Legalise prostitution?

The BULS blog has been focusing recently on the topic of prostitution. Some of their members have come to the conclusion that it should be legalised and protected. When looking at this situation on a purely personal and moral level I believe prostitution is wrong and I find it unseemly and seedy. However I have to agree with some members of BULS who claim we have to recognise as a society that it does happen because there is little if anything we can do to stop it happening. Therefore we need to work out how we can do some ‘damage control’ and ensure that a bad situation is not made worse.

Conservatives believe in the liberty of the individual and as such prostitutes should be afforded that same liberty to decide how they use their bodies. The state should not encourage nor condone prostitution but we must learn to accept that it does occur and as a society we need to find ways of protecting prostitutes. By ensuring that prostitues operate in safe and controlled conditions we are reducing the likelihood of murders and other such atrocities which can tie up valuable police resources and time. We are also reducing the likelihood of our neighbour hoods becoming the site for ‘curb crawling’.

I believe Britain should have organised and designated red light districts like in the Netherlands where prostitutes can operate without fear of rape, abuse or death. Prostitution in the Netherlands is defined as a legal profession; prostitutes/sex workers have access to the social security system, may join unions, have to pay income tax and are treated like any other self-employed tradesperson. In addition health and social services are readily available which reduces the burden on the health services.

By accepting, not condoning, prostitution and ensuring that it is not spread around our streets but localised in specific areas we are reducing the likelihood of situations such as Ipswich and we are in a curious way going some way to ‘cleaning up a dirty business’. We would also  deal a heavy blow to traffickers and pimps who are the cancers of our society. If there was a way we could eradicate prostitution then fine but this isn’t going to happen and we just have to learn to make the best of a bad situation.

Blue Labour?

The Britain that Tony Blair inherited had the Thatcher’s handbag all over it and New Labour desperately wished not the shake the carefully laid foundations of Thatcherism opting to stick to Conservative spending plans rather than ‘rock the boat’. Blair’s programme for the 1997 election confirmed the left’s worst fears by endorsing all of Thatcher’s free-market reforms of a deregulated, non-planned, largely privatised economy with a flexible labour market, marginalising the trade unions and local authorities, while publicly disowning Left-wing catchphrases such as redistribution.

New Labour let it be known that they had developed in to “the party of business” a position traditionally held by the Conservatives. They dumped the “tax and spend” policies that had characterised previous Labour governments forever, they embraced Thatcherite economics, they shed their commitment to traditional Labour policy and Blair himself seemed almost desperate to come across as Thatcher’s heir.  

To his credit he concluded, earlier than most around him, that neo-liberal reforms of the 1980’s could not and should not be undone. Instead he believed that, in order to appease the left of his party, his task was to soften some of the rougher edges of the Thatcher reforms, the same reforms Major had embraced but without her style, charisma or sheer luck. Blair however had all three.

He attributed Major’s humiliation in 1997 not to a failure of policy, but to the natural ending of a political cycle and a leadership which had degenerated into sleaze and indiscipline. Thatcher’s ‘You turn if you want to the Lady’s not for turning’ was replaced by Blair’s ‘I have no reverse gear’. Thatcher’s Falklands was supposed to be imitated by Blair’s Iraq. As we know Thatcher’s war made her premiership, Blair’s broke his.

However unlike the Tories Blair did push for a much stronger relationship with the European Union, he pushed for a more socially liberal society with enduring changes such as the introduction of civil partnerships and he encouraged the project of devolution. Perhaps Blair’s greatest social achievement lies in his introduction of the minimum wage admittedly opposed by the Tories and big business. In this light it is clear that New Labour did and does retain some features of traditional Labour policy. However is this more convenience than conviction?

New Labour is a mishmash of socialism and Thatcherism, with the latter taking precidence. It is because of this that New Labour is a difficult beast to define. The true implications of New Labour being Blue Labour are subtle and lie in the fact that for all of his ‘ non conservative’ reforms one key feature remained: he never once challenged the basic tenets of Thatcherism - private ownership was preferable to the state, the unions should be kept in check and profits were good. Thus one can conclude that the social reforms he introduced were not out of personal conviction but political convenience and a change in times. He had to pursue some form of social agenda in order to appease the rank and file of his party, and of course a national minimum wage was always going to be populist. Also the strong and stable economic conditions born out of the Thatcher reforms gave him the ability to pursue strong social policies.

Under New Labour, as under Thatcher, the wealth of the top 10% of the country saw its share of the national wealth soar out of all proportion to the rest of the population and it became apparent that Thatcher’s yuppie generation became the pre-cursor to the Blair/Brown super rich. Whilst Blair was more blatant in his respect for the Thatcher legacy even Gordon Brown, a key architect in the New Labour project and fierce former critic of Thatcher, has been more comfortable to express his admiration for the Iron Lady. In September 2007 he went far beyond protocol by escorting her from her car into Downing Street placing a guiding hand on her back, posing for photo-ops and presenting her with bouquets. Barely a week earlier Brown declared: “I think Lady Thatcher saw the need for change. I also admire the fact she is a conviction politician. I am a conviction politician like her.”

So what does this tell us? Despite all their social reforms, despite all their clever rhetoric of being the party of the people, Labour is a fictitious political entity born out of the Thatcher reforms. They have shed almost all of the principles and ideologies that make them ‘Labour’ and in turn find themselves nothing more than a pale shade of blue. They owe their electoral success to the Conservatives and the Conservative policies that have served them so well. John McDonnell summed up the Labour Party’s fraught relationship with Margaret Thatcher. “I would never let her across my threshold. If this is an indication of Gordon Brown’s political heroes, or his estimation of a person’s character, I almost despair.” The left does despair because the left understands that their party is nothing more than a pale imitation of Thatcher’s but with a softer face.

Policy wise New Labour clearly appears a pale shad of blue. However the fundamental difference between us and them is that Thatcher and the Conservatives did nothing by deception. New Labour do everything by deception. That is why they can never be true blue.

Substance, Sleaze and Spin…

Tony Blair came in to office on 2nd May 1997 on a wave of optimism and expectation. Even the Conservative party recognised the star quality of the incoming Prime Minister including Margaret Thatcher who famously claimed ‘We don’t need someone who can beat Mr Blair; we need someone like Mr Blair’. On the surface he had it all; the sensible policies of the Thatcher government which had revived Britain’s failing economy, a modern and young cabinet in tune with modern society and an undeniable charm and impish nature that endeared him to the British people. However as the Blair years dragged on it became more apparent that this was not to be the new dawn many had hoped, it was merely a moderated version of the old one, and for British politics it was to mark a change for the worse.

