ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

When will Merkel and Cameron meet?

Gordon Brown's quality time with Angela Merkel has had a lot of coverage (pic nicked from the Coffee House) but as Jonathan Isaby points out today, her trip to London this week was yet another missed opportunity to meet David Cameron.

Brushing off any idea of an overt snub (as was also alleged about Sarkozy when he was in London) a spokesman told Isaby that Cameron hadn't asked to meet her this time but that their offices were talking about them meeting at some point in the future.

Merkel is certainly still hung-up on the issue, as is her Chief of Staff, and she and Sarkozy did number among the eleven centre-right leaders who threatened to cut-off bilateral relations with Cameron if he took the party out of their federalist grouping.

Deputy Editor

Canada provides all conservatives with hope

Sam Coates and I are currently touring the Anglosphere - meeting conservative politicians, writers and policy researchers.  Last week I published a report card on US conservatism and today there is this extended post on Canada's Conservative Party.  Next Friday I'll write about conservatism in Australia before writing a series of more general reflections on 28 days of travels.

The Liberals have been Canada's natural party of government

Although Conservatives played the leading role in the founding of Canada and led much of the country's original development, the Liberals have dominated the nation's politics for nearly one hundred years. The Liberal Party has ruled the Ottawa Parliament for more than 80% of the last century.  The Liberals' recent long run of power only came to an end after massive corruption during Prime Minister Chretien's years was exposed by new media.  Even then, however, Stephen Harper's Conservatives were only able to win enough extra seats to become a minority government.  The Liberal Party has dominated Canadian politics because of its successful attempt to identify itself with key sources of Canadian identity.  This has allowed it to build a broad and enduring electoral coalition.  In the same way that Britain's Labour Party has attempted to 'own' national symbols like the NHS, the Liberals have attempted to 'own' the nation's commitment to immigration, to public healthcare, involvement in UN peacekeeping and to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  In the last two elections the Liberal Party campaigned under the slogan 'Choose Your Canada' - implying that the Conservatives were somehow alien to Canada's national identity.

Stephen Harper wants to end Liberal dominance and build an enduring Conservative majority

Stephen Harper became Canada's Conservative Prime Minister early last year.  The Conservatives' journey back to power after losing all but two seats in the early 1990s was a long and arduous one.  The nation's right had split into competing parties during much of the Chretien years - contributing to Liberal dominance.  Harper was the architect of the rebirth of a united right - knitting together Reformers, Progressive Conservatives and right-of-centre activists of various political stripes who had ceased being involved in federal politics. This fixer role was somewhat ironic because he was an original 'splitter' - helping to found Reform.  Harper reminds many observers of John Howard.  He is not especially charismatic but he combines enormous attention to maintaining internal party unity with a masterful instinct for the art of coalition-building.  Like Howard he is a practical ideologue.  His long-term aim is nothing less than a realignment of Canadian politics.  He wants to grow the Conservative electoral coalition to include groups affiliated with the Liberals for much of the 20th Century: French-speaking Catholics, aspirational working class and lower middle class voters and immigrants of non-northern European descent.  This strategy will help him to make inroads where he particularly needs to: the suburbs around Toronto, Canada's largest city, and rural, French-speaking Quebec.

Fox brings Giuliani to London

Samuel Coates and I are currently in New York.  It's part of a four week fact-finding tour of the English-speaking world that will include time in Canada and Australia.  Sam is also going on to New Zealand.  At the end of the four weeks we will be writing a number of essays on the health of conservatism in the Anglosphere.

We spent some time today with the Giuliani campaign.  ConservativeHome readers recently voted the former New York Mayor as their overwhelming favourite to be the next US President.  Listed at the bottom of this note are his twelve key commitments to the American people.

Giuliani will speak to a London event in early September as a guest of Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge.  Margaret Thatcher will also be present.  It's quite a coup for Dr Fox and follows Fred Thompson's visit to London last month.  A visit to Lady Thatcher now appears to be an essential component of any Republican hopeful's campaign.

And the next President of France is...

9.19pm: David Cameron's reaction - "I warmly congratulate Nicholas Sarkozy on his election as President of France. He has campaigned with energy on a platform of change from the economy to the environment on which he promised again tonight that France under his presidency would play a leading role. Now France has voted for change I wish Nicholas Sarkozy every success as he takes up his responsibilities as President." {Related link: No snub from Sarkozy over EPP withdrawal}

9.13pm: Latest projection gives Sarkozy 52.7%.  Allister Heath thinks that Sarkozy is France's "only hope".

7.45pm: Sarkozy pays tribute to European project in speech (no change there) but also promises to stand with USA (a real break from Chirac) although not uncritically.  Emphasises need to combat global warming.

7.34pm: http://sarkozy.fr/

7.30pm: "I've said before that I am not a fan of Sarkozy. He looks to me to be slightly unbalanced and a bit of a bastard. I suppose I should console myself by the fact that as a man of the Right he is at least OUR bastard." - Iain Dale

7.21pm: Both of these men have had a good week (Sarkozy has his own A-list, too, with a promise to fill half of his Cabinet with women).

7.14pm: Extraordinary TV scenes of Sarkozy's car driving through Paris being followed by photographers on motorbikes trying to get photos of France's next President.  You can't imagine the US Secret Service allowing such a thing!

