ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

The world's leading conservative

On National Review Online yesterday I wrote:

"In one year's time David Cameron is likely to be the world's most senior conservative leader. American conservatives can find much to admire in his social and fiscal conservatism. His "realism" on foreign policy and enthusiasm for the green lobby will be more problematic."

It's a theme taken up by The Times's leader-writers today.  They argue that the G20 is being dominated by the Left.  The Centre Right, they say, lacks an authoritative statesman today - at a time when world leaders are presiding over a significant extension of state power:

• "[John] McCain is a politician of yesterday, whose acknowledged lack of economic expertise hindered his campaign."
• "[Sarkozy] remains a distinctively national and even Gaullist figure. His conservatism is expressed in an aversion to the disruptions caused by market forces. He demands stringent - which is not the same thing as more effective - regulation on high finance. He envisages a new form of capitalism that “puts finance at the service of business and citizens.”
• "Ms Merkel has welded a more successful coalition government than many expected. She is a quietly competent administrator, who marks a welcome contrast to the blustering anti-American demagoguery of her immediate predecessor, Gerhard Schröder. But she lacks political charisma."

Missing from The Times's list is Canada's Stephen Harper.  Like Chancellor Merkel, he also lacks charisma and leads a fragile, minority government but his approach to regulation, free trade and the war on terror is authentically conservative.  Watch his interview with Sky News yesterday.

But The Times does have a point.  It sees David Cameron as the possible future of conservatism:

"David Cameron has marked out a position that fiscal stimulus is storing up future problems of debt and inflation. He has done much to dispel the impression that the Tories lack tolerance and an understanding of modern social mores. He has an opportunity to become much more than the British prime minister. There is a vacancy for a messenger with a coherent message for a global audience, waiting to govern from the Right."  

Mr Cameron will succeed in that task if he can stay focused on the big issues.  He needs to avoid becoming distracted by Red Toryism, nudging and other essentially marketing devices.  He needs a much stronger foreign policy but in recognising the importance of social reform (the biggest idea on the centre right), the environment, being vindicated on fiscal responsibility and as a stalwart defender of free trade he is, indeed, well-placed to become a leader of global conservatism.

Tim Montgomerie

ConservativeInternational.com

This ToryDiary category will no longer be updated. All discussion of international conservatism will now take place on ConservativeInternational.com.

Eight Tory lessons for the US Republicans

As we did for Mike Gerson, ConservativeHome recently arranged a three day visit to the UK for Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of America's Weekly Standard.  Our programme for Fred involved about fifteen meetings, including with George Osborne, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith (politicians); Martin Bright, Janet Daley and Daniel Finkelstein (commentators); plus Andrew Cooper, Rick Nye and Stephan Shakespeare (pollsters).  The New York Times' David Brooks is our next guest.

Fred has now written up his visit as the cover piece in the latest edition of TWS.  It's one of the very best summaries of Project Cameron that we've ever read.  He identifies the following main lessons that the Conservatives of the UK can teach the Conservatives of the US.  He unpacks each lesson in his article but here they are as bullet points:

1. It takes time... to rebuild voters' trust
2. 'It's not about ideology. It's about you.'  Personalities as well as policies needed reforming.
3. 'Broader ground.'  Social justice and green issues have been added to the Tory pitch.
4. Don't ignore elites*.  The BBC and progressives have been cultivated.
5. Co-opt liberal ends and capture liberal jargon.  The Tories have colonised the left-wing term of social justice with centre right ideas.
6. Social psychology.  Nudging etc.
7. You need a leader.  After November, if McCain loses, the Republicans will lack an obvious leader.
8. Forget slogans.

Read the full piece.

* David Frum fears the GOP has done this.  Meeting Tim Montgomerie last week he noted that, for example, there is not a single economist that supports the Republicans at the University of Chicago.

Rifkind and Willetts head the growing list of pro-Obama Tories

The image comes from Adbusters, and a Cameronesque styling of Obama's 'Hope' poster.

A Telegraph survey of Tory MPs (of which 91 expressed a preference) has found that 63 backed John McCain and 28 Barack Obama (click here and take a look at the facelifted Telegraph.co.uk site).  ConservativeHome's own surveys of adopted candidates has found 25% supporting Obama and 61% for McCain.

This is what three prominent 'Obamacons" said:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "The symbolism of Obama is huge. The election of a black president would be such an enormous step forward for America's national history, and politics, its culture."

David Willetts: "The Shadow Universities Secretary was full of praise for Mr McCain's experience and independence, but said an Obama victory would restore "the world's faith in America" and would represent the more "vivid change"... When the show's presenter later interpreted this as support for Mr Obama, Mr Willetts did not contradict him.  "Obama is an incredibly exciting guy", Mr Willetts had told listeners, a view that is not uncommon among Tory MPs."

