Today's Times reports that Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare has rejoined the Conservative Party through local associations in Vauxhall and South Cambridgeshire. The best-selling storyteller and former Deputy Tory Chairman was given a five year ban from Conservative Party membership by William Hague in February 2000. That ban was made after he was sent to prison for perjury.
Lord Archer may soon reapply to sit with other Tories in the House of Lords. Michael Howard washed his hands of the matter, telling The Times: "That will be a decision for my successor. I won’t do anything to embarrass my successor.” Messrs Davis and Cameron were unwilling to comment.
Deciding whether or not to forgive Jeffrey Archer will just be one of the headaches that will greet the incoming Tory leader. Restoring Tory finances will be of migraine proportions. Streams of income have dried up during the leadership interregnum.
If, as is now almost certain, David Cameron becomes Tory leader his EPP commitment will cause some discomfort. The more Europhile Conservative Members of the European Parliament are very unhappy about quitting the EPP. At the Frimley Hustings on Wednesday Mr Cameron appeared to kick his EPP commitment into the long grass with the announcement that his Shadow Foreign Secretary will determine the timing of the exit.
"... the jackbootConservatism your posts have embodied" - examples please, Mr Hellyer, or are you in the smear business?
John Coulson is clealy a very confused individual. He's a pro-European who strongly supported the Eurosceptic post-Major leaders. And he's a man who doesn't want a "party of expediency and moral corruption, with no set of guiding, underlying principles" yet is attracted to the Lib Dems!
Posted by: Tory T | 26 November 2005 at 15:33
examples please, Mr Hellyer, or are you in the smear business?
Try this:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/commentators/2005/11/dean_godson_the.html#comments
Posted by: James Hellyer | 26 November 2005 at 15:45
I think it's important for the new leader to allow the new shadow home secretary the opportunity to develop a message that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, so Jeffrey Archer should stay out.
Posted by: tough on crime and its causes | 26 November 2005 at 15:50
For the benefit of the 99% of readers who can't be bothered to trawl through the old posts that James Hellyer has provided a link to, let me explain.
I criticised those Conservatives who advocate weakness in the face of terror or totalitarianism. Quite how wanting to resist the jackboot makes me a "jackboot Conservative" I'll leave to Mr Hellyer to explain.
Posted by: Tory T | 26 November 2005 at 16:02
"I criticised those Conservatives who advocate weakness in the face of terror or totalitarianism."
And supported the government's proposed measures including detention without trial, as well as making startlingly inappropriate comparisons with WWII in order to justify this authoritarianism.
Godwin, much?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 26 November 2005 at 16:09
Well, I suppose if you regard giving the police and security services the powe:r .to detain certain terrorist suspects for 90 days (in the midst of fiendishly complex investigations aimed at preventing a repetiton of 7/7) as deserving of the epithet "jackboot"...
Posted by: Tory T | 26 November 2005 at 16:39
Can we stay on the subject please?
Posted by: Editor | 26 November 2005 at 16:53
Fair enough. One of the main reasons why I'm opposed to allowing Archer to rejoin is that there appears to be little, if any, sense of remorse for his crimes. His entire political career has been built on bombast, self-centredness, conceit and bullying. Thank goodness Cameron (in marked contrast to so many other senior Tories) seems unwilling to accept the charlatan at his own estimation.
Posted by: Tory T | 26 November 2005 at 17:54
Rick I was wrong about you.Your continual mocking smart arse remarks used to irritate me but now rather make me laugh.Are you a comedian in 'real 'life?
There are more than a quarter of a million Conservative members in this country,how many of them have a criminal record think you?
Posted by: malcolm | 26 November 2005 at 19:22
John C - please would you expand upon why a Cameron led Conservative party would be "the party of expediency and moral corruption, with no set of guiding, underlying principles"?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 26 November 2005 at 23:51
Malcolm I see you are irredeemably stupid, does the word irony have any meaning for you ?
Posted by: Rick | 27 November 2005 at 08:19
Oh come on Rick,you can do better than that.I was paying you a compliment,the ability to amuse is a great skill to have.Are you a comedian in your professional life?And no, I'm not being ironic!
Posted by: malcolm | 27 November 2005 at 12:26
Coulson blogs 'I was a ferocious fan of Michael Howard, IDS and William Hague. They are all Conservatives. Cameron is not....'