7.07pm: After the scaremongering warnings of riots if Sarkozy was elected a very gracious concession speech from Segolene. This elegant woman has perfected the no make-up make-up look!

7pm: Exit polls predict 53% to 47% victory for Nicolas Sarkozy.  The third consecutive defeat for France's socialists.

6.59pm: 85% turnout! Wow.

No snub from Sarkozy over EPP withdrawal

I would imagine very few ConservativeHome readers would have picked up the waste of trees that is the Daily Mirror this morning, but you may have seen the story we linked to from the frontpage about Nicolas Sarkozy apparently snubbing David Cameron. It won't surprise you that the Mirror got it wrong.

It was based on an article Denis Macshane, former Minister for Europe, wrote about Sarkozy in the Observer last weekend:

"A frequent visitor to London, he and his wife have met the Browns and Blairs. He has spoken at the CDU summer school in Germany alongside Merkel and is close to the liberalising centre-right EU Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso. Sarkozy has refused to meet David Cameron as the Conservative policy of quitting the association of centre-right parties in Europe - driven by the Eurosceptic William Hague - has provoked anger in the new ruling parties of the European right."

As you will see from the comments below it, the article was full of inaccurate and misleading assertions. The CCHQ press team have asked both papers to make corrections, saying:

"Denis MacShane claims in his article that Nicolas Sarkozy "has refused to meet David Cameron." Odd, then, that Sarkozy welcomed David Cameron to Paris on his first visit overseas as Leader of the Conservative Party over a year ago, that they met again in London in September and that Sarkozy gave a supportive video address to the Conservative Party Conference in October. Denis MacShane likes to consider himself as informed about European developments.  Perhaps, once again, he has conveniently overlooked the facts?"

The second and final round in the French presidential elections between Sarkozy and Royal takes place on Sunday.

Deputy Editor

Sarkozy would be good for France but not for Turkey

Only 0.69% of this blog's readers come from France so any endorsement this blog makes of Nicolas Sarkozy will be electorally irrelevant but ConservativeHome does think his agenda is preferable to the reheated tax-and-spend policies of his second round and socialist opponent, Segolene Royal.

Sarkozy describes himself as a 'man of the right' and set out six defining belief criteria to substantiate that description last year:

"First, the primacy of work... Second, the need to compensate personal merit and effort... Third, respect for the rules, and for authority... Fourth, the belief that democracy does not mean weakness; Fifth, values; Sixth, . . . I'm persuaded that, before sharing, you have to create wealth. I don't like egalitarianism."

There are real weaknesses to his agenda, however.  As Martin Callanan MEP wrote on YourPlatform last October - he is no reliable Eurosceptic and will largely follow Angela Merkel in her efforts to reheat parts of the EU Constitution that his country so soundly rejected.  He's also a protectionist and has backed Chirac's 'pickling industrial winners' policy.  Most disappointing is his opposition to Turkey's membership of the EU.

Fortunately, the British political establishment is largely united in supporting Turkey's ambitions.  Some UK Eurosceptics see Turkish membership as a way of thwarting political union and of delivering the kind of multi-layered, multi-speed Europe that many have long wanted.  More importantly, however, rejection of Turkey sends all the wrong signals to the Muslim world.  Liam Fox made the right case for Turkish membership of the EU last year - in a piece for The Sunday Telegraph:

"For Europe, the admission of Turkey to the EU is the primary test of whether the union can adapt to a changing world or whether it will become an increasingly introspective and redundant body. For European politicians, rejecting Turkey carries the risk of pushing this vitally important country into the arms of the political and religious extremists...

A senior French official complained to me last year that Turkish membership would mean that "we could never have a political Europe, only an economic one". Stifling a "three cheers to that", I pointed out what a sadly dated view of the world this was. Even more disturbing was the deeply unpleasant undercurrent present during the French and Dutch referendums last year on the EU constitution, where anti-Turkish sentiment was never far from the surface and mixed with constitutional arguments.  What a tragedy it would be if xenophobic elements in continental Europe had the net result of producing a much more fundamentalist Islamic state on the eastern border of Greece rather than a democratic beacon shining outwards from Europe to those denied the basic freedoms and rights we take for granted. What a mistake of truly historic proportions it would be if, by placating all that is negative in European politics, those in authority delivered future generations into a much more dangerous and destabilised continent."

Schwarzenegger to address Conservative Party Conference

In another major coup for David Cameron the Governor of California - Arnold Schwarzenegger - has agreed to address this year's Blackpool Conference.  There are a number of things I don't like much about Arnie and his politics but now is not the time to rehearse those.  Here are three things that we can usefully learn from The Governator:

1. Direct democracy.  Schwarzenegger won the recall election against the discredited Democrat Governor Gray Davis.  The power to recall ensures that elected politicians can be booted out of office early if they really mess up.  The recall of the London Mayor - proposed by Andrew Boff - was the first idea on ConservativeHome's 100policies.com.  In this age of disaffection with politicians the Conservative Party should be championing ideas that devolve electoral and other powers to ordinary citizens.
2. Servant leadership.  California's Governor survived last November's anti-Republican mood by showing that he was willing to change course when necessary.  Some right-wing Republicans accused him of being too "politically compliant" and "easy-to-please."  Schwarzenegger embraced the critique: "I’m eager to please the voters because I’m a public servant. I don’t see myself as a politician. I see myself as a public servant. I serve the people of California. I serve Democrats and Republicans, and if someone says that, that I’m eager to please, yes, I am. I’m there to please the people.  That’s what this is all about."  It is, of course, possible to be too eager to please - too much of a weather vane, not enough of a sign post.  But there is something attractive in a politician that attempts to lead but never in a way that is indifferent to the public mood.
3. Inspirational leadership.  One of my favourite political speeches was given by Arnie.  I have it on my iPod.  It was his speech to the 2004 Republican Conference.  It was funny.  Ideological.  Honest.  Read or watch it via this link.  Here's my favourite passage:

"My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I['ll] tell you how.

