameron's style of leadership has attracted many new friends from the centre ground - and this is something I have seen for myself around the streets where I live.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 28, 2009 at 07:59
This thread hasn't really answered John O'sullivan's idea that the current Conservative party has abandoned 'a broadly coherent Thatcherite' philosophy. The perception of that philosophy in my opinion led to 3 terrible defeats. Also that there are internal divisions over foreign policy and that we as a party are embracing 'Red Toryism' both of which I believe are wrong and quite mischevious on O'sullivan's part.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 28, 2009 at 08:50
I agree 100% with Malcolm Dunn and Sally Roberts. Hasn't this nostalgia for Thatcherism delivered enough electoral carnage?!
Posted by: Johnny Kidney | February 27, 2009 at 16:43
No! It is nostalgia for the vegetarian policies of Major (no meat - as in Cameron).
I will definitely vote for Cameron in the election after the next; if by which time we will know if he is actually a Conservative - (little trace at the moment).
For all those mistakenly believing that it would be wrong to bring immigration and the EU to the fore, a recent poll in the DT stated those two policies, or rather the lack of them, were the number 1 and 2 concerns of those polled.
All those believing that the approach to immigration and the EU by the Tories in the last election contributed to their defeat should have a chat with the fairies at the bottom of their garden: even recent immigrants are complaining about our lax immigration laws.
A constructive article by Mr O'Sullivan - what a pity he should feel the need to have to write it.
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under | February 28, 2009 at 09:30
Jack Stone - 'government can be a force for good'.
In theory it could be, if run by honest people. But time and time again we see that power corrupts. Governments generally take powers to themselves with good intentions, but those powers are soon wielded against the public interest. (What is the tory policy on the corrupt public company called 'ACPO' ? - started with the best of intentions I am sure)
Jack, like most socialists you are living in a fantasy world -- if every one was as 'good' as you'd like to believe, then we wouldn't need government at all.
Nasty thing are always going to happen - I'd rather be in control of which nasty things happen to me and my family, than have the government (or anyone) foist their choice onto me.
Posted by: pp | February 28, 2009 at 09:38
And another thing:
Josh's idea that someone is going to supplant DC a year after the election just doesn't happen in the Conservative party. It does happen in the Labour party, however - does anyone remember Andrew MacIntosh being their leader when they won the GLC and Livingstone stabbing him in the back?
Posted by: Super Blue | February 28, 2009 at 09:48
you are all bunch of. free market liberal who know nothing About conservatism and should All join those neo-liberal in ukip who would sell the family silver
Posted by: james cullis | February 27, 2009 at 19:36
The family silver has already been sold. And the gold too.
Posted by: meli | February 28, 2009 at 10:07
"The “detox” was pure speculation, but the discontent of the Tory faithful was real. It had to be assuaged by quiet assurances that, after the detox stage, the Cameroon leadership would unveil real conservative policies. Or, as one Tory wag put it, “Trust us, we’re lying.” John O'Sullivan".
So how do you know what they really believe and how can you tell when the Conservatives are telling the truth?
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under | February 28, 2009 at 10:26
Sullivan is in many ways spot on. It will not do to accuse him of Heffer-like boorishness. He offers his critique with impeccable courtesy. The one weakness in his argument is a failure to appreciate how very powerful those "media liberals" are. They more or less control the day to day mood of the country. See how spectacularly they have managed to deflect public anger away from Brown and towards Goodwin.
As to the Bolshevik Rat's point about getting into office on a raft of lies, the left started that particular game. Indeed, in the devious form of the current administration, it is still at play.
The Tories, therefore, have three options. Either they go in for hard pounding from the right or they sidle up to power with lisping liberalism or they combine the two: easing into office from the centre and side-stepping to the right by slow degrees. Again, Blair is the model for this process. Charles Moore once observed that this Labour government is, in point of fact, very left wing indeed. How right he was. They have handed Ulster to Adams and McGuinness; they have opened the immigration floodgates; they have sponsored more and more "positive" discrimination; they have continued to dumb down education and they have raised taxes throughout their term of office. The "Blu-Labour" myth was very useful to them.
In all things, there is a high road and a low road. Fraught with the danger of compromise as it is, the second of these pathways should not be dismissed out of hand. It can still lead to Rome.
Posted by: Simon Denis | February 28, 2009 at 11:48
There you go again Sally.
"However, it is as much about style as about substance (as I have also explained before)."