If such a fan, then why not follow their lead and support Cameron? I see self destruction in your views Mr Coulson. Mr Archer can help maybe - another Conservative with a self destruction gene.
Do you mind terribly if the rest of us try to survive?
Posted by: Cameron Cameron Cameron | 27 November 2005 at 12:28
Can Jeffrey Archer explain what he wishes to achieve by rejoining the Party? What does he have to say about his past misdemeanours? Does he wish to reenter the Party to influence its policies? If so, in what direction?
Some kind of statement of remorse about the past would be appropriate, and some kind of a personal mission statement - and then a new leader can see what the feeling is in the Party.
I think that Lord Archer should demonstrate that he will be useful and a plus to the Party before being allowed back in.
What's the story Jeffrey? Are you a headache in the making? or do you have something interesting to add to Britain's social commentary?
What is Jeffrey Archer for?
Are you a dinosaur of the 1980's? Or do you have any relevance to the future?
Posted by: cameron cameron cameron | 27 November 2005 at 12:42
I think Archer simply wants to sell his book and this was one way in which he could gain publicity for it.Cameron has in my opinion behaved entirely correctly in this matter,although I see the BBC and the more lunatic gringe of anti Cameron opinion on this blog have ignored that.
It is interesting that David Davis was not,as far as I'm aware asked his opinion on the matter.
Posted by: malcolm | 27 November 2005 at 12:48
Sorry about the typo I meant 'lunatic fringe',you know who you are!
Posted by: malcolm | 27 November 2005 at 12:49
"I see the BBC and the more lunatic gringe of anti Cameron opinion on this blog have ignored that"
Would you care to tell us who said Lord Archer should receive the Conservative whip, as opposed to simply not opposing his party membership, Malcolm?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 November 2005 at 12:59
I've no idea James.Why don't you enlighten us?
Posted by: malcolm | 27 November 2005 at 13:23
If you have no idea, then when are you saying that an anti-Cameron lunatic fringe has said his decision is incorrect?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 November 2005 at 13:27
Are you a comedian in your professional life?And no, I'm not being ironic!
but I was being ironic at 13.14 on 26th November........
I'm sure many other members have criminal pasts, and the only difference here is that Archer's is well known.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 26 November 2005 at 11:42
I find it disturbing that the Conservative Party has so many members with "criminal pasts".........how can you be so sanguine knowing that birds of a feather are flocking together ?
Posted by: Rick | 26 November 2005 at 13:14
Posted by: Rick | 27 November 2005 at 14:05
They haven,t but it would be nice if for once if the lunatic fringe applauded his correct decision and as I mentioned they have ignored it.
Posted by: malcolm | 27 November 2005 at 16:11
Are there any precedents of former prisoners returning to front-line politics? Archer's return would result in a lot of negative publicity, so I doubt if any Leader would agree to it. I can well understand those who have said they would accept him back in a spirit of forgiveness. We live in an age of relativism, rather than absolute values of the past. Jack Profumo realised there was no way back, and in his day he was right.
George Osborne said on today's Politics Show that a Cameron-lead Party would not have Archer back in front-line politics, so there we are. I always liked Jeffrey, he was an excellent speaker and a real character, but it is easy for me to say, "give him another chance", as I don't have to make the decision, or suffer the consequences. Still, we do need some extra financial help. Perhaps we could send him to the EU in return!
Posted by: Derek | 27 November 2005 at 18:02
Jack Profumo realised there was no way back, and in his day he was right.
and the works he has done since being in politics make him a far more impressive man indeed ! He deserves respect.
Posted by: Rick | 27 November 2005 at 18:43
Quote: Tory T - "John Coulson is clearly a very confused individual. He's a pro-European who strongly supported the Eurosceptic post-Major leaders. And he's a man who doesn't want a "party of expediency and moral corruption, with no set of guiding, underlying principles" yet is attracted to the Lib Dems!"
Best post ever! and so true.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | 27 November 2005 at 20:09
Being relatively new to this site it is clear to me running through the posts on a number of threads, that there are active LibDem or Labour members setting out to cause trouble.
Maybe some of the IP addresses are actually for p.c.'s at Millbank....
I think everyone knows the indivuals, or 'names' rather that I refer to.
I am not referring to someone based on what potential leader they are supporting, lets make that clear.
I am referring to the tone and confused nature of some posts that have let the cat out of the bag.
Posted by: BW | 27 November 2005 at 21:39