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.

If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.

If you believe that your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.

If you believe -- If you believe that our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.

If you believe -- If you believe that this country, not the United Nations, is best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.

And ladies and gentlemen --  And ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican."

Francis Maude: The Republicans are our sister party

Tory Chairman Francis Maude spoke to ConservativeHome/ 18DoughtyStreet.com yesterday evening at a reception organised by the excellent Lesley Taylor for Conservatives Abroad and Republicans Abroad.  Francis answered questions on...

• The Conservative-GOP relationship - he insisted that the GOP was absolutely the Tories' sister party despite reports to the contrary;
• Why Al Gore was addressing the Tories today;
• Why he was now intending to confound Tamzin Lightwater with his new optimism about the party's prospects ahead of the Nottingham Conference; and
• Why this week's controversy over green taxes showed that the Tories were very serious about the environment.

The three minute video below was recorded to the background of a busy reception but it's just about audible and certainly worth the effort.  I'll be taking my minirecorder to Nottingham this weekend and will aim to record other interviews for your enlightenment!

McCain feels "deceived" by Cameron

The Tory-GOP divide is becoming more serious.  After Friday's criticisms of George W Bush from Peter Ainsworth, the News of the World has confirmed ConservativeHome's story of January that John McCain is disappointed by David Cameron's more dove-ish policy on Iraq... except the language in the NotW story (not online) is harder.  Senator McCain, who was given star billing at last autumn's Conservative conference, reportedly now sees David Cameron's policy on Iraq as "soft."  He apparently feels "deceived" by David Cameron after the Tory leader opposed the increase in US troops in Iraq.  "There has been a clear divergence between us," a McCain spokesman said.  Fraser Nelson takes up the news in his Sunday column:

"I also hear Rudy Giuliani, ex-New York mayor and conservative hero, considers him a turncoat.  Meanwhile, Bush officials are appalled at his attempts to be seen as standing up to the White House.  Cam is happy to let his lieutenants send out anti-US messages, especially on the environment.  But chasing such cheap votes in Britain has repurcussions in Washington.  This behaviour can be expected of no-hoper Labour backbenchers.  Not from an aspiring statesman."

Asked about John McCain's remarks on Sunday AM, Liam Fox sidestepped the issue and referred to widespread divisions in Washington circles as regards the troops surge.  On defence policy, Dr Fox abided by George Osborne's tough new policy on expenditure announcements and declined to say what a Conservative Government would spend on defence.  He said he would be looking for more burden sharing from NATO Partners and better procurement policies.  The Shadow Defence Secretary said that the Canadian model deserved study.  Canada had increased its defence strength by buying off-the-shelf defence equipment from other nations.  Britain can no longer afford a bespoke military, Dr Fox continued - spending a lot of money on over-budget products for equipment that could be bought more cheaply from other arms manufacturing nations.

The world cannot afford US isolationism

Given the dominance of international issues the 2008 US presidential race will be more important in some vital respects for British citizens - even than our own General Election.

Next Tuesday's mid-term elections look set to give Democrats control of at least one of the Houses of Congress.  The implications for America and the rest of the world could be profound.  Irwin Stelzer writes this for this week's Spectator (not yet online):

"Democratic control of either House will certainly make it more difficult for Bush to pursue his stay-the-course strategy in Iraq. The Democrats will control the funding of the war. With the chairmanships of the powerful congressional committees in their hands, they will launch a series of investigations into the conduct of the war, the domestic security measures adopted by the Bush team, the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, and quite possibly set the stage for the impeachment proceedings that the Democratic leadership is publicly promising to eschew, but privately reassuring its leftish constituencies it has very much in mind. If you want to think about the effect of the American election on Great Britain, conjure a world in which the only nation with the power to take on nuclear North Korea and Iran is in the grip of political paralysis for two years, or is under pressure from Democrats reviving George McGovern’s 1972 isolationist cry of ‘Come home, America’."

There are other major implications.  The Democrats, still heavily unionised, may stall trade and immigration reforms.  Green Tories may welcome greater willingness to act against climate change, however.  The party of Al Gore will probably take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions but the steps will be timid given the number of Democrats representing rustbelt, manufacturing districts.

Stelzer's conclusion:

"All in all, it is an American election that will forcefully affect British interests. If you believe it is important to stay the course in Iraq and keep free trade flowing, root for the Republicans. If you are a UN fan, and agree with Al Gore that a global melt-down is nigh, root for the Democrats. Either way, hope that American does not withdraw into itself, as it has done in the past, with horrendous consequences for world order."