Douglas Carswell: ""Obama is the anti-politician in a time when people are rightly suspicious of political elites."  "There is a feeling in the younger centre-Right that we need radical change," Mr Carswell told the Telegraph. "The centre-Right should be small government and Bush is part of that big government consensus. McCain is a continuation of that.""

ConservativeHome.com remains proudly Republican and Tim Montgomerie recently tackled Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell's support for the Democrat candidate.  David Cameron and George Osborne will meet Barack Obama later this week when the Illinois Senator visits London.

Hague and Osborne discuss Middle East strategy

At yesterday's Annual Business Lunch of Conservative Friends of Israel, Daniel Finkelstein (The Times' new Chief Leader Writer) interviewed two of the Conservative Party's top three figures; Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.  You can watch the Q&A in the videos below but here are some of the key points to emerge from the discussion:

• CFI: The first organisation that William Hague joined as a Conservative was Conservative Friends of Israel.
• Zionism: William Hague said that he was a Zionist if Zionism means being a friend of Israel who believes in its right to exist and its right to defend itself.  This echoed David Cameron's reply of last year and William Hague joked that the new thing in the Conservative Party was that all MPs say the same things!
• Iraq: Both stated that they still support the Iraq war but too many mistakes were made.  William Hague said that note should be taken of substantial progress in recent months.  There is, he continued, another democracy in the Middle East alongside Israel; Iraq.  We must help that democracy to flourish.
• Democratisation: The best long-term guarantee of peace and stability is the emergence of more and more democracies, said George Osborne, in response to a question about the Sharansky doctrine.  William Hague said it takes time to create democracies.  'Would Israel be more secure if all Israel's neighbours became democracies?', he asked.  'Probably not,' he replied.  They would likely go in a direction more hostile to Israel.  In the long-run, however, we want to see Israel's neighbours becoming more open and democratic.
• Syria: William Hague said it was imperative that we avoid a so-called clash of civilisations by building much better links with moderate Islamic states, in particular.  He repeated his commitment to a dialogue with Syria.  He has previously spoken of an acquaintanceship with Syria.
• 2006's Lebanon war: The Shadow Foreign Secretary stood by his belief that Israel's behaviour in the Lebanon war had been "disproportionate" and militarily ineffective.  It was the only time, he said, that he'd ever criticised an Israeli military campaign but you have to look at Lebanon today and see Hezbollah so much stronger to realise that it was not a good campaign for Israel.
• Hamas: William Hague said that Hamas must renounce violence and recognise Israel and honour previous agreements before Israel should talk directly to them.
• George W Bush: Both George Osborne and William Hague avoided answering a question about whether George W Bush had been a good President.  George Osborne said noone should underestimate the difficulties that the Bush adminstration have faced in the post 9/11 world and their actions need to be judged in that context.  Mr Hague said that history would judge President Bush more kindly than today's commentators.  He continued, however, by saying that America had been insufficiently open to the differences between Middle Eastern states - Syria and Iran, for example.  There had been a tendency to see the Islamic world as monolithic when it is very complex and diverse.
• McCain v Obama: William Hague said that the Conservative Party would not choose between Barack Obama and John McCain although the Republicans were the sister party.  George Osborne said that in terms of campaign techniques the Obama campaign was the campaign to study because of its "phenomenal" use of the internet.
  

The lunch was attended by eighty Tory MPs and many parliamentary candidates.

George W Bush and David Cameron hold second meeting

It's very unusual for George W Bush to meet opposition leaders but America's President did meet David Cameron for thirty minutes earlier today, during his London visit.  That's a good sign of (a) the White House's awareness of the Conservative Party's ascendancy and (b) Much improved Tory-GOP relations.

William Hague, George Osborne and Pauline Neville-Jones accompanied the Conservative leader during at meeting at the US Ambassador's London residence.

CCHQ has released the following statement from David Cameron: 

“I had a very productive meeting with President Bush, taking forward some of the issues we discussed when we met in Washington last November.
 
I raised the situation in Zimbabwe, and the pressing need to do everything possible to prevent Mugabe from stealing the election. It is extremely important to make sure that independent observers have full access to the poll.  We continued the discussion we had before about the importance of standing up for free trade.
 
I underlined the commitment of the Conservative Party to Britain’s role in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. I also raised with the President my concerns about the need for improved co-ordination of the civilian effort of the ground, and greater clarity and unity of purpose between the different military chains of command – in particular between the NATO-led International Security assistance Force (ISAF) and Operating Enduring Freedom.”

***
Over the weekend we twice blogged about The Telegraph's mischief-making re David Davis (here and here).  The Telegraph's take on the Bush-Cameron meeting, from Rosa Prince: Green David Cameron undermined by George W Bush meeting.  A headline worthy of The Independent/ Guardian/ Mirror.

Related link: ToryDiary report on the first Cameron-Bush meeting, last November.