 

Admittedly the downfall of the last Tory government was predominantly down to sleaze. The ‘Cash for Questions’ row and the failure of some back bench MP’s to declare minor gifts or sources of income (deja-vu) was too much for the public to stomach and they opted for a modern vibrant Labour government, a government that was to accept the economic policies of Thatcherism with the apparent added bonus of a socially concious core. Thus 1997 marked the date when Tory sleaze was replaced by a new phenomenon: Labour spin. 11 years after that famous victory the vast majority of people now acknowledge that the Tories brand of sleaze looks pretty weak compared to the whole scale corruption practised by the New Labour likes of Mandelson, Robinson, Irvine, Vaz, Byers, Moore, Milburn, Hughes, Levy, Corrigan and Blair himself.

 

I do not deny that Labour have made siginificant investments in public services. I do not deny they have made progress in certain areas but after 11 years one would bloody hope they had made progress given the economic legacy they inherited! What I am getting at is that the progress they have made is by no stretch of the imagintation the type of progress achieved by the Conservatives in the 1980’s. Ultimately in stark contrast to the Conservatives, New Labour is not just sleazy it is rotten to the core. The Prime Minister himself (Blair) was caught lying to parliament on many occasions. Bar Iraq what sticks out clearly in my mind is the £1 million contribution Labour accepted from the motor racing industry.

 

Blair was a politician setting out on a moral crusade to save the nations health by banning smoking advertisements in all public spaces yet at the same time was pushing for motor racing to be exempt from the ban because it is run by his old pal and Labour party donor Bernie Ecclestone. The Blair deception didn’t stop there. New Labour spin and sleaze of the early years developed in to downright corruption and deception. When Blair told the country his government had ‘no plans to increase tax at all’ was he telling the truth? Or when he wrote to anxious parents: ‘A Labour government will not close your grammar schools - that is my personal guarantee’ was he telling the truth?

 

Considering Europe when he wrote in The Sun newspaper before the election about his ‘love for the pound’ and how he felt so emotional and proud about the Queen’s head on a £10 note, was he telling the truth? When Blair promised us a refrendum on the European treaty in 2004 was he telling the truth? When we were told Iraq had the capacity to launch weapons in 45 minutes was he telling the truth? The point is Blair has coasted his way through office. As the veteran Labour, true Labour, MP Tony Benn has said ‘Margaret Thatcher did nothing by deception. She said what she meant and she meant what she said’ Can Blair or New Labour say the same?

 

In the Tory days, sleaze was about politcians succumbing to material temptations placed before them, such as expense accounts, foreign travel or it involved the personnal sexual morality or marital fidelity of politicians. There was little or no direct impact on the general public, but the press and opposition worked themselves in to a frenzy about it. New Labour’s New Sleaze works the other way around. It is all about the perversion of democratic government; matters of great importance to the public being cooked up behind closed doors, justified by massaged figures, semi leaked documents and brilliant media management. Yet until recently the press have remained conspicuously silent about it.

 

New Labour have lived off a healthy Conservative economy, and have admittedly assisted in its development, but their deception lies in their rhetoric of being the ’saviours of the nation’. They have bullied, spun and manipulated their way through government making and breaking promises in the blink of an eye, using national tradgedies as an excuse to ‘bury bad news’ and using their well oiled spin machine to con the general public. Ultimately New Labour is an amass of contradictions, a failed and false political entity. Its deception goes deep and the implications of the New Labour project on public trust are far stretching.  The damaged inflicted by the New Labour project on Briton’s faith in their elected politicians will be difficult to reverse.

 

Finally after departing Downing Street last June, to the delight of a certain dour Scot, Blair admitted that he regretted attacking the Tories over their sleazy past. Perhaps this is because Blair fears his sleazy past will define his and his partys legacy. It can and it will. The lesson of New Labour is not good policy but good presentation. Spin over substance.

New Labour, Old News

Now that the political obituaries of New Labour are being written I believe it is appropriate to add BUCF’s own assessment of the New Labour project. What were it’s strengths? Where did it fail? and how different from the old one was the ‘new dawn ‘ that Blair proclaimed had broken? 

Throughout this coming week we will be publishing ‘Cowdrill-style’ assessments of the New Labour project, with each day focusing on a different aspect of the Labour government and its record on particular issues over the past 11 years. First installment will be: Spin and substance

History repeating?

It has recently come to my attention that our beloved Guild has a history of poor relations with successful socieities. They also have a track record of reacting with threats and ultimatums to those who do not hold their views or their love of red tape. This article was recently brought to my attention and is a classic example of Guild over-stretching its ‘authority’.

“A UNIVERSITY Christian Union has been suspended and had its bank account frozen after refusing to open its membership to people of all religions. The Christian Union, an evangelical student organisation, has instructed lawyers and is threatening court proceedings against the Birmingham Guild of Students.

The Birmingham Christian Union has more than 100 members who attend meetings regularly and has been functioning at the university for 76 years. Members claim the actions have been taken against them after they refused on religious grounds to make “politically correct” changes to their charitable constitution, including explicitly mentioning people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.

The Christian Union was advised that the use of the words “men” and “women” in the constitution were causing concern because they could be seen as excluding transsexual and transgendered people. Difficulties arose after the organisation Christians in Sport, whose supporters include Jonathan Edwards, the Olympic gold medallist, attempted to book a room in the name of the Christian Union. After checking the union’s constitution, the Guild of Students objected to a number of clauses.

Andy Weatherley, Christian Union staff worker in Birmingham, said: “The guild insists the Christian Union constitution must be amended to include mandatory clauses, insisting on more control by the guild and open membership to those who would not call themselves Christians.”

At a recent guild meeting Matthew Crouch, of the Christian Union, appealed against derecognition. He said: “All guild members can attend our meeting but only members can vote,” but Stuart Mathers, a guild vice-president, said that all student groups have to follow guild council policy. Birmingham University Christian Union is affiliated to the University and Colleges’ Christian Fellowship. Pod Bhogal, its communications director, said: “We support the Birmingham Christian Union. We would not dream of telling a Muslim group or a political society how to elect their leaders or who could or could not become a member. The same applies to a Christian Union.”

Article can be found here

Close To Home.

Your chairman has said that “guild politics is shambolic and petty,” and I couldn’t agree more. I may not of experienced Birmingham University Guild politics firsthand, but my friend Daniel Cowdrill has spoke of their inflexibility, overuse of red tape, and poor management. I have had plenty of experience with my own students’ Union (UCLU) both on a committee, and as a Sabbatical officer, which of course brought me into contact with the National Union of Students (NUS). I applaud your attempt to engage in a more active sense with BULS, especially whilst you consider the viability of long term relations with the Guild. If it were my position I would vote to break relations with the Guild, but attempt to work with any other political or debate based societies with the hope of doing events together. It is a shame BULS has resorted to the tactics it has, undermining hopes of working with them.