Related link: Daniel Hamilton's guide to this year's Senate races

David Frum: Britain's empty conservatism

David Frum (recently Q&A'd on ConservativeHome) is one of America's leading conservative commentators.  I've noted before how British conservatism is becoming increasingly different from the conservatism of other Anglosphere nations (see here and here).  Mr Frum has noticed, too:

"Guess whose political platform this is:

- Tax cuts? No.

- More public money for government-monopoly health care? Yes.

- Same-sex marriage? Enthusiastically yes.

- Big supermarkets? Offenders against the environment.

- Kyoto Accord. Absolutely.

- Terrorism? Close Guantanamo.

- Illegal immigration? Don't talk about it.

- Israel's response to Hezbollah's rocket attacks? Disproportionate.

- George W. Bush? No friend of ours."

Some modernising Cameroons will welcome criticism from the man who wrote the 'axis of evil' line for George Bush's famous State of the Union address.  And it might be true that Mr Cameron's strategy might be right for 'BBC-land Britain' - time will tell - but we should know that it is very different from the conservatism of three election winners; George W Bush, Stephen Harper and John Howard.  Read David Frum's full article here.

Nicolas Sarkozy to address Tory conference (via video link)

Three possible world leaders of tomorrow are now set to address this year's Tory Party Conservative.

David Cameron and John McCain (who warmly endorsed the Conservative leader earlier this week) are already on the programme and ConservativeHome has now learnt that French interior minister and leading presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy - 'the right-wing sun of French politics' - will be sending a video message to Bournemouth.

Mr Sarkozy's 'appearance' will be a significant boost to Mr Cameron's internationalist credentials.  It will worry some eurosceptics, however.  Mr Sarkozy was one of a number of European leaders who threatened to ostracise Mr Cameron if he fulfilled his pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP.  Furthermore, today's Telegraph reports Mr Sarkozy as favouring a "single European asylum office".  This week's Economist calls on Mr Cameron to fully abandon his EPP pledge because "the best way to exercise influence in Europe is from within its biggest political group, rather than from the fringes".

From Bush-Blair to McCain-Cameron?

Senator John McCain pays generous praise to David Cameron in an interview (not yet online) for this week's Spectator, conducted by Matthew d'Ancona. Here are some key extracts:

Green conservatism: "Asked what he likes about the young Tory leader, he lists “his youth, enthusiasm, willingness to embrace new ideas based on conservative policies” – and pays particular tribute to the Conservative Party’s fresh emphasis upon the environment. He sees Mr Cameron (to whom he has spoken at length, but will meet in the flesh for the first time this weekend) as “a breath of fresh air on the political scene”."

Moderate conservatism: "It is not hard to see why the Cameroons have wooed Sen McCain, and why he feels a kinship with them. His politics has long been based upon the principle that elections are won by transcending a party’s core vote – or “base”, as it is called in the US. His comparatively liberal positions on gay marriage, stem cell research and immigration have not endeared him to the Republican Right: he will face stiff opposition in the primaries if he runs. Beyond that, however, anything is possible."

Reaching the great middle of the British electorate: "“It’s very obvious to me that what Mr Cameron is trying to do is what I’ve been trying to do: preserve your base principles and philosophies, but also see how you can shape those policies to attract what is viewed as the independent voter, or the great middle of the British electorate. For example, in the United States our Republican Party basically [has] written off the State of California in the last several elections. Governor Schwarzenegger has just proved that California can be put in play. That’s what I see Mr Cameron and his cadre of very bright young people doing.”"

Hawkish in the war on terror: "Sen McCain’s position on the war is that of an unwavering hawk who nonetheless believes that the methods of the present administration are unsustainable, and will make the battle for hearts and minds – at home and abroad  - impossible to win. In the great US foreign policy debate, he is a Wilsonian idealist, who regards the plight of Darfur as no less pressing an issue than the threat of al Qaeda."... "“He understands that the war on terror is the transcendent issue of our time and that it’s going to be a long hard struggle,” says McCain.  “It’s not only on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq where British soldiers are sacrificing as we speak, but it’s also in the ideological struggle. That’s where the ultimate battle is, because you don’t win the war on the ground unless you win the war of moral superiority of your way of life, our standards, our ideals. Otherwise, you continue to breed soldiers and foot soldiers in the war on terror.”"

Sweden escapes left-wing grip

Fredrik Reinfeldt has been compared to a hybrid of Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron - with the former Tory leader's looks and the current leader's moderation.  The Swedish conservative leader is his nation's new Prime Minister after winning a narrow victory over the centre-left Social Democrats who have led Sweden for 65 of the last 74 years.

Mr Reinfeldt has promised to "trim" taxes, benefits and regulation - rather than radically alter the Swedish model where average taxes are 55%.

Mr Reinfeldt has said that his welfare policies have been inspired by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.  His victory remarks certainly sounded very new Labour (as reported by BBC Online)...

"We ran in the election as the New Moderates, we have won the election as the New Moderates and we will also together with our Alliance friends govern Sweden as the New Moderates."

The headline chosen by The Independent reveals what Britain's most left-leaning mainstream newspaper thinks of Mr Reinfeldt's victory:  'Sweden lurches to the right'.

What Lieberman's defeat might mean for us

Six years ago he came within a few chads of being America's Vice President but Connecticut's Democrats have humbled Joe Lieberman by rejecting the man who has been their Senator for eighteen years.  By 52% to 48% the previously unknown Ned Lamont rode a rising tide of anti-war feeling to stop Lieberman from being the Democrat candidate for this November's elections. Lieberman has supported the Iraq war and this has enraged his party's MooreOn tendency - more nutroots than netroots.  Mr Lieberman becomes only the fourth incumbent senator to be rejected - by his own party - for re-election in nearly thirty years.