David Cameron congratulates Australian Prime Minister on signing Kyoto

David Cameron met with Labor PM Kevin Rudd in London this morning:

"Prime Minister Rudd and I had an excellent meeting this morning during his visit to London. Our talk focused on Britain’s and Australia’s shared commitments in Afghanistan, and the latest developments following the NATO Summit in Bucharest, which Mr Rudd attended.

We also discussed the global economic situation, the prospects for the Doha round, and the Australian Government’s commitment to tackling climate change. I congratulated the Prime Minister on his Government’s decision to sign the Kyoto Treaty immediately upon taking office."

Rudd also met with Brown yesterday, and said that he would not let the Chinese have their own guards surrounding the Olympics torch when it comes to Australia.

David Cameron is increasingly seen by global power-brokers as somebody worth getting to know, and not just those on the right. Under Rudd Australia has joined Spain as the second prominent nation to withdraw from Iraq, his party is dominated by trade unionists, he hasn't been shy about his republicanism during this visit, and his signing of Kyoto was something that his Conservative predecessor John Howard had strongly held out against.

With there being a good chance Cameron will be Prime Minister in 2010 it's worth thinking about who the major world leaders he has to deal with will be. Rudd will very likely still be in power. Stephen Harper is looking solid in Canada despite still being in minority government. Obama or McCain in the US. Sarkozy in France...

Who is the 800lb gorilla of right-wing global politics?

"Bill Clinton has been out of the White House for almost a decade, but he remains the 800 lb gorilla of left-wing politics around the world."

That's what James Kirkup wrote on Saturday.  He's probably right although a good case could also be made for Nelson Mandela or Barack Obama.

But who is the 800lb gorilla of right-wing global politics?

Margaret Thatcher?  She's certainly the politician that everyone from Rudy Giuliani to David Cameron to Gordon Brown wants to be photographed with.  She's still 'the-politician-at-the-height-of-their-powers' that most British voters would like to see as our PM.

George W Bush?  For a few months more at least he's the most powerful man on earth and his decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq have dominated politics since 9/11.  Don't expect the Bush doctrine to die with him.

John McCain?  The man who may be the most powerful man in the world from January 2009?

Nicolas Sarkozy?  The man who has promised to reform France's economy and transform its relations with America and Britain?  Carla must help his case.

David Cameron?  Many right-of-centre leaders are admiring his green, civil libertarian and socially conscious conservatism.  He's also well ahead in the opinion polls and, if he wins the next General Election, may be British PM for a decade given the electorate's tendency to favour re-electing incumbents...

What do you think?

Will McCain learn from Cameron's social justice agenda?

Former chief speechwriter to Bush, Michael Gerson, certainly hopes so. Gerson was the man behind the compassionate conservatism agenda that dominated the early years of Bush's presidency, and later on initiatives like the massive AIDS programme in Africa (some African countries now have a more positive view of America than Americans do!).

He's been in London this week as a guest of ConservativeHome and the Centre for Social Justice.  He was given a crash course in the current state of conservatism in the UK - meeting David Cameron, George Osborne, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, speechwriter Danny Kruger and numerous others along the way - and articulated his beliefs at a dinner for thirty or so top thinkers and politicians. He has written up his observations in his bi-weekly column for the influential Washington Post (copied below).

He's a little worried about the Conservative Party's evident focus on reassurance and "taking issues off the table", particularly on foreign policy. He's shocked by how far we're letting the HFE bill push ethical boundaries. But he sees something special in the policy work that Iain Duncan-Smith and the Centre for Social Justice have been doing, and the emphasis it has been given by Cameron.

The main problem with the compassionate conservative agenda in America was that the policy work had mostly been done with the resources of a single senator's office, and that other than Gerson and the President there weren't many people in the White House or the GOP who really understood or supported it. In contrast, the CSJ have produced thick tomes of research on the social problems of the day and has had almost twenty MPs embedded (without their Blackberrys) in poverty-fighting projects to see these issues being tackled at the coalface.

Gerson has recently written up his insiders account of working at the White House in a book called Heroic Conservatism. The book offers a compelling vision of an idealistic, not merely anti-government, conservatism that uses the machinery of limited government in a bold and principled way to catalyse the improvement of lives. Cameron is reading it, Osborne will read it, and you really should read it.

This is the agenda that Ben Rogers was talking about on CentreRight the other day as "interventionist conservatism". If McCain can learn from the Tories on the domestic front, they can learn one or two things from him on the international front. It blends taking an active interest in helping the most vulnerable at home through innovative and relational programmes with a willingess to help those who can't help themselves elsewhere - whether they're suffering from terrorism and dictatorship or from a lack of widely-available medicines. It's thoroughly compassionate and thoroughly conservative.

Learning the right lessons from America

Over at Comment Central Danny Finkelstein is enthusing about the McCain campaign, the changing nature of the Republican Right and what it means for Britain.  There are always lessons we can learn from American politics but it is dangerous to import techniques and trends without thinking.