That in its self might go some way towards working against student apathy at your University. Now here is where I bring in my experiences and the lessons I have learned from them. At UCL there was a grassroots group named “Disarm UCL” who made a lot of noise and caused a lot of embarrassment to the University just because of its small number of shares in two weapon system manufacturers. That group went on to upset the Union as it attempted to put its governance structure to a referendum in order to better comply with the Charities Act of 2006, and make it easier for students to engage with the Union. Through unashamedly underhand tactics the governance debate was stalled before it even got to the student body, wasting two years of work. Once those two demons were defeated, they took further underhand action to get the Officer Training Corps banned from Union events for two years - the length of time a motion remains active once passed at Council.

What have I learned about student politics from those experiences? Rules and regulations are, on a whole, somewhat useful for the smooth operation of a Guild or Union. I do believe they could be reviewed and streamlined, or at the very least, made more opaque so people understand why they exist. Apathy begins at home. Most students don’t care how or why the Guild works, they just want to be able to take from it what they can (whether that’s sporting activities or just a cheap NUSSL supplied beer) whilst they get on with their studies. However, if a student is so inclined to participate, then often it is those same rules which enable the Guilds existence which can cause people to loose interest at an early stage. If you get over that red-tape based gag reflex, then you might want to stand for election. I encourage anyone who gets to the stage where the desire to be involved is more than a passing fancy, to stand for election. The more people from societies such as this one get involved and stand for positions, the less chance NUS inspired groups and policies can impose their views and practices on the majority. That is, unless the majority agree with those sorts of practices and opinions - similar to those voiced by BULS regarding whether BUCF is affiliated with the Guild.

I do not think the NUS is completely ineffective at looking after student interests, but it is quite clear from my own experience that if you want to take students “up the apathy staircase” (a training seminar the NUS gives to new officers) then clearer rules, greater involvement from a wider group of students, and more open debate between different political groups is the way forward.

The Problem with BULS mark II

When I began my Chairmanship at the end of May, one of my primary aims was to reach out across the political divide in the University, particularly to BULS and encourage a climate of co-operation. The impression I got from the blog and from members of both BUCF and BULS was that relations between the two societies was at a low ebb. It was and remains my firm belief that student politics should not be so entrenched and petty at this early stage in our political development. There is plenty of time for punch and judy politics.

However the actions of BULS in recent weeks has confirmed the scepticism and caution I recieved from many members of BUCF when I informed them of my intentions to reach out to BULS. This blog and the BULS blog has, in the words of Tony Blair, been the platform not for academic or cordial debate but ’low scullduggery’ and petty squabling. Both socieities had cause for hope in the weeks following the arrival of 2 new committees. Initially it seemed that Guise had the same entusiasm for a closer working relationship between the two societies, but the business with the Guild has all but destroyed any chance of that.

When BUCF announced that we were to temporarily leave the Guild until we had consulted our membership for a final decision, BULS reacting in a heated, negative and un-neccessary manner cancelling all proposed joint events. I made it abundently clear to Tom that should he have any issues before he reacted rashly he could get in contact with me personally and I might be able to clarify a few gray areas. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Relations between the guild and previous committees of BUCF had been at record lows when I took over and the new committee, it appeared, were being tarred with the same brush. I got word of ultimatums and negative attitudes coming from the guild and this allied with the fact that I was well aware of the level of hostility to Guild politics within the BUCF ranks led me to take the decision to let the members decide whether they wished BUCF to remain in the Guild.

Frankly BUCF’s membership of the Guild of Students is nothing to do with BULS. It is a matter for BUCF and BUCF alone yet out Labour counterparts have taken it upon themselves to engage in petty and pointless squabbling over an issue that doesn’t concern them. I emphasised when we announced our withdrawl that the ultimate decision would not be mine or the committees but the members. I also emphasised that we would not hold a referendum until all our options have been weighed up. BULS seem to have conveniently ignored all these statements, preferring to paint this image of me acting in a dictatoral fashion and censoring opposition.

I am disappointed and frustrated that BULS saw fit to involve themselves in a matter that had little if anything to do with them or their society. They could have quite easily ignored this issue particularly as it remains unresolved. In the ’so called spirit of cordiality’ that was emmerging one would have hope they would have had this in mind before engaging in such critcisims. Instead their actions have only served to cement the vast majority of the BUCF membership’s, and committees past and present’s belief that guild politics is shambolic and petty.  

I believed that a spirit of co-operation between political groups could serve to encourage debate, remove the liklihood of personal attacks in political debates,  present both societies with greater understanding and make for interesting joint events. Our successful event with David Cameron encouraged this idea. Sadly BULS seem have resorted to underhand and unneccessary jibes and criticisms over a trivial issue that they could have expressed any concerns they had to me or the committee personally before publishing rash posts and engaging in character assassinations.

Maybe one day BULS will understand that they are not members of the House of Commons yet, they do not have to entrench themselves in the ‘all Tories are evil’ rhetoric and then maybe just maybe student apathy and indifference toward guild politics and politics in general can begin to change.

Top of the Polls…

Nelson Mandela at 90

Last night Nelson Mandela celebrated his 90th birthday at a star studded event in central London. I have an enormous amount of respect for Nelson Mandela. He is a man who faced tyranny, opression, false imprisonment and came out of it all with a kind and reconciliatory heart always working with friends and foes for the freedom of the South African people. I am fully aware that this stance is at odds with the stance of the Thatcher government of the 1980’s however in this instance I have to fundamentally disagree with Mrs Thatcher.

Thatcher once branded Nelson Mandela’s ANC as a ‘terrorist organisation’ however I believe Nelson Mandela was and remains a beacon of hope. In the midst of the Cold War it was easy to view Mandela as a potenital communist threat however I believe the Thatcher government made a big faux pas, and her support of the neo liberal apartheid regime was misguided. He has the capacity to inspire millions of people with the very mention of his name and for the freedom of millions of his country men, Nelson Mandela gave his freedom for 27 years. Upon his release from Robben Island, that was his home for 18 of the 27 years of his imprisonment, he offered forgiveness and compassion to his captors and got straight back to work for the cause he left 27 years previous. Mandela struggled tirelessly for human rights and fought for those who could not or would not fight for themselves.

Nelson Mandela taught the world two important lessons. If you want political change you have to have two great qualities: patience and humility. Mandela has both in abudence and I for one was proud that Britain took the time to honour this great man.   

100,000!!!