The felling of Lieberman does not augur well for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.  The New York Senator also supported the Iraq war and the Dems' netroots will feel emboldened in the race to choose the next party presidential candidate.  The left-wing blogosphere has become adept at finding millions of dollars for anti-establishment insurgent campaigns.  They may fund an anti-war candidate to be the party's cheerleader for 2008.

US Republicans are looking nervously at November's elections - fearing the unpopular Iraq war may see them lose the House and Senate but hawks like William Kristol see longer-term opportunities for political realignment in what has happened to Joe Lieberman:

"There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps. But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one."

Lessons for Britain?  Three strike me:

• Anti-war feeling remains strong for the time-being and we learnt on Saturday that a group of anti-war activists want to unseat Labour ministers as a result.
• The war on terror divides the parties.  There are preemptive hawks in both parties and then there are more cautious multilateralists.  There is no sign of a realignment of UK politics along these lines yet - but we may start seeing one if there is a serious deterioration in the global security situation and parties divide on the appropriate response.
• Anti-establishment feeling is also growing and the internet can harness that feeling.  The primary election for the Tory London mayoral candidate could be an opportunity for a net-based campaign to choose an anti-establishment candidate.  I am going to start giving this some serious thought...

God bless Canada

Earlier this week ConservativeHome drew attention to the outstanding conservatism of Australia's John Howard.  Also hugely promising is Canada's tax-cutting, Kyoto-sceptical, tough-on-crime Stephen Harper.   He visited Britain last month en route to the G8 Summit in St Petersburg.  Whilst in London he called on Margaret Thatcher and gave a terrific speech to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce.  The speech received zero coverage in the UK media.  That is unfortunate as it was hugely positive about Canada's relationship with Britain.  Pasted below are a few key extracts from Mr Harper's speech.  They're well worth a two or three minute read...

A tribute to the legacy of the British Empire: "Now I know it’s unfashionable to refer to colonialism in anything other than negative terms.  And certainly, no part of the world is unscarred by the excesses of empires.  But in the Canadian context, the actions of the British empire were largely benign and occasionally brilliant."

The great bond between Canada and Britain in defeating evil: "When Britain has bled, Canada has bled.  A generation of our young men share eternity with British Tommies in the fields of France.  Another generation of Britons and Canadians fought side by side against Nazi fascism.  Yet another helped our American cousins prevail over the menace of Soviet communism.  And ever since that brief, illusory moment when we thought we were witness to “the end of history,” we have been allied in a new global conflict.  It is a conflict without borders.  A conflict fought abroad and at home.  A conflict in which the aggressor stands for nothing yet seeks to impose its will. Through the destruction of terrorism.  Through the slaughter of the innocent.  And through the perversion of a faith.  So once more we face, as Churchill put it “gangs of bandits who seek to darken the light of the world.  And once more we must appeal to our values, marshal our resources and steadfastly apply our will to defeat them.  This war on terror will not be easy.  Nor will it be short.  But it must be won.  And Canada’s new national government is absolutely determined, once again, to stand shoulder to shoulder with our british allies, to stay the course and to win the fight."

What can David Cameron learn from the world's most successful conservative politician?

John Howard has suffered from a few TB-GB-style difficulties recently.  The Australian PM's finance minister Peter Costello went public with a suggestion that Mr Howard had agreed to step down in his favour and had failed to do so.  It produced a mini political crisis and has been brought to a conclusion in recent days by John Howard's announcement that he will be fighting a fifth General Election.

Writing for today's Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips is very impressed with John Howard's premiership and believes that he could teach David Cameron a thing or two:

"While Britain's Tory leader pursues his daring attempt to regain power... by junking vast swathes of Conservative baggage, John Howard has emerged as the most successful conservative politician of modern times.  And he has done so by embodying the very opposite of the image-obsessed, soundbite-laden gimmickry that now drives British politics."

Melanie Phillips highlights the following:

• "He is a staunch ally of US foreign policy and has taken uncompromising stands on anti-terrorism laws and Muslim integration."
• "His government introduced eye-wateringly tough immigration laws."
• He wants to see pupils salute the Australian flag at morning assembly.
• "He has cut taxes, restructured labour markets and presided over the longest economic boom in the country's history."

Tax cuts remain a central ingredient of all of the Anglosphere's successful conservative parties - but not in Britain.  Oliver Letwin used Monday evening to tell a Policy Exchange gathering that he wanted to exorcise the myth that tax cuts were intrinsic to Conservatism.  Instead he suggested the party should concentrate on beauty.  I mean no disrespect to Mr Letwin when I say that all voters could probably manage without a tax cut if they enjoyed a directorship at NM Rothschild.

For Janet Albrechtsen, in The Australian, the not-so-ordinary John Howard's 'big idea' is individual choice:

"If Howard's apparent ordinariness is the core of his success, the truth is he is nothing of the sort. No one wins four elections by being ordinary. Unlike the Bruckner lovers, Howard articulates the concerns and aspirations of Australians by pursuing a shrewd mix of political philosophy and pragmatism. Policies are mostly founded on the simple message of individual choice. And while the anti-Howard forces may be embarrassed by Australia's economic success during the past decade, most people realise that choice is real only if the economy is performing.  Howard is not embarrassed about funding private schools to support parents who make that choice. Or offering middle-class welfare: childcare rebates to support mothers who wish to work and family tax benefits for those who want to stay at home. Individual choice also explains Howard's extensive industrial relations reforms, where individual workplace agreements are nutted out between employees and employers."