The Republican Party is having to change.  Three of its most potent issues - crime, tax and welfare - have been significantly 'retired'.  But they haven't been retired in Britain...

As we consider learning from America let's not forget those big differences.  We fear that Danny wants to take the very different position of US conservatives and impose the wrong lessons on British conservatives.  See this article from him: The Right Knows It's Wrong.

Here are three lessons that are worth learning, though...

1. The internet continues to mature as a political tool and UK politicians are ignorant of most of the possibilities.  See this from Robert Colvile.
2. Leading Republican thinkers like David Frum and Michael Gerson are urging their fellow conservatives to be less hostile to government.  We must remember we are the party of limited government, not antipathy to government.  [Related link: The era of big government conservatism?].
3. Green issues are now central stage in conservative politics and McCain and Cameron helped put them there.

'Ken Clarke would have been the Tories' McCain'

Last week our sister blog BritainAndAmerica looked at the similarities between John McCain and David Cameron.

Steve Richards of The Independent suggests that Ken Clarke is the figure that would have had an effect on the Conservative Party similar to that which Senator McCain is now having on the Republicans:

"More than Cameron, Clarke is the McCain of the Conservative Party, the veteran with broad appeal who arouses suspicious wariness in Tory activists. The question is more interesting in the light of the Conservatives’ relatively small opinion poll lead and their internal debate, increasingly intense, about the direction of policy.  The election of Clarke would have signalled the Conservatives had changed. Although Cameron spoke a lot about the need for the party to change in many ways he represented continuity in his support for a smaller state, tax cuts and Euro-scepticism.

Clarke spent much of his leadership speech at the Tory conference in 2005 lecturing his audience on the limited scope for tax cuts. Recently in an interview he told me there was no scope at all for cuts in the light of the economic gloom. If he had been elected leader there would have been no flakiness around the issue of tax and spend as there is at the top of the party now. The economic policy would be more rooted and credible. Clarke opposed the war against Iraq and would therefore have more credibility in relation to foreign policy in comparison with the current shadow cabinet, which contains some of the most enthusiastic neo-cons in the land."

Richards' idea is an interesting one but flawed.  Most of the issues that divide McCain and the Republicans are secondary issues.  McCain has something serious to say to all three legs of America's conservative movement.  Ken Clarke is out of sync with Tories on the most fundamental of issues - Europe.  If Ken Clarke had led the Tories from 1997 to 2001 the political risks for Blair of holding a referendum on the euro would have been completely different and he might have gambled.

Clarke and McCain hold completely different views on Iraq of course. Where Clarke and McCain are similar is in manner.  Both are straight-talkers (Clarke was straight-talking yesterday about Rowan Williams).  As Martin Ivens noted in The Sunday Times, Cameron is more like Obama in always appearing reasonable, positive and eager to avoid offence.   If, as appears increasingly likely, it's Obama Vs McCain, Brown is more like McCain in character, Cameron more like Obama.

Cameron to call for preachers of hate to be banned from the UK

ConservativeHome has been given an advance copy of what David Cameron will say at the first meeting of the CDU-Conservative Party working group later today.

Responding to the news that Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be granted a visa, Cameron will call on Gordon Brown to act quickly and ban preachers of hate from entering the country.

Peter Cuthbertson made this point on CentreRight on Sunday.

We will be there to check against delivery and listen to the Q&A. As always if you have any good questions we will try to ask one on your behalf.

We've put the speech into bitesize chunks below.  Download a PDF of David Cameron's remarks in full.

Obamacons

Tories that support Obama.  What should they be called?  Obamacons?

There are plenty of them about...

• An aide to George Osborne was "bursting out of their skin in excitement" after attending an Obama event according to a well-placed source.
• For Nick Bourne, Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, "The most hopeful event of the start of 2008 [was] Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses."
• Wirral West candidate Esther McVey told the readers of her blog that Barack Obama had "something unique and important to offer to the world" she hoped "he gets the chance to deliver it".
• Platform10 have already endorsed Barack Obama - identifying his "relentless focus on hope, optimism and change".
• Most surprising of all was Dan Hannan's words in today's Telegraph: "Two sets of people stand to lose from an Obama presidency: white supremacists, and Al Sharpton-types, whose narrative of race relations in America would be falsified. Everyone else, white and black, would be wrapped in a warm duvet of national solidarity."

David Cameron was praising the "compelling" Illinois Senator yesterday (see Ben Brogan).

Dan Hannan, in particular, has clearly come under the spell of what Melanie Phillips called Princess Obama:

"Obama appears to be on the wrong side of just about every important issue going; indeed, were he to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world. But hey – the guy makes people feel good about themselves; he stands for hope, love, reconciliation, youthfulness and fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Bill Clinton - watch this video - talked of the 'Obama fairy tale'.

