Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Andrew Lansley confirms he won't be standing | Main | Caption competition (4) »

Comments

Jonathan Sheppard

Malcolm - yes I do think Davis has handled a particularly tricky brief very well. With my work I get to meet MPs from all the parties including Ministers. I dont think there has been a more high profile area than Home Office and Davis has done a sterling job. I don't think that can be taken away from him - and for me - that counts for more than a 20 minute speech.

Its not even down to the fact that Blunkett went. Its continuing to pressure Labour on crime figures on terrorism and so on. I think Davis is more than a match for Charlie Clarke, and Labour know it.

Unfortunately I have no recent examples of Ken's activity in Parliament to make a comparison or Rifkind's for that matter - and Cameron hasn't been in position long enough, though no one can doubt his ability.

Fox again is a decent performer - and someone I would want on my side rather than against me.

When you stack up a likely future Shadow Cabinet - for the first time in a while I think there is the talent and if not more importantly, the belief that we are at the very least, a match for Labour.

Mark Fulford

Jame, I don't think it's online. It was the p2 "online" section and was talking about conservativehome. It went very similar to this:

"Cameron's site very clearly communicates his priorities." said one. "I'm afraid Cameron deals exclusively in meaningless platitudes" replied another.

Tomorrow I'll e-mail you a scan for your scrap book.

malcolm

What exactly is wrong with patriotism Mark? Nobody is advocating the xenophbic 'my country right or wrong' type that you sometimes see in the USA but an effort to bind us all together in a shared respect for our institutions and values seems to me a good idea and one which every Conservative could support.

James Hellyer

Thank you Mark!

malcolm

Well I hope your right Jonathan.Perhaps you are aware of things that DD did that I'm not.But I did feel that he let Labour get away with an utter shambles of an immigration policy and that our position on ID cards before the election was opportunistic to put it kindly.

James Hellyer

In fairness, the ID cards policy was down to Michael Howard. It was him who said we had to be in favour in principle, because as Home Secretary he had proposed introducing ID cards and didn't want to be accused of hypocrisy.

Mark Fulford

Nothing is wrong with patriotism - but it's not a big deal with the electorate. Fox chose to spend the final 90 seconds of a key speech on patriotism - which means he sees it as a very big deal.

Elena

We've got to be careful of this patriotism thing - yes, it's a good idea, but one that would turn the electorate off quicker than a value-price disposable battery.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"To alter a much mentioned phrase
"vote Davis get Brown"
Vote Cameron and be part of the Governing party of this country"

Vote Cameron, get 'Blair'.

Vote Cameron and copy the governing party of this country.

What about people who want a distinctive choice at election time and aren't gullible/stupid/drunk enough to want Charlie Kennedy as PM? Brown has already indicated that he won't ditch Blair's agenda and with Cameron modelling himself on Princess Tony as well, where will that distinctive choice be?

James Hellyer

“Like Coca-Cola, get the real thing,” said Cameron. In the choice between New Labour and Blue Labour, would that mean the choice is New Labour, David?

Daniel Vince-Archer

Well said James H. If we go into an election without offering anything to set us apart from the other lot, the electorate is bound to decide it's better the devil they know than the devil they don't. Too many people already feel that all politicians are the same and, with the Blairesque Cameron turning the Conservatives into New Labour-lite, that cynicism would be entrenched even further.

Daniel Vince-Archer

Well said James H. If we go into an election without offering anything to set us apart from the other lot, the electorate is bound to decide it's better the devil they know than the devil they don't. Too many people already feel that all politicians are the same and, with the Blairesque Cameron turning the Conservatives into New Labour-lite, that cynicism would be entrenched even further.

Mark Fulford

Cameron has an x-factor in the same way that Blair does, but to suggest that Cameron is modelling himself on Blair is a ridiculous non-falsifiable argument.

It’s also not true that there’d be no difference between the parties. Leaving aside the hundreds of Tory MPs who’d also be in government, Cameron is setting out very different policies in topics that really decide people’s voting. For example, contrast Blair’s and Cameron’s policies on education - a topic of earnest importance to every family in the country.

Paul Marks

The posting made a lot of sense. Although (as I am "out of the loop") I did not understand some of it -for example who is the "camp M.P." who is insulting other Conservatives?

Still a lot of the suggestions did indeed make sense.

As for the leadership election itself, well full honesty can not be expected.

For example, (as even the Times writer, the one with the odd name, who writes on economic matters admitted today - although he spoilt it by comming out with his usual rubbish about "cutting interest rates" i.e. building up the credit bubble even more than it is being built up) government spending is going to have to be CUT - due to the fiscal meltdown the nation is facing (partly hidden by Mr Brown's Enron style book keeping) but I would not expect any candidate for the leadership to say that.