Related link: John Howard's ten years in charge.

Tory criticism of Israel is another step towards European worldview

The article is more subtle than the headline but William Hague's piece for today's Sunday Telegraph [Telegraph site is down at time of posting] hardens the hint of criticism of Israel that was evident on Thursday.  Matthew d'Ancona - writing on the page opposite to Mr Hague - describes the former Tory leader's words as "astonishing".  The Spectator's Editor  (who believes Iran is the greatest foreign policy test of our age) speculates that Mr Hague's advisers are responsible for this "wobble".

The Hague article is also another sign of the Shadow Foreign Secretary's determination to wrench the Conservative Party away from its once inseparable relationship with America:

"In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so: our position in international affairs may often be linked to that of the United States but it does not have to be identical to it."

Earlier this year William Hague, in a trip to Washington DC, spoke of America's moral authority "bleeding away".  Hague 2006 is certainly striking a different pose than Hague 2003.  This is backbencher Hague during the Commons debate ahead of the Iraq war:

"Our national interest is wide ranging, given that ours is the fourth largest economy in the world, our trade extends across the world and our citizens may be found throughout the world. However, it is also part of our national interest to act in concert with the United States of America in matters of world peace and stability, and that is what the Government are seeking to do. Every serious attempt to advance peace in the middle east has been advanced under the auspices of the United States of America. Every successful attempt to clean up the Balkans has been undertaken only with the support of the United States of America. Those who will not venture out when a criminal is coming down the street should not complain when someone acts as the policeman. The reason why the USA takes on so many responsibilities in the world is that others shirk those responsibilities, as they have done in the Security Council in the past few weeks."

Editor's comment: "The British Conservative Party's willingness to criticise an Israel besieged by terrorist enemies - during a time of conflict - is only the latest example of where Team Cameron is following a more European worldview.  The embrace of the Kyoto approach to global warming (rather than the Asian-Pacific Partnership's technological approach), an acceptance of European levels of taxation and a more 'understanding' approach to crime are three manifestations of this trend.  It is a trend rather than a full-scale conversion but Cameron's Tories are increasingly looking more Christian Democrat and less like the successful conservative parties of the Anglosphere."

Rudy 2008

This is the website of a man who is running for the White House.

Probably the most successful conservative leader in the world

John Howard has just celebrated ten years as Australia's Prime Minister.  'The Wizard of Oz' has won four general elections and has done so by pursuing authentically conservative policies...

Economic dynamism.  John Howard’s governments have helped to sustain what has become fifteen straight years of economic expansion.  Some politicians are cake slicers but the Liberal Party’s finance minister – Peter Costello - is a big believer in ‘bigger cake economics’: where growing the economy matters more than redistributing the fruits of growth.

Opponent of vested interests.  Despite Australia’s triennial system of elections John Howard has not shied away from bold and controversial reforms. His premiership has been associated with banning of semi-automatic guns, welfare reform, aboriginal land ownership changes and an end to trade union closed shops.  He has also been a staunch opponent of illegal immigration.

Howard is the third man in the Anglosphere's alliance against terror.  Always a supporter of George W Bush’s rogue nation analysis, Howard became even more convinced of the need for action after 88 Australians were killed in the bombing of Bali in October 2002.  He has presided over a major increase in Australian defence expenditure.

An opponent of Kyoto and signatory to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development.  He has ruthlessly opened divides in the Labor coalition of trade unions and environmentalists by campaigning against “extreme” green policies that kill blue collar jobs.

This environmental policy is consistent with his trademark commitment to Australia's 'strivers'.  Strivers – or battlers - are those voters who can't easily afford the taxes, regulations and public service failures that wealthier voters can, to a greater extent, absorb.  Choosing to champion the strivers or to appease the twins of the supplicant state and civil service bureaucracy is one of the biggest choices facing today's politicians.

Social conservatism.  One of his first acts as Prime Minister was to overturn pro-euthanasia legislation passed under Labor. At the last election – in a bid to win the family values vote - he opposed same-sex unions and promised an Aus$1.1bn programme for stay-at-home mums. During the last election campaign Peter Costello led an outreach programme to religious voters. Costello told an audience of 16,000 Christians at Sydney’s Hillsong Evangelical Church that “we need a return to faith and the values which have made our country strong.”

BACKGROUND LINKS

• Leader in The Australian: "After 10 years that have seen Mr Howard win often-contentious fights over issues ranging from GST to boatpeople to war with Iraq, the government seems to have lost its will to try out anything too new or controversial."

• Crikey: A psephological review of Howard's record

• ABC: A look back at Howard's ten years

• BBCi: ""I've got less hair and I'm older and uglier."  That is how Australia's veteran Prime Minister John Howard marked his 10th anniversary in office, on 2 March, in a newspaper interview."