ConservativeHome is glad Obama got beaten yesterday and not just because it's good to see the pundits brought down to earth.  It's very unclear if he's up to the job.  On BritainAndAmerica yesterday Joe Loconte questioned his wisdom.  Mark Steyn has ridiculed his talk of change.  Does any of it amount to anything bankable?

Conservatives are practical people and should be weary of anyone so inexperienced.  Senator Obama may yet win the nomination - although noone should bet much against Hillary - but ConservativeHome is sticking with the Republicans for two main reasons:

(1) Experience: All of the top-tier GOP candidates have done something real.  McCain is a war hero.  Giuliani fixed New York.  Romney ran an Olympics and a state.  Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas for 11 years.
(2) Beliefs: Core Republican instincts are closer to those of most Conservatives (although not every reader agrees).  On balance the Republican belief in smaller government, lower taxes, welfare reform, investment in defence and scepticism of the UN all make the Republicans a better choice.

Never give up!

That's the lesson from a remarkable story from downunder.  Australian Liberal MP Fran Bailey demanded a recount after she was told that she'd lost her seat to her Labor opponent by just seven votes.  Nearly a month after Kevin Rudd won Australia's election, Mrs Bailey has just been told that she'll remain an MP after a recount of 100,649 votes saw her elected by a majority of twelve.  The Australian has the full story.

Democrat or Republican?

Who would you vote for if you were entitled to participate in American elections?

The case for the Republicans: The Republicans are on the right of the American political landscape. They are most likely to cut taxes and invest in national defence. They have led American efforts to reform welfare (Wisconsin), cut crime (New York) and focus on choice and standards in schools ('No Child Left Behind').  The Republicans are the party of Ronald Reagan, that stood alongside Margaret Thatcher during the Cold War. Bush I and Major were allies.  They are the party of faith, family and flag - all virtues traditionally associated with the British Conservatives.

The case for the Democrats: Although the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans they are not necessarily to the left of British Tories.  Like British Tories they support state-provided healthcare and they share Conservative views on tax and borrowing.  They are also largely opposed to the Iraq war - the view of many grassroots Conservatives.  They eschew the anti-abortion and pro-Creation views of most religious conservatives.  They support gay rights.  Democrats also want action on climate change, like David Cameron's Conservatives.

PS A June 2007 poll of Conservative members found that 71% supported a Republican presidential candidate and 29% a Democrat candidate.

Brendan Nelson is new leader of Australian Liberals

I know you all want to talk about Labour's funding problems but forgive me...

Brendan Nelson is the new leader of Australia's Liberals (profile here).

It took the British Conservatives from May 2005 to December 2005 to decide upon David Cameron.  The Liberals have spent all of four days from Saturday's defeat to choosing Mr Nelson over Malcolm 'Spycatcher' Turnbull by 45 to 42 votes.  Mr Nelson's first recommendation to his party was to change position on green issues and back Kyoto environmentalism.  I hope he's giving up that motorcycle for a pedal bike...

It's a crazy rush.  Peter Costello or someone should have been an interim leader while the party watched Kevin Rudd for a few months, understood why it lost and then chose a new leader for the long haul back to power.

Two men I met in Australia in August offer wisdom on all of this: Andrew Bolt sees trouble ahead from this choice.   RightThinker's Matt Marks believes that all Liberal members should have been able to choose Howard's successor.  Amen to that.

For one of ConservativeHome's other international interests... McCain shines during YouTube/ CNN GOP debate

The John Howard years are over

Labor's Kevin Rudd has won a big victory downunder.  The John Howard years are over.

Here are my instant reactions:

The voters wanted change: John Howard won four elections.  He was PM for more than eleven years.  That was enough.  He should have acknowledged the electorate's desire for change and given the leadership of his Liberals to another.  Instead he carried on too long and his policies became unpredictable.  While I was there in the summer he was taking central control of a hospital in a marginal seat.  It wasn't edifying.

Australian Labor moved right: Australian Labour Blarified themselves and some.  Again and again Kevin Rudd signed up to Howard positions.  Labor promises to be a fiscally conservative and tax-cutting government.  Howard moved Australia to the right and Rudd won't shift things back quickly although his party is much more left-wing than him.  There will be differences - on Iraq - but the electorate was bored rather than angry (although the workplace reforms were very unpopular).

This wasn't about the Iraq war.  The usual suspects will see this as a defeat for George W Bush's coalition of the willing.  It wasn't.  Iraq didn't play a big part in the campaign - partly because the very few casualties Australia has suffered in the war on terror are from Afghanistan.  Rudd has promised to continue to fight in Afghanistan.  [3.30pm: Mark Steyn offers a corrective to those who will interpret this as a verdict on Iraq: "Bush is now a rare survivor of the pre-9/11 western leaders' club. Of his allies and opponents on the Iraq war, the latter have gone - Schroder, Chretien, Chirac - but so have the former - Aznar, Blair, Howard." Quite.]