If there is one thing the electorate has tired of and is railing against, it is politicians who rely on style and hide what they *think* and *believe*. The electorate is in a place where the substance and principle matters and it is important to know how policy will address the problems they see.
"I reiterate my view that the immigration issue at the last Election cost us votes. We were (until David Cameron's leadership) seen by many as The Nasty Party."
The immigration policy was not the problem. It was before its time and the hard evidence of its effects has only subsequently made people sit up and take notice.
We did not go backwards. People were cooling quickly on Blair but they were prepared to give him another go, partly because Labour has concealed its true nature from casual voter scrutiny.
Theresa May's 'nasty party' breast beating gave the media the chance to talk us down and instead of addressing the perception of the party in the country, the leadership threw the baby out with the bathwater and ditched policies that were popular and appropriate.
As O'Sullivan rightly pointed out in his piece: "So the Cameroons decided to change the party by changing its policies — the very solution that the research had discredited and that perversely directed the Tories to shed popular policies tainted solely by association with them."
I understand your enthusiasm for the Conservatives and Cameron's leadership and your desire to be seen as loyal. DC has addressed a number of flaws in the party. But it is not disloyal to point out flaws that remain and which affect our core appeal.
We need to be a serious party with serious solutions to major problems. Right now, the major problems are being set aside at a time when people want us to tackle them. So many people do not think we are serious. Until that is understood and rectified by the leadership we are on a slow hiding to nothing and we would win an election for simply not being Labour.
Posted by: Tony Sharp | February 28, 2009 at 12:08
The government can and does help to improve the lives of the poor and sick. It can bring in new policies to help those still further and take action to help the environment and generally improve peoples lives.
The government doesn`t do bad things it just can be, because it is run by humans and knowm of us are perfect have bad judgement and be incompetant.
Governmentt is the greatest force for good and will always be.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 28, 2009 at 12:27
Jack Stone, if government is such a force for good perhaps you will explain why we are experiencing such a massive erosion of our privacy, individual freedom and civil rights? How is that improving my life?
Do you think the poor are really helped by being trapped in a culture of dependency on the state rather than given an opportunity to stand on their own two feet, because of government rules?
Are the sick best served by a government that actively and knowingly underfunds some care trusts, resulting in a number of treatments being denied to them, so other parts of the country where government has an electoral interest can have money lavished on them?
Maybe you could explain why government is determined to reverse the burden of proof in criminal cases and tear up the protections enshrined in Magna Carta that prevent the state from arbitrarily denying people their liberty.
After that please set out what qualifies the government to presume it knows better than I what is best for me and my family. Do you honestly think it is right that I should be excluded from the decision making process to determine if an underage daughter - for whom I am legally and morally responsible - can be put on the pill or even seek an abortion without my knowledge or consent?
Looking forward to your reply.
Posted by: Tony Sharp | February 28, 2009 at 12:51
John O’Sullivan is spot on.
Cameron’s Conservatives have focussed on being the nice party and appear to many of us to lack backbone, to lack principles. Yes there are occasional policy announcements to applaud but too many rock us back on our heels.
Wilders, whom John mentioned, is a staggering case in point. Cameron’s office has written to enquiring voters saying that he supported refusing Wilders’ entry to the UK because he has a pending law case against him in the Netherlands and he represents a threat to public order.
Will Cameron actually spell out that he does not support the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Will he say that clearly to the electorate?
Does Cameron believe that normal enquiries by members of the House Lords should be subject to state control?
And where is the threat to public order? Well we have debated that here before and most of us are clear where the threat came from – so will Cameron give in to minority bullies and ban public debate?
Let me raise another unpalatable issue: the death of Cameron’s son, a tragedy indeed. Cameron has praised the NHS to the hilt and no doubt we are delighted if his family has been so very well treated.
But that is not the case for many as comments on ConHome have begun to reflect. There is already unease at this apparent blanket approval for the NHS.
Some here claim that the present financial crisis was not foreseeable and that therefore the Conservatives were well within bounds to support Brown’s gross expenditures.
Not so – plenty of people in the markets were aware that a serious recession was on the way. Few may have foreseen just what would happen to banking – much of it government induced – but many people across the country were worried that Cameron was backing spend spend spend.
We need practical answers to severe practical problems as Tony Sharp says and Cameron still has time – just – to come up with them.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | February 28, 2009 at 12:55
He just sounds like a sour old man, complaining about how things aren't like they used to be when he was young e.t.c.
Posted by: Andrew S | February 28, 2009 at 13:30