They all have to say things like "we must help the poor" (or whatever), although (thankfully) most of the leadership candidates at least do not use the term "social justice" (I do not think that even Mr Clarke uses the term - I suspect this is because he knowns what it means).

The truth is that a Welfare State of this size can not be maintained and whilst (yes) a lot of money can be saved by sacking administrators in nonjobs, services are also going to have to be hit (people who are dependent will suffer, and I have always been poor myself so I am not speaking from some safe position on this).

But again I would not expect any of the leadership candiadates to say this - we are not in a 1976 position yet and till we are people will just keep quiet about the problem.

Some people say it will be less difficult for Labour to do the cutting than it would be us to do it. However, I see Mr Brown as more of a Harold Wilson than a Uncle Jim.

Wilson would never cut the Welfare State - even when he knew it had to be done.

Samuel Coates

Not sure comparing yourself to Coca Cola is entirely favourable, I was reading a Respect newspaper type thing earlier and it was calling for a boycott of coca-cola, though not as party policy I assume.

Not exactly picking up fluffy vibes of unity in this discussion! I suppose that, in theory, comes after the leader is chosen.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"For example, contrast Blair’s and Cameron’s policies on education - a topic of earnest importance to every family in the country."

I would contrast their policies if they actually spent some time discussing them instead of mouthing empty platitudes and indulging in gesture politics. The truth is both men are as shallow as an ant's paddling pool.

Henry Cook

We must remember that it is Blair who moved onto our ground, so Cameron is simply trying to reclaim what is traditionally belongs to us. The Tories destroyed the ideas of the Labour Party, and they in turn half-heartedly adopted our principles. Foundation hospitals for example are a conservative idea, applying principles of the free-market to public services. But what makes Cameron so much more than Blair 2 is that he is Conservative with a capital C, and so will not have the same restrictions as Blair does, enabling him to take reform so much further and without the useless bureaucracy and political correctness of New Labour. Blair is conservative-lite, rather than Cameron Labour-lite.

James Hellyer

to suggest that Cameron is modelling himself on Blair is a ridiculous non-falsifiable argument.

Cameron is modelling himself on Blair. His speeches use the same patterns and verbal constructions as Blair's: the verbless sentences, the false dichotomies, the obvious and unopposeable presented as couragous declarations. And then there are his mannerisms...

From The Sun to the Mail to The Telegraph, paper after paper has noted these points.

James Hellyer

But school autonomy and parental choice are no panacea.

Are these the policies that don't make sense? Cameron says we need greater school autonomy and parental choice, but then dismissed them as the mechanisms that could turn schools around and instead talks about central government ("we") enforcing rigour. He's contradictory and bordering on the nonsensical.

Henry Cook

Blair would still be very popular were it not for the Iraq war. So therefore, in image terms, comparing Cameron to Blair is a compliment rather than an insult. Blair is the man who swept to power with an immense amount of public goodwill. If Cameron can reproduce similar goodwill, but unlike Blair go on to deliver, then there'll be no stopping him. I also think that Cameron is actually more 'likeable' than Blair. There was always something slightly insufferable about Blair, even at the beginning, which Cameron somehow does not have.

James Hellyer

comparing Cameron to Blair is a compliment rather than an insult.

No, it's an insult. Tony Blair used to be popular but now people can see through his histrionics. Mimicking his speech and mannerisms will ultimately remind people of his falsehood.

a-tracy

Right - I've been watching all week and I've made my decision I want...
Dr David Starkey for PM and leader of the Conservative Party!

On QT he made mincemeat out of the vacuous Lib Dem lady and Douglas and Maude for that matter.

When a Muslim Lady questioned Maude on why there were no Asian Muslim women in the leadership election Maude shrugged and said there aren't any MP's to meet her category, however we do have somebody working in the Party Offices or something high up? It was Starkey that killed the question in the manner that Maude should have done by retorting the question you should be asking young lady is why an individual of the manner you've described not taking over from Mr Blair - an immediate correction which closed the argument.

The only people enjoying the grovelling apologising all the time are the other parties supporters - stop it. Wishy washy politics is what is up with the nations disregard for what politicians have to say - for goodness sakes if you speak your mind and say what you think at least your electorate and vote for you or not and if they do vote for you it is often because they agree with you in the privacy of the ballot box.

Daniel Vince-Archer

Starkey calling Douglas Alexander a patronising little twit was a particular highlight of QT tonight.

a-tracy

Agreed! he was.

James Hellyer

Maude was awful. The sooner he's returned to the obscurity of the backbenches the better.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home

Subscribe

  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:
    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe    
    Unsubscribe