Howard lacked Cameron's X-factor conservatism: John Howard has been solid on economic and security issues - the traditional bedrock of conservative electoral success.  That's no longer enough.  Rudd fought hard on environmental issues, in particular.  He promised to sign Kyoto as his first act.  It didn't win him the election but conservative parties have to have their own 'x factors' now to woo values voters who care about green and justice issues.  David Cameron understands that.

Labor unions links didn't trouble voters enough: The ads from the Liberals warning of union domination if Rudd was elected (like these) seemed a throwback to a bygone era.

John Howard's years were good years: He strengthened the economy.  Paid off the national debt.  Moved 40% of Australians on to private medical insurance.  Built Australia's status in the region.  I could go on, I am a big fan.  But like Thatcher and unlike Reagan, he did not, however, help to build a conservative movement.  That's going to make it harder for the Liberals now.

The Liberals have a long road back: For, I think, the first time in Australia's history, all of Australian government is now in Labor hands.  Every state and now the federal government, too.  These are going to be tough times for the Liberals. They are not only out of power at the state level, they are very weak there, too. All of their talent has been at the federal level and huge taxpayer grants have financed their Canberra-centred operations.  A lot of rebuilding will be necessary.  They'll probably be in opposition for a number of years.  Australians don't change their governments often.  They've only done so four times since WWII.  In his gracious speech accepting defeat, John Howard attempted to nominate Peter Costello as his successor.  A younger and more dynamic figure might be better for the long road ahead.

Alexander Drake will be providing more thoughtful reflections soon.

Review the campaign's election ads on the Australian section of PlayPolitical.

3pm: John Howard has lost his own seat.

11pm: Andrew Bolt is depressingly right, unfortunately.

2.30am, 25/11: Costello won't seek Liberal leadership.

David Cameron to visit Bush in Washington

The Times' Francis Elliott is reporting that David Cameron and William Hague will visit Washington next week and the Conservative leader is likely to visit the White House for talks with President Bush.  A visit to Washington by Pauline Neville-Jones, Conservative security spokesman, last week was used to finalise arrangements for the trip.

It will be the first visit by a Conservative leader to Washington since Iain Duncan Smith met the President, six years ago - the longest period away from America's capital since the 1930s.  Relations between the White House and the Conservative Party became frosty during Michael Howard's tenure.  Team Bush took exception to Mr Howard's criticisms of the Iraq war and Karl Rove made it clear that he would not be welcome at the White House.  Team Blair are credited with helping to stop a Howard-Bush or Cameron-Bush meeting.  Cooler relations between Brown and Bush may have ended the Downing Street veto on this rendezvous.

Since becoming Tory leader Mr Cameron has met John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger but there were suspicions that he did not want to be associated with the 'toxic Texan' in the White House.  In November 2005 Mr Cameron declined to answer a question from ConservativeHome as to whether he would have supported Bush or Kerry at the last presidential election.

David Cameron will hope that the visit will reinforce increasing perceptions that he is a player on the world stage.  While in Washington he will address the Brookings Institution on recent developments in the Balkans and the looming challenges to stability in the region.  The left-liberal leaning Brookings is an interesting choice.  Visiting Tories have traditionally chosen the Heritage Foundation or other conservative think tanks.  Mr Cameron has faced some criticism from the American right for his foreign policy and Brookings may appear a safer bet to him.  There is particular disappointment amongst US conservatives that the Conservatives offered no support for the troops surge in Iraq - a change of policy that is producing increasingly remarked upon results.

Despite fragile progress in Iraq, the Republicans are currently at a low point politically.  Critics of 'Bush Republicanism' - including Andrew Sullivan - believe that Cameronism - with its emphasis on climate change, civil liberties and support for same-sex partnerships - offers a route map for American conservatives after an expected defeat next November.  Many Australian Liberals think the same if John Howard is beaten in Saturday's elections.

It is not clear if the Conservative leader will visit leading Democrats whilst in DC.  My guess is that he will try to.

Don't risk it, Australia

This is the latest election video from downunder.  It warns that a vote for Labor's Kevin Rudd will endanger all of the economic achievements of the Howard years.  Ahead of the 1997 election we attempted to frighten voters in to not voting for Tony Blair by painting him as a red-eyed monster.  It wasn't credible (at least not then!).  It wouldn't have saved the election but I thought that we would have been more sensible to make the reasonable suggestion that Blair was a risk.  On the 1997 campaign trail I didn't meet a voter who thought Blair was devilish.  I met many who thought him untried and inexperienced.  Our devil eyes posters said more about us at the time than Labour.

The best part of this well-made video is the bit where the Australian voter eats his ear wax - a not-too-subtle reminder of the Labour leader's disgusting personal habit.