BUCF has passed the 100,000 hit milestone. I would like to offer my warmest congratulations to everyone who has contributed to the success of the BUCF blog. In particular I would Like to pay tribute to Dan Cowdrill, Jimmy McLoughlin, Theo Lomas, Ryan Castle, Dan O’Doherty, Jack Gilliland and all those of the previous and current committees who have played such a vital role in the development of BUCF. Here at BUCF we have set the trend. BULS, the Lib Dems and the Debating Society have all followed our example. We are trend setters and we need to continue this record. I know the new committee are looking forward to holding on to our award for the ‘Best Young Conservative Blog’ and we will do all we can to ensure that we keep up the very high standard our readership have come to expect from BUCF.   

Gordon Brown: One year on

“This will be a new government with new priorities’ They were the words that Gordon Brown, the best former chancellor in the world EVER, muttered when he accepted the invitation from Her Majesty the Queen to form a government on 27th June 2007. Brown got off to a flying start as Prime Minister last year having waited ten years for Tony Blair to make way. Finally he had his chance to show what he could do and admittedly for three months of his premiership he appeared unbeatable. That Brown bubble soon burst. The true implications and over stretching of the previous Labour government, of which he played a major part, became more and more apparent with each passing day.

Admittedly his invitation to tea extended to Lady Thatcher in September was a stroke of genius and rattled many a Tory feather. However instead of dividing us the fact he had reach out to a Tory icon made us more determined than ever to remove him from office. So after such a flying start when did it all go wrong for Brown? The date i’m sure will be one etched on his memory; 7th October 2007. That was the day Gordon ‘Iron Chancellor’ Brown announced there would be no early election. The great ditherer had dithered one too many times and he set the ball rolling for the slow decline of his government and his party. His dithering cost him the Labour leadership in 1994 and it will cost him his premiership in due time.

Throughout the next year Brown was to endure the collapse of Northern Rock, growing casualties in Iraq, creeping inflation, child poverty targets far out of reach, record low levels of social mobiltity, rock bottom opinion polls, a wipe out in the local elections and the loss of one of the safest Labour seats in the country. To add to Browns woes a new poll published on the eve of his anniversary by the Guardian (of all papers!) suggests Conservative support, at 45%, is at a 20-year high. That would give David Cameron a landslide victory as bigger than Labour’s win in 1997, with some 400+ seats. Labour might be reduced to well under 200 MPs, with many ministers losing their seats. The Tories would retain Crewe and Nantwich, won in a byelection last month, while Labour would lose previously safe seats such as Wakefield.

So is it all bad luck or is it all Gordon Browns fault? I believe it is a combination of both. Whilst luck has not been on his side lately, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown benefited hugely from the golden global economic scenario of the last decade. Further to this stroke of luck he benefited hugely from the golden economic legacy of the Conservatives. It is worth reminding ourselves just how churlish he has been about the Conservatives’ handling of the economy in the 1990s. True, the exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 was not the Tories’ finest hour as Thatcher had predicted, but the subsequent monetary and fiscal reforms of Norman Lamont and Ken Clarke, coupled with the “supply side” reforms of the 1980s, revolutionised the performance of the economy. Apparently, when Mr Brown became Chancellor in 1997, an official said to him: “These are fantastically good figures – the state of the economy is much better than predicted.” To which his reply was: “What am I supposed to do about this? Write a thank-you letter?”

This is the lesson of Gordon Brown: arrogance. He is perfectly content to live off the Conservative legacy when times are good, and blame it when times are bad. With the exception of granting the Bank of England independence on interest-rate setting, he chose, to his own detriment, not to build on the improvements of his predecessors. On the contrary, he himself as Chancellor has undermined the economy’s ability to withstand the economic squalls it is beginning to face. In short he vastly over spent with his eye ever on the front door of Number 10 rather than on the country’s finances. When he finally did get his chance to claw his way in to that famous front door, he was faced with an economy on the down turn thanks to his reckless spending and wandering eye.

Gordon Brown is reckless. He, like the left that dominated and destroyed his party, over spent and now he is facing the consequences. In times of economic growth, war chests should be built up or taxes should be cut, however under Gordon Brown and New Labour the countrys debt and tax burden has reached record levels. To add insult to injury Brown has presided over the undermining of the country’s international competitiveness. Britain’s skills deficiencies which he inherited in 1997 have not been addressed. Instead he has has relied on uncontrolled immigration to meet labour-market inadequacies irrespective of any potential social problems that may arise from it. Taxes have risen and the regulatory burden, part EU in origin, on businesses has undeniably increased. So there is really only one person Gordon Brown has to blame for his woeful inaqdequacies as Prime Minister: himself

A bit of fun…

On the anniversary of Gordon Browns first year in office the news websites have been a-buzz with quizes, games and polls. One I found particularly amusing was MSN’s ‘Whos the pick of the Prime Ministers’ which pits 2 random PM’s against each other and you have to vote for which one you think is the most popular. For once Margaret Thatcher does not top the list as most popular post war Prime Minister but comes an honourable second. It is interesting to note is that Conservative Prime Ministers have taken the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th spots, somewhat of a trend in popularity polls! Below are the results for how many ‘battles’each PM has won in the ‘popularity stakes’.

Winston Churchill  74%

Margaret Thatcher  70%

Harold Macmillan  55%

John Major  54%

Clement Attlee  52%

Alec Douglas-Home  49%

Edward Heath  48%

Tony Blair  45%

Harold Wilson  42%

Anthony Eden  40% 

Brown and Out!

Happy Anniversary Prime Minister! The Labour party I’m sure will be jumping for joy today as they join together to celebrate Comrade Brown’s first year in office, oh and what a year it has been… for the Conservatives! The false promises and mismangement of New Labour has become ever more apparent in the last year. The strong and stable economy which Gordon Brown, by his own admission, inherited from the Tories in 1997 is in meltdown, the vast majority of councils are in Tory control, the former safe Labour seat of Crewe and Nantwich is in the hands of the Tories, the opinion polls are at rock bottom and the Labour party are about as united as Palestine.

To put the icing on Gordon Brown’s anniversary cake the Henley on Thames by election last night has resulted in a Tory majority of over 10,000 and Labour coming not 2nd, not 3rd, not 4th but 5th behind the likes of the Greens and the BNP. The disastrous result comes with opinion polls predicting a Conservative landslide at the next General Election, Labour on the verge of bankruptcy, growing unrest among backbenchers and continuing whispers of a leadership challenge.

In 2005 the Labour party polled over 25%, this year they struggled to make 5%. Labour and our dilluded counter parts at BULS will retort ‘oh our vote didn’t come out’. Well you can hide behind that saftey net all you like but WHY didn’t they come out? Granted the Tories were all but guarenteed a win in that seat but why would they not come out in force to show that they do support their leader and their party in this particularly desperate time. The answer? They don’t support ‘their’ leader and they don’t support ‘their’ party.