• FT: "Pressed again in an interview with ABC radio on Thursday about his future, Mr Howard said: “I have always said that if I were to go under a bus the person who would and should lead the Liberal party is Peter Costello.  Peter by reason of his position and by reason of his qualities (if I were to go under that bus and I’m very careful crossing the roads) he's the logical person to take my place.”"

Nicolas Sarkozy - The right-wing sun of French politics

Simon Heffer has called Nicolas Sarkozy, France's interior minister, the "most exciting leader" in Europe.   The Economist sees him as the anti-establishment candidate - championing "ordinary folk—but policemen, firemen and supermarket shoppers, not the farmers of yesterday's France".  BBC Online notes how he "seduces" the media: "Every French news bulletin features the man who made his mark as an authoritarian interior minister - tough on crime, and tough on immigration."

The latest profile of M Sarkozy comes in The Weekly Standard by regular FT columnist, Christopher Caldwell.  Near the beginning of his piece Mr Caldwell captures the political dominance of France's interior minister and would-be President:

"It is not certain that "Sarko," as he is called in the press, will win, but it is certain he will set the tone. To adapt a metaphor of the political scientist Samuel Lubell, he is the "sun" of the French political scene, generating all the light and ideas. The other candidates are like "moons," merely reflecting the light he gives off--agreeing with Sarko on this, disagreeing with him on that, and sort of agreeing with him on the other thing."

M Sarkozy is very unusual - for a French politician - in describing himself as "a man of the right".  'What do you mean by that?', Caldwell asks Sarkozy:

"First, the primacy of work...

Second, the need to compensate personal merit and effort...

Third, respect for the rules, and for authority...

Fourth, the belief that democracy does not mean weakness;

Fifth, values;

Sixth, . . . I'm persuaded that, before sharing, you have to create wealth. I don't like egalitarianism."

And what does all this mean in practice?  Caldwell:

"He intends to shrink the state, reform the profligate, bureaucratic, and job-killing "French social model," cut taxes, promote ethnic harmony (through the controversial expedient of affirmative action), normalize Islam in French society, and shore up France's alliance with the United States. These plans amount to what supporters and detractors call la rupture. As Sarkozy told a roomful of journalists at UMP headquarters in January: "You can't run France on the ideas of 30 years ago.""

The man escapes easy categorisation.  A poll showed him outperforming Le Pen amongst traditional Le Pen supporters.  He uses strong, colourful language when describing the law-breaking residents of the banlieues (the estates where last year's riots took off) but Sarkozy has visited them much more than any of his political contemporaries.  He is passionately pro-Israel and much less hostile to the war in Iraq than President Chirac.  He has also worked tirelessly for France's five million Muslims.   Bringing Islam into the mainstream of French society is a big deal for him:

"Most people in France pay lip service to this idea, but Sarkozy acts on it. A great deal of the work Sarkozy has done with the two-year-old French Council of the Muslim Faith involves getting non-pork dishes into school cafeterias and arranging for Muslim burials to be allowed in municipal cemeteries."

As the right reinvents itself in various parts of the world, the progress of Nicolas Sarkozy will be as fascinating as it is likely to be eventful.

What Bush is doing right

William Hague et al return from a trip to Washington that was notable for a little bit of finger-wagging at the Bush administration.  Finger-wagging that provoked disapproval from The Times.

Mr Hague's remarks were pretty measured, on the whole, however.  In contrast, Bush-bashing is an endless sport on the Today programme.  For the umpteenth time this morning's 8.10am interview was dedicated to the Guantanamo Bay controversy (although, for once, platformed a defender of America's policy).

When was the last time that the Today programme dedicated its plum slot to the situation in Darfur where at least 200,000 - and, perhaps, 400,000 - people have died?  Is the loss of life in Darfur really less serious an issue than the decision of the USA to detain enemy combatants at Guantanamo (under rules of war entirely consistent with the allies' containment of WWII PoWs)?

Today's Washington Post and New York Times report on Bush's attempts to double the peacekeeping force in Darfur.  America's President hopes to use his country's chairmanship of the UN Security Council to add 7,000 NATO troops to the 7,000 African Union troops.  These NATO troops would do more than double the scale of commitment - they would add a professional and technical edge that the less well-resourced African troops cannot match.  Bush hopes to use the interim period to encourage NATO to provide more support to the AU deployment.

The US has already provided $190m for training of the AU deployment and President Bush has just asked Congress for another $500m for assistance to Darfur.

David Cameron made a passionate commitment to Darfur during his leadership bid and it must be hoped that the Conservative Party presses the British government to match the White House's (belated) commitment to this sad corner of Africa.

***

As the Tories return from America I would like to briefly highlight three other areas that we could learn from Bush...

(1) The role that tax relief plays in encouraging economic growth... Bush has established a Dynamic Analysis Division to increase understanding of the incentive benefits of certain tax cuts: "Unless policymakers can see that some tax policy changes support more vigorous economic activity while others do not, they may (and indeed have) enact tax laws that are, at best, economically meaningless or, at worst, downright harmful. Dynamic scoring can help to sort the good from the bad." (Heritage Foundation).

(2) The importance of investing in marriage and fatherhood.  The administration has just invested $150m pa in voluntary sector services to build healthy marriages.  Its part of a bid to reduce the cost to taxpayers of family breakdown and should be studied by the pro-marriage David Cameron.

(3) The campaigning skills of the Republican party and wider conservative movement.  Donal Blaney has written about this on today's Platform.