Watch PlayPolitical's collection of other Australian election ads.

Your favourite right-of-centre/ conservative (and elected) leader in the world today is... John Howard

In the October ConservativeHome survey of 1,206 Conservative Party members, 53% voted for John Howard as their favourite centre right leader in the world today.  19% for Nicolas Sarkozy.  10% for George W Bush.  Another 10% for Angela Merkel.  8% for Stephen Harper.  If more of you knew about Stephen Harper, I think more of you would be impressed.

The polls from downunder have looked pretty grim for Australia's Prime Minister but, writing for today's Telegraph, Simon Heffer thinks it would be wrong to write him off.  The polls have certainly narrowed since the start of the campaign but John Howard's Coalition is still 8% behind.

Alex Deane, David Cameron's former chief of staff and occasional ConservativeHome contributor, is working for the Liberals in Victoria at present.  Alex has been writing a very good guide to the elections over at Iain Dale's Diary.  His latest reports are here.

And, in other international news, today sees the publication of Mike Gerson's Heroic Conservatism.  Mr Gerson, former chief speechwriter to George W, believes that the Republican party cannot survive if it is simply libertarian.  He writes this today from his regular perch at the Washington Post:

"What does a narrow, anti-government conservatism have to offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and intact families are rare? Very little. What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American small change? No hope. What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all."

Passages like that will only enrage Ron Paul-style Republicans and add to the growing tensions within the Republican coalition but I think Gerson is largely right.

Is Germany shifting leftwards under Merkel?

I'm in a Starbucks looking up at Cologne Cathedral.  About to head to the airport and return home to London.

I've just finished reading the cover feature in this week's Newsweek:

"LOST LEADER: Once hailed as Germany's Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel is now ruling by poll, lying low, stalling on reform. What happened?"

The article is a great read and its arguments have been confirmed by all of the people I've been meeting this weekend, as guests of the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung - one of the taxpayer-larded study groups that are loosely attached to each of Germany's main political parties.

The article begins by noting that 45% of west Germans and 57% of east Germans think that socialism is a good thing.  Two-thirds support extended unemployment benefits and a lower retirement age.  This rise in underlying popular support for big state measures is also reflected in support for Germany's left-of-centre parties.  The SPD is on 25%.  The Greens on 10%.  The far-left 'Die Linke' (Left) party led by Oskar Lafontaine (the man once described by The Sun as the most dangerous man in Europe) on 11%.  A total support for clearly left-wing parties of 46%.

Cameron meets John Key

David Cameron has met up with New Zealand National Party leader John Key. It's actually the third time they've met, they were introduced to eachother when they were both up-and-coming backbenchers. Commenting on the comparisons often drawn between the two men, Key said:

"I think there are a reasonable number of similarities – we are both centrist in our thinking, both ambitious for our respective countries to make a change and to deliver on the promise that our respective countries have."

They were both new kids on the block when elected leader too. Key said Cameron wanted to cultivate their relationship:

"He's quite keen to build a lasting personal relationship, he's got some ideas about things – how we can exchange ideas and stay in touch – and that's something I am certainly going to work on. We're really starting a good personal relationship which I think can serve us both well into the future."

Cameron recently forged a strong partnership with Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, and there were a record number of international delegates at this year's conference as a result of the efforts of CCHQ's International Office (they certainly filled up our own reception!). As a keen advocate of developing active relationships with sister parties ConservativeHome warmly welcomes these developments. Next step please: Cameron to finally visit Washington DC.

The National Party are in a similar position to the Conservatives in that they are both in opposition facing a third-term government of the Left. The Nationals have sustained a double-digit opinion poll lead since the spring.

I spent a couple of days meeting them in Wellington last summer and they are a great bunch. For those wanting to keep tabs on Kiwi politics, I recommend David Farrar's Kiwi Blog.

Deputy Editor

John Howard faces his most difficult election

Britain may not be having an autumn election but other Conservatives are facing contests.  There's a 50% chance that Canada's minority Conservatives may face an election.  Australia's John Howard is certainly facing an election.  He has just announced 24th November as polling day.  All opinion polls suggest that he is likely to be beaten by the Blair-like Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, but Mr Howard has been wrongly written off before.  Whatever happens, however, it is clear that he has transformed Australia.