This goes to show one thing, the British people would rather vote for racists and greens than the Labour party. Go on Gordon deal the death blow to your party and your government, reinstate the pre-1980 power of the Unions and then we shall see what an election wipe out really looks like.

Anniversary opinon polls:  Conservative - 46, Labour - 28, Lib Dem - 15

A petition over the whole James McGrath debacle!

James McGarth, a senior aide to Boris Johnson, resigned recently after he was reported to have said ‘let people go if they don’t like it here’ in response to a suggestion that Caribbean migrants might return to their homelands after Mr Johnson had become London mayor. Once again the politically correct brigade have reared their ugly heads and the pressure and embarrassment caused to Boris Johnson’s fledgeling administration meant that McGrath had to resign. I urge as many people as possible to support this petition which demands an immediate apology from www.the-latest.com for their unfair branding of McGrath as a racist.

Queen strips Mugabe of Knighthood

The Queen has stripped President Robert Mugabe of his knighthood following the violence and election crisis in Zimbabwe. He was awarded the knighthood in 1994 by John Major’s Conservative Government. Five years ago there were calls for the knighthood to be removed, and then Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would look into the matter, but no action was taken. I am delighted that the pressure on Mugabe is increasing however I think that this situation cannot be resolved by mere words. Having said this the removal of the knighthood is a symbolic indication that Mugabe is burning all his bridges.

Ché Obama…

My initial reaction to Barack Obama when he stepped on stage to announce his bid for the Democratic nomination and my impression of him throughout his campaign was that he was a clever man and a good orator but I felt he lacked substance. I claimed at the end of the primary season that should Hillary Clinton be his number two I would back him in his quest for the Presidency, despite my initial reservations.  After making this statement I realised that I did not truly understand what Barack Obama respresented or in what direction he wished to take America, I knew where Clinton stood, I knew where McCain stood but I didn’t know where he stood. I therefore decided to look more at the principles of his policy rather than the ploomage and clever rhetoric that had characterised his camapign. Now I can whole heartedly say my initial distrust of him was justified.

Now before any liberals throw their hammer and sickle out of the pram, I am more than willing to accept that America needs change. The Presidency of George Bush has been by and large a disaster and America desperately needs a change of direction, but this change of direction does not neccessarily require a change of party. British commentators often look on and conclude that change in America can only really come about if the President is from a different political party. This is wrong for a number of reasons. First of you cannot look at British and American politics in the same light, parties in America are ‘broad churches’ that encompass great swathes of ideologies and broad voter demographics in their membership. One Republican can differ greatly from another and the same is true of the Democrats. Parties in America exercise little discipline and make few demands in stark contrast to their British counterparts. Ultimately in American politics it is the person not the party that matters which is why campaigning is far more ‘Vote Obama or McCain’ rather than ‘Vote Republican or Democrat’.

Therefore by this logic we should be looking at the credentials of the individual candidate rather than the party tag. It confuses me as to why the press have given McCain and Clinton such a hard time in their camapigns, with the press tarring McCain with the mistakes of Goerge Bush. Simply put John McCain is not George Bush. It is common knowledge there has been a great many differences over the years between Bush and McCain both ideologically and politically and a McCain Presidency would not take the same line as that of Bush. The left wing presses of America have been far too soft on Obama and he has benefited greatly from it as it has created a wholly unjustified and unrealistic image of him. 

Obama and McCain broadly speaking mark two branches of the political spectrum - left and right. Obama speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), however when you cut through the verbiage and clever rhetoric there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party therefore I am confused as to how this can bridge any political gap. If you think about it for a second, it’s not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the shady likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson. Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.

In addition one only has to look at his victory speech in the Wisconsin primary to see what direction he wishes to take America in and it is one we here in Britain and around the world should regard as dangerous. His previous primary speeches, which were delivered when he was on far shakier ground in his fight for the nomination, hid behind the cautious rhetoric of change with little if any substance. When on firmer ground after victories in primaries such as Wisconsin, his speeches marked a new approach. He began to put meat on the bones. His speech in Wisconsin has no shortage of proposals all of which I found deeply concerning. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education which in theory I have no opposition to, however one has to question how he is going to afford it given the shape of the American economy, it is here where he resorts to the typical left wing tactic: tax the rich. Obama’s policy of tax, tax, tax represents that same tax happy policy persued by the Carter administration, which resulted in queues at gasoline stations, surging inflation and economic stagnation.

To add to my chagrin it is well documented that he is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US and he is vehemently protectionist in his proposals. However perhaps my greatest issue with Obama lies in his plans for Iraq. He has repeatedly claimed, in the typically spineless left wing way, that he would pull troops out of Iraq post-haste. Thats not a leader thats a follower, a man of convenience not conviction. Even Gordon Brown has managed to stay the course in Iraq and despite much pressure he has refused to bow to calls for a rushed timetable for withdrawl as he recognises the job isn’t done. It is John McCain not Obama that recognises that America has a duty not just to its own people but to the people of Iraq, the region and the wider world by ensuring Iraq returns to stability and prosperity.

Just because Iraq was not the decision of his administration does not mean that it is not his responsibility if he became the new President. He has a political duty and a moral obligation to finish what the previous administration, with the over whelming backing of the American people, started. The American people supported that war and they confrimed it when they returned Bush to the White House with a bigger portion of the vote in 2004. Thus he as their newly elected leader would have a duty to make right the wrongs his country, not just one President, have made. Quiet diplomacy will not do and an appeaser such as Obama is one who feeds a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last.

America is certainly moving left in the post-George Bush era. The long period of conservative ascendancy is clearly over, buried by a Bush presidency that has preached intolerance and practised incompetence. That a new era in American politics is beginning is not in doubt and the fact that there is a need for a change in America is not in question, but why does America need to make such a radical leap from right to left when they can turn to the center right McCain. McCain is a man of substance, of principle, of experience and of courage and it is him not Obama who will give America that change and leadership that it sorely needs. The left never has and never will be the answer to the political problems of the world, they will only contribute to make them worse.

The last refuge of a desperate leftie…

 

Barely 10 months after he was fawning at her feet on the doorstep of Downing Street and liking himself to her as a conviction politician, Gordon Brown is now chastising Margaret Thatcher for the current low levels of social mobility in Britain. Currently Brown is under enormous pressure when faced with the credit crunch in its early stages, social mobility as low as if not lower than 1997, child poverty targets far out of reach, opinion polls at record lows, a war seemingly without end and an electorate that does not seem to just dislike but detest New Labour. Due to this reversal of fortune Brown has resorted to the last refuge of a desperate leftie: blame Maggie.