Fox, Hague and Osborne head for Washington

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME TRANSATLANTIC RECONCILIATION...

Telegraph: "William Hague will lead a team of senior Conservatives to Washington tomorrow on a mission to heal the party's bruised relationship with the Bush administration... The two-day Washington visit is partly designed to project the Tories as on their way back to power. According to Dr Fox, who will spend a day in the Pentagon, the Tory relationship with the Republicans is moving from "party-to-party" to "very much future government-to-government".  However, the Tories' traditionally close relations with Republicans were badly fractured in 2004 after Michael Howard, the former Tory leader, expressed regret for backing Tony Blair's case for the war with Iraq."

...AND FOR SOME STRAIGHT-TALKING

Times: "William Hague will tell President Bush to show some “leadership” on the environment when he leads a delegation of senior Conservatives to Washington this week.  The Shadow Foreign Secretary will use a speech to foreign policy experts on Thursday to welcome the President’s description of the US as “addicted to oil”, but will urge him to go further to tackle climate change.  “I will certainly be using part of the speech I’m giving on Thursday to call for American leadership on climate change and for them to carry forward what he talked about,” Mr Hague said yesterday as he announced his itinerary."

WHO WILL THEY BE MEETING?

FT: "Between them, William Hague, shadow foreign secretary; George Osborne, shadow chancellor; and Liam Fox, shadow defence secretary, are expected to hold talks with Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state; John Snow, Treasury secretary; Ben Bernanke, the new chairman of the Federal Reserve; and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political adviser."

Times: "The significant coup for the Conservatives is to secure a meeting with John McCain, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008. That takes place on Thursday."

ViewLondon: "The Tories will also meet with several democrats at a discussion organised led by Madeleine Albright, a former secretary of state."

FOX TO ADDRESS THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S NEW MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM

Heritage: "In his speech to The Heritage Foundation’s new Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, Dr. Liam Fox will explore the factors that make the special relationship work and assess the challenges that lie ahead for the United States and the United Kingdom, from the NATO operation in Afghanistan to the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the growing threat of international terrorism."

The unacceptable face of American conservatism

Regular readers of this blog will know that ConservativeHome values the UK-US relationship and hopes for a closer Tory-GOP relationship under David Cameron.  Steps towards such a closer relationship will be made this week when Messrs Hague, Osborne and Fox arrive in Washington to meet leaders of the Republican and conservative establishments.

I’ve been in DC for five weeks – partly at CCHQ’s expense.  I return home today after learning much about the role of the internet in American politics.  I’ll post some of my learnings shortly (after I’ve passed them to Francis Maude).  My visit concluded with time at the CPAC conference.  The Conservative Political Action Conference is an annual gathering of more than a thousand conservative grassroots activists.  Dick Cheney and John Bolton topped the bill of speakers.

There was much at CPAC to like but the unacceptable face of American conservatism was also on show.  I’m thinking of Ann Coulter.  She is clever, often funny, very right-wing and made her name attacking Bill Clinton.  At Friday’s CPAC she was simply offensive, however.  She called Muslims “ragheads”.  A young Muslim in the audience politely questioned the way she was labelling all Muslims as if they all believed the same thing.  She responded by saying that Muslims deserved the label after flying two aeroplanes into New York’s Twin Towers.  International Muslim opinion is excited enough without Ms Coulter’s crude attempts to increase her book sales.

The blogging community at the event were virtually united in criticism of her, but she won an ovation at the end of her speech and the subsequent Q&A.  I talked to delegates afterwards and asked them to explain why they were supporting her.  They admitted she had gone too far but they were glad that someone was speaking out against the inflamed reaction of too many Muslims to the Danish cartoons.  That is the danger.  If mainstream politicians are craven in the response to Muslim extremism (of the kind we saw in London last week) the hate of the likes of Ann Coulter will fill the vacuum.

Mitt Romney for President?

I have a bet with IDS that Hillary Clinton will be America's next and first woman President.  A combination of her ability to raise money and her celebrity status will, I fear, see her win through.  If she wins Iain has to buy me dinner at a top London restaurant.  If she loses I take him out for dinner and I would be happy to do so... it would be a celebration event. 

If Hillary is the clear favourite to be the Democrats' nominee the Republicans are struggling to find the right candidate.  Jeb Bush would probably stroll to the nomination if he wanted it but he has been categorical in saying that he does not want to run.  The highly-strung John McCain (so strong on Iraq and who recently praised David Cameron) is unpopular with the base of the party because of his support for Kyoto and for the way he attacked Christian conservatives in 2000.  Guiliani - the hero of 9/11 - is probably too liberal on abortion and gay rights.  Many fear that Senator George Allen  lacks charisma.  Mitt Romney is the candidate that some observers are beginning to take very seriously...

Romney is a conservative Republican and has been elected Governor of the very blue state of Massachusetts.  He is a fiscal conservative at a time when George W Bush has lost control of public spending.  He is a cultural conservative who opposes gay marriage and who believes that Roe Vs Wade was wrongly decided.  He is a hawkish conservative who supports George W Bush's approach to the war on terror.  And, as I learnt last night, he is a very articulate conservative.  I was at a dinner for 100 or so conservative Christians who were very impressed with this Mormon's grasp of policy and his speechmaking skills.  He might be my best hope for ensuring I buy Iain dinner in the second week of November 2008...