This is what Tom Switzer, Opinion Editor of The Australian, said in a lecture just two months ago:

"Everything that should be up -- incomes, economic growth, the budget surplus, consumer and business confidence -- is up, while everything that should be down -- unemployment, inflation, even (historically speaking) interest rates -- is down. The Australian economy is now in the 16th year of the longest economic expansion perhaps, according to John Howard, "since the gold rushes of the 19th century". This, remember, at a time of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the US tech wreck and recession of 2000-01, and Australia's worst drought in a century. Today, Australia ranks 53rd in terms of world population, but it is the world's 13th largest economy, eighth in the world in income per head from 18th two decades ago. In 2005, a Crosby-Textor survey found more than eight out of ten Australians associated living here with opportunity, confidence and success. Of course, this does not explain the state of the opinion polls, but the point here is that we live in very prosperous times.  The reason for this prosperity: a smart mix of free-market structural reforms and prudent monetary and fiscal policies during the past two decades. If we had heeded the protectionists and economic interventionists -- that is, the very people who today complain that their views are being silenced -- Australia would well and truly be a banana republic. From the interventionist mindset that delivered economic turmoil in the 1970s, Australia has moved to an era of sounder policy and more durable prosperity."

Mr Switzer goes on to note a rejection of multiculturalism in favour of integration, a significant emergence of conservative media and a new pride in Australian history.  He could also have noted the significant extent to which Australia has emerged as a player in the region - including in East Timor, the Solomon Islands as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Related links: Canada provides all conservatives with hope and  Ten point briefing on John Howard from 2006

1pm: ConservativeHome recommends Crikey, Andrew Bolt and The Australian for election coverage.

Giuliani lifts depressed Tories

Yesterday evening some of the Conservative Party's top donors mingled with MPs, including Iain Duncan Smith, and journalists, including the Editor of The Sun, at the inaugural Margaret Thatcher lecture - hosted by Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge.  Before the Mayor spoke all of the reception talk was of an autumn election and people were very downbeat about the party's prospects.  The mood was much improved after Rudy Giuliani had spoken.  It was not a great speech and the former New York Mayor went on a little long, but his remarks were rich in content and a tonic to British Conservatives who hear too little from their own leadership about security and defence issues.

Giuliani began by paying handsome tribute to Baroness Thatcher - who looked magnificent at the main table (Liam Fox pointedly told his guests that he had enjoyed a wonderful and wide-ranging conversation with her over dinner).  The frontrunning candidate for the Republican nomination also said that he had been inspired by her leadership and conviction.  Thatcher and Reagan were the golden years in the very special relationship between Britain and America.  He joked that he was lucky she wasn't running for President.  She would certainly win!  He spent some time saying how much he also admired Nicolas Sarkozy and said that he hoped that he would do for France what Thatcherism did for Britain.  The speech also included tributes to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.  They understood the challenge of terror, he said.  The longest and warmest applause came when he paid tribute to all of the British troops that had "liberated" Iraq and Afghanistan.  They should be so proud of what they did and it was now for all politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to ensure the job that started with those liberations is properly completed.  Pointing to Margaret Thatcher, this is not a time to go "wobbly", he said, and there must be no going back to the appeasement of pre-9/11.

His speech was built around four main themes:

1. The need for institutionalisation of intelligence-sharing. Both nations had much to learn from each other and he hoped to introduce a 'TerrorStat' intelligence system that would monitor 'precursor activities' of terrorists to act as early warning signals for the authorities in the same way that lesser crimes were used as a warning of a larger propensity to criminality in his New York war on crime.
2. Expansion of NATO.  Any nation with military readiness and a commitment to global responsibility should be able to join NATO.  He mentioned Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore.  These nations might encourage existing European members of NATO to take their own responsibilities more seriously.
3. A bigger military.  All armed forces (and intelligence services) were cut too deeply after the end of the Cold War.  We need new capacities including the capacity for a large war with a nation state.  Gulp!  'Prepare for the worst but hope for the best,' Giuliani said.
4. Winning the war through ideas.  This area of ideological warfare had been neglected, he implied.

At the end of the evening Giuliani went up to Liam Fox and hugged him.  I liked the humanity in that.

PS Ben Brogan has posted this report.

***
Earlier in the day the Mayor had criticised the British system of healthcare:

"Healthcare right now in America, and I think it has been true of your experience of socialised medicine in England, is not only very expensive, it's increasingly less effective.  I had prostate cancer seven years ago. My chance of survival in the US is 82%; my chance of survival if I was here in England is below 50%.  Breast cancer, very similar.  I think there's something to the idea that there are many more private options driving the system that create altogether better results."

Noon update: Photographs of Giuliani with Blair, Brown and Thatcher

Party to set up joint policy groups with the CDU-CSU

Three weeks ago we asked when Merkel and Cameron would meet after they missed an opportunity to do so. The answer is today, in Berlin, and it sounds like they got on encouragingly well.

Cameron talked to her about our policy review process and they've agreed to set up several joint working groups on issues like climate change, counter-terrorism and economic competitiveness.

Politicians from both sides will start meeting eachother more, starting with a discussion in London between Cameron and Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble on counter-terrorism.

Cameron congratulated Merkel on disrupting the terror plot last week and agreed to make a speech to her party's parliamentarians on security issues in late October. They also discussed how centre-right parties can work together, a favourite theme of this site.

Deputy Editor