 

The notion that Thatcher is responsible for the breakdown in social mobility is laughable for a number of reasons. Even at a very basic analysis one would think that after 11 years in power Brown and Labour could have increased social mobility and repaired the ‘damage’inflicted by the Thatcher years. In addition to this a logical mind would surely acknowledge that the time for recriminations and criticism of Thatchers record on social mobility would have bee 11 years ago when they took power, not after a premeiership as long as that of Thatcher herself!  This therefore strikes me as desparation and blatant political opportunism.

 

The fact is that Gordon Brown doesn’t have a clue what he is saying and, as is typical of the left of center, he prefers to focus on the fiction rather than the fact. The fiction is this image of Maggie Thatcher as some sort of bogeyman, someone determined to put the working class down and do a ‘reverse Robin Hood’ by stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich. This is utter nonsense and if you detach the emotion, as is currently the consensus in British politics, you understand Thatcher helped the British to aspire. Margaret Thatcher, the working class girl from Grantham, was more aware than any of her predecessors of the problems faced by the working and middle calsses and she was more determined to fight for them.

 

I readily acknowledge that the 80’s weren’t all plain sailing and some more than others felt the pinch of the Thatcher revolution, after all no revolution occurs without is casualties. However her economic legacy has facilitated the rise of ‘the middle class’, increased the chances of social mobility and created more wealth than most if not all of her predecessors. The seeling of council houses at knock down prices, the crushing of over powerful union executives, the opening up of the economy to the private sector creating jobs and welath, the launching of a war based on principle and liberty not oil and oppourtunism are all testament to her desire to give people not politicians control of their own lives. Individual liberty is the pre-requesite of social mobility. 

 

She was the first Tory to champion the notion of a ‘classless society’, her policies were bitter and unpopular in some quaters but produced a stronger, richer and revitalised country which was to provide remarkable economic stability and produce a society more receptive to mobility given the right conditions. Even looking solely in terms of women it is clear to see how Thatcher broke barriers. She came in to Parliament one of only 25 women MP’s (12 Con, 13 Lab), she demonstrated how a woman could successfully combine the role of MP and mother, she faced off with hostile party grandees to take the leadership of her party, she dispelled all speculation that a woman would not hold the great office of state,  and she proved that women can do the top jobs just as well as men. In short she proved politics wasn’t the ‘mans game’it was made out to be.

 

Gordon Brown has failed to understand a principle of social mobility which Thatcher radiated and a principle close to the heart of every true conservative: individualism. Social mobility, aspiration for your children, all are only possible when people, not the state are responsible for their own lives. If you give people more responsibility sone will use it wisely some will not, such is human nature. However infantilizing the population as New Labour has done by making people more dependant on the state, will not encourage them to work for themselves or their children, instead it produces a culture of dependency, whereby it is more convenient to settle for being ’subsidised’ than to get out there and compete and aspire. That is why Gordon Brown and Labour can never understand social mobility let alone improve it.  

 

We conservatives are and always have been the champions of social mobility. We are the natural party of goverment and people are beginning to remember this. New Labour was an experiment: a party seemingly with the economic backbone of the Conservative party and the compassionate social face of the left wing, yet it has proven to be a failed project. Social mobility is at record lows, the economic legacy Blair and Brown inherited in 1997 has been all but squandered and plunged in to unsustainable projects, and Brown now finds himself with a rainy day and no pot to plunder. This November will mark the date when all the first children born after the fall of Thatcher will be able to vote at the next election. Brown will watch as those with any sense emphatically reject these scare mongering opportunistic claims that Thatcher is responsible for all the nations ills.

 

They will recognise that whether they agree entirely with her policies or not, there has been more than adequate time to ‘repair the damage’. They will also recognise one simple thing that Labour is a ficticious opportunistic political entity that is perfectl;y content to emulate conservative party policy when times are good and slam it when times are bad. Labour for the first time in a long time will be forced to stand on their own record, a record which in the cold light of day isn’t all that remarkable.

On the conscience of a continent

Robert Mugabe has been handed a de-facto victory in the Zimbabwean Presidential election after Morgan Tsvanagarai pulled out of the forthcoming second ballot. After the horrific events of recent weeks, marked by torture murder and intimidation, Robert Mugabe sweeps back in to power. This outcome has been suspected and long over due. The farcical first ballot, the delayed results, the spate of killings of opposition members and the delay in releasing a date for the second ballot has granted Mugabe the chance to centralise power and neutralise or intimidate his opposition to a point whereby they feel there is no point in participating in any electoral challenge. In many ways I cannot blame them. Why face further death and torture, with little if any concrete international support, only to hear at the end of it all a ”result” that was probably pre-prepared by the regime?

The responsibility for the fact that this despot has remained in office lies not solely on Mugabes shoulders but on the shoulders of those who have cowered behind the cautious rhetoric of ”concern”. This has become the diplomatic ’get out clause’. We don’t want to do anything… but we can’t be seen as doing nothing… so air concern. In addition to this the neighbours of Zimbabwe, and the leaders of the African continent as a whole, have as much spine as a jelly baby. Their refusal to act and the wests refusual to move beyond mere words has resulted in perhaps the biggest African despot since Idi Amin, being granted a further term in office. He is a man who has as much regard for the principle of democracy as he does for human life.

He has dominated and destroyed the country he has led since its independence from Britain in 1980, transforming it from the bread basket to the basket case of the African continent. Unemployment is over 80%, inflation is in the hundreds of thousands and life expectancy is in the 30’s, quite a score card Mugabe has accumulated. The African leaders have sat back and watched as their fellow africans are beaten and tortured for exercising the democratic rights that they fought and died for against imperial powers such as Britain.

This latest development flies in the face of democracy and general human rights. Here in the western world we claim the moral highground as a hemisphere that prides itself on defending the rights and liberties of all humans, yet we sit back and watch as a man who is known to have condemned his people to poverty, a man who revels in ridiculing our leaders and a man who has destroyed a former colony, as he walks in to yet another tortuous term in office. I don’t care how we do it, I don’t care how long it takes we need to dispose of the despot that is Robert Mugabe or we will have as much legitimacy to claim the moral high ground as he does to claim the presidency of Zimbabwe. None at all.

The End of ‘I Regulate, Therefore I Am.’ PART III (the end).

Which brings me onto the subject of Russia. By pulling those nations in, the younger reforming liberals, who are better at safeguarding their economies and their peoples interests then some of the older elite, are now going to be able to take bigger steps. If the expansion hadn’t happened, it is likely they would of been swept away and some eastern European nations might of slipped more into the orbit of Russia, which now sits and rattles us on the borders of the EU. The more stable these Eastern European countries become, the less likely there will be a surge of economic migrants heading towards countries like the UK. After all, is there any logic in travelling hundreds or thousands of miles looking for work, if you can do it in your hometown? No. The same when it comes to seeking refuge in countries which are more stable. If your own nation is stable then there is no need for you to seek asylum elsewhere.

Thinking of Russia puts in my mind the Marshall Plan, which was really the embryonic foundation of a unified, strong, liberal, free trade Europe; free also from the wars which troubled the continent, and free from domination by the USSR. That menace is now gone. Modern Russia is not the USSR, but like Russian governments in decades and centuries gone by, it is eager to control, and to demonstrate its power, in which case bringing nations into the EU weakens Russia’s ability to control them by the means it has available - namely covert intimidation, and its monopoly on hydrocarbons. The federalist dream of the EU may be passing us by, but that does not mean that we could go back to a minimalist system. Such a system of pan-continental government could not achieve all it has, could not safeguard freedoms, could not influence markets by reducing monopolies, corruption, improving infrastructure and sending money to deprived regions - thereby increasing stability. Nor could it so strictly strive to enforce environmental legislation.

Weakening individual sovereignty does not help its case either, nor does zealous red tape, or rules which make sense to some, but not too others (see my article: The End Of The Affair) for which the EU is most often known, but whilst the increase in members has managed to show some of the short fallings in national immigration policies, it has proved to be:

a magical tool for stabilising a whole continent, creating new markets and letting free trade and free movement build ties of interdependence. (The Economist, May 31st, 2008)

If you have guessed by now; I am not a Eurosceptic. I don’t consider myself to be someone who believes in a federalist europe either, but I am of the viewpoint that if a strong EU can augment and strengthen existing sovereign governments, and if this system can regulate and strengthen inter-european ties on grounds of trade, commerce, the courts, the flow of information, and yes, even the flow of people. Our Island Nation has not stopped when it comes to different flows of people, and if it ever did, I believe that would be more of a threat to one of the strongest traditions of the United Kingdom: diversity.

The EU represents the highest achievement of coherent, strong, and stable diversity, which confers benefits and obligations upon all its member nations, and its citizens. Like the Roman Empire, it certainly has its flaws, and maybe it will not last forever, but as long as it remains unlike an empire (not federalist), as long as it realises and respects differences, then the possibility remains for all member nations to benefit from this confluence of diversity for which the EU should strive to develop and protect.

Image courtesy of Anush Wijeshinha:

http://anushwij-photos.blogspot.com

The End of ‘I Regulate, Therefore I Am.’ PART II.

Safeguard and protection - not just of economic systems, but of human rights; that is surely one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the EU, and its continuing expansion. The more it expands, the more nations and people that are taken under protective wings. In the case of the Roma in Italy, it should not necessarily be left entirely to the Italian government to deal with the challenges, since they seem less than capable of doing so in the right fashion.

However, perhaps the case for protecting people suffering falls on deaf ears. We are human after all, and naturally think of our own suffering before others, so when it comes to suffering, in Western countries, more of us think about suffering in economic terms. Therefore when it comes to expansion of the EU, people fear that jobs will be lost to neighbouring nations which have cheaper labor. The Dutch rejection of the vote was partly due to it ‘failing to protect the poor and unemployed,’ which was a thinly veiled argument against globalisation. The Irish rejection was more to do with local antagonisms (which include fears about job security in some form) and lack of understanding when it came to the terms of the Treaty.

However, the facts, at least when it comes to the economics of expansion, according to Eurobarometer, states that only 8% of jobs lost to restructuring in the EU was due to offshoring. Despite 63% of Germans believing expansion was detrimental, the figures show that exports to new member states has been increasing since expansion. People in Spain might be sceptical, but back in 1986 that country gained a lot of funds from the EU, just like Ireland, and now large Spanish construction companies (most of which grew during the inflow of EU money, benefiting from contracts won in that period) are busy bidding for contracts in Poland, continuing to win gains for the Spanish economy.

The other rather crucial fact when it comes to the advantages of expansion is the Net Flows of money, meaning - how much money the new members get. The answer is a lot. Not a very quantitate statement I realise, but little of it made available to new countries has been spent yet, due to inefficient government agencies in some of the new countries. Therefore until it is spent and the remainder drawn back into centralised funds, there won’t be exact figures on this point. Some have spent it well, such as the Czech Republic, who built such an impressive “Pendolino” train between Prague and Bratislava that it was featured (as a train from Montenegro) in Casino Royale. The EU money is also helping build roads, airports, and clean up some of the environmental messes left behind by Communist governments of the Cold War.

The End of ‘I Regulate, Therefore I Am.’ PART I.

That is what the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty represents, and what is interesting about it is ‘Irish voters have been among the main beneficiaries of the generosity of fellow Europeans,’ (John Thornhill, ft.com, June 13th) and yet not enough of them have confidence in the political body which made that flow of money into Ireland possible. In this article I am not asking why, nor am I trying to argue that the Lisbon Treaty is necessarily the way forward for the EU, since it was branded as a way of reducing deadlock since the increase in membership, and yet ‘with 27 countries represented around the table there is less waffle than before,’ (The Economist, May 31st). I am simply stating the case for expansion, for diversity, and for the existence of the EU.

I must therefore start it with the Roma in Italy. A distant problem to the ‘bogeymen’ of ‘Polish plumbers’ which seems to afflict (I say that in a mocking tone) the shores of the UK. Yet is it really so distant? The British Press (especially the more right wing) seem to have an inherent fear of anyone different entering our country; however, editorials are surely a great leap from the Roma being attacked in Italy, but how about the sentiment? Or for that matter, the sentiment of the same press attacking (verbally of course) asylum seekers in the UK. Is it really that far from what drives forward the attacks on the Roma is Italy?

No, it is not. I have seen for myself what asylum seekers go through in the UK; spoken to them, spoken with their representatives on the streets, and in the courts. The message from these people was very clear - there is an institutionalised drive to make seeking asylum very difficult, something guaranteed by the numerous international charters and treaties the UK has agreed to. The sentiment is the same, and I fear that:

If we do not find the right approach to dealing with the Roma, events similar to the attacks in Italy could become more frequent and spread elsewhere in Europe. It would be bad news for Europe if the approach of the Italian government towards Roma - exclusion and expulsion - were to become the standard. (ft.com, June 5th)

Not just ‘European,’ but human principles, of extending a helping hand towards other humans in need. That system has probably been abused in some cases. However the burden of proof on people immigrating to countries is high, even people seeking asylum, and that in itself is a barrier to abuse in the system. If the system isn’t working, then it needs to be changed, but to attack the Roma physically, or asylum seekers verbally, are not so far from one another, and we must find a way to make the immigration system stronger, in order to protect those who really need our protection.

BUCF End of Term Drinks

Tonight the committee is holding its end of term drinks at Pennyblacks bar in the Mailbox. It promises to be a good event attended by local Conservative politicians and party members. This event is open to anyone and is not intended to be particularly political, rather it is a chance for the new committee and the members to get to know each other and celebrate the end of what has been a particularly turbulent term for BUCF but one which we have come out of stronger than before. Dress code is smart casual, So come one come all and who knows the Chairman may actually put his hand in his pocket!

Mr President meets Mr Personality…

George W Bush and Gordon Brown have held high level talks in Downing Street as George Bush rounds off what is being billed as his ‘farewell tour’ of Europe. Predictably the two put on a good show of unity and friendship and both renewed their commitment to the campaigns that the Bush and Blair governments embarked on in 2001 and 2003. Unsuprisingly Iran became a focal point of the press conference held this morning when both issued stern warnings to Ahmadinejad.

Bush said Tehran’s demand for nuclear power for civilian purposes was “justifiable” - but could be met by Russia’s offer to supply them with fuel. In a message to Tehran, he said: “You bet you have a sovereign right, absolutely, but you don’t have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium.” George Bush certainly does have an undeniable ability to communicate doesn’t he? In return Brown stated he wanted open dialogue with the Iranians but claimed Britain would push Europe to impose harsher sanctions on Tehran if they ignored UN resolutions.

Mr Bush’s discussions with the prime minister followed an earlier meeting with ex-PM and now Middle East envoy Tony Blair with whom he shared such a ‘close, personal relationship’. That meeting and the picture above shows that Tony Blair is still looking over the shoulder of Gordon Brown!

Thatcher and the Conservatives

 

Margaret Thatcher is a name never far from the conscious of members of the Conservative party. Over recent weeks I have decided that the time has come for me to clarify a few misconceptions about my views as to what direction this party should take. It is no secret that I am a great admirer of Lady Thatcher. Her economic reforms were remarkable and I believe that they have contributed to shape the wealthy, powerful country we live in today. I also believe that her personal attributes as a woman struggling against the Tory establishment and her approach to the formidable circumstances she inherited in 1979 show remarkable courage and strength of leadership which few can match. She has changed our nation arguably more than any other leader in modern British history and naturally this provokes a deal of curiosity.

 

However my huge admiration for Thatcher has led many to believe that the nostalgic references to her, which are a common feature of my blogs, imply that I believe she should be the leader now and that we should slavishly adhere to her politics. This is wrong. My admiration for Thatcher is total but so is my loyalty to the direction that David Cameron is taking. As far as I am concerned it is possible to be both a Thatcherite and a Cameroon. The two should not be treated as polar opposites as they are not. I passionately believe that what Margaret Thatcher did economically David Cameron will do socially.

 

There is a longstanding tradition within the Conservative party to ‘divide and conquer’ as was the case when divided and conquered left wing politics. There is nothing wrong with using this approach against our ‘enemies’ but when we use it on ourselves it is us who becomes divided and conquered. There are zealots on both sides, the old guard and the modernisers, who seem to delight in treating the other as adversaries. It is these individuals that are responsible for the political wilderness this party has endured. By my own admission most of my own family and friends are part of that ‘old guard’ who refuse to acknowledge that change in the party is necessary. They are wrong.

 

Having said this I am also aware of many modernisers who do their best to dismember any devalue the lessons and legacies of our past for the sake of ‘modernity’. They painstakingly try to distance themselves from our past, even at times appearing to naively deny its very existence. I don’t think that Cameron himself is guilty of that charge but some of his supporters are. In the beginning he was rightly quiet on anything to do with the past, he was quiet on Lady Thatcher and he rightly fought to present a modern face to our party, a more human, compassionate face. I believe he has succeeded in this task and he faced down as much opposition from within his own ranks as Thatcher did all those years ago. It is at this time when he has begun to embrace our past, not devotedly but respectfully. This is how it should be. He now does not feel the need to shy away from Margaret Thatcher and feels comfortable enough to call her publicly ‘our greatest Prime Minister’.

 

 He also feels comfortable enough to return to policies such as immigration and tax, unthinkable a year or 2 ago. What’s more the British people are now comfortable to talk about the past and about Thatcher due to a continuing evaluation of her legacy which is to our benefit.To conclude my view is that what unites us as conservatives is stronger than what divides us. We should be respectful of our past but not ruled by it. My nostalgic references to Thatcher are born out of my passion for history not a desire to live in it. I like looking back but neither do I lose sight of the fact that new history is being made, history that one day I can eventually look back on with equal enthusiasm.  

Tory Modernisation (Part 5)

Vote Blue Go Green

This is a Conservative Party leader in action man gear, commanding a pack of wolves against the dramatic scenery of Norway. As photo-ops go it puts William Hague’s ride on a log-flume wearing a baseball cap to shame. Cameron’s Norway visit showed a man on a mission, a mission to save those white and pure lands from man’s insatiable greed.

Rather like cycling to work on a bike, buying food from an organic market, or sticking a windmill on your house , all three of which Cameron has done, the Norway photo links Cameron and the Conservatives to the lucrative green vote.

Now, precisely what the green vote is requires some explanation. It is not about climate change, or green taxes, or anything as scientifically dubious or as punitive as that. It is about the middle classes’ sensitivity to commercialisation, pollution, and their own guilt. Politicians who sympathise with this get their votes.

In Cameron’s ‘Vote Blue Go Green’ is an appeal to all those aspirant classes who want to live a purer life; a life where they visit the farm once a week to buy their groceries (or failing that the organic section at Sainsbury’s); a life where they allow their chubby kids to stuff their faces with chocolate because it’s fair-trade, and where they recycle the empty wine bottles from last night’s dinner party with Deb and Steve from Finance who own a ‘4 by 4′ with a bike rack attached. It is a life that exists in a world of more trees and less greed.

Cameron is one of the first politicians to pick-up on this desire to live a purer lifestyle. To these puritan aspirants, David Cameron must offer himself as the organic antithesis to their material indulgencies. The figures suggest he’s almost there. On ‘Global warming and the environment’ YouGov put the Conservatives on 9% in May 2005 compared to 17% today, only two points below the government. On ‘the natural environment’ Mori put the party on 9% in May 2005, compared to 11% in August 2006 (surpassing Labour by 3 points).

Tomorrow: The Cameron Factor