I Dearly And Desperately Hope That David Cameron Gets Annihilated In The Next Election
Pine, Gentle Reader, For The Golden Age Of . . . William Hague
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
And of course, I never thought that I would write that about the leader of the Tory Party in Britain. But it is impossible to read this and take the leader of the Tory Party in Britain seriously:
One of David Cameron's key policy advisers will urge the party today to abandon its Churchillian and "out of date" ideas about the welfare state, the Guardian has learned. Greg Clark, who is overhauling the party's approach to poverty at the Tory leader's request, will urge Conservatives to look to the Guardian commentator Polly Toynbee rather than the wartime leader.
His proposals are likely to infuriate many in the grassroots - and in the Tory press - but they suggest the party is seeking to outflank the government in surprising areas, as they have already done by campaigning as champions of the NHS.
"Outflank the government in surprising areas" must be a euphemism for "be insane." How precisely does replacing a national icon with . . . well . . . a not national icon "outflank" anyone but the few diehards who are still committed to voting Tory despite the intellectual violence that David Cameron does to the Tory cause? What in the name of Heaven does Polly Toynbee have to offer the Tory legacy that Winston "I Helped Win A World War--You're Welcome" Churchill does not? Eloquence? Bravery? Immense steadiness in a time of danger? Sorry, Churchill ran the table on those virtues. Polly Toynbee would not know where to start if tasked with offering them to the British public.
Mr Clark, a shadow minister and confidant of the Tory leader who has been working on the party's comprehensive policy review, argues that the Tories must attack inequality.
In a paper being published today, he writes: "The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum - that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill's safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century."
A staple of conservative--and Conservative--thought has always been that equality of opportunity ought to be the goal strived for. If stuck to, this principle would not only constitute the embodiment of good policy, it would embody good politics as well. But never trust David Cameron to leave things simple or to leave alone what is plainly not broken.
Mr Cameron's progress as Tory leader came under scrutiny from a Guardian ICM poll, which shows today that his party still has a lead over Labour - 37% to 32%. Though it has been cut from last month, the Conservatives will be buoyed by the electorate's continuing doubts about Gordon Brown. Their lead increased from five to eight points when people were asked how they would vote in a runoff between Mr Cameron and the chancellor - enough to make them the largest party.
Of course, "doubts about Gordon Brown" do not constitute an excuse for the Conservatives to abandon their principles. But David Cameron's response to Gordon Brown's political troubles--troubles that may very well dissipate once Brown fully assumes the mantle of command and is afforded something akin to a honeymoon period with which he can consolidate his political strength--is apparently to make the Conservatives stand for nothing. Or at least, to become a faint echo of the Labour Party. To be sure, Tony Blair masterfully shifted the center ground of British politics. But David Cameron appears unwilling to do anything to shift it back. Is it because he has no experience at the ministerial level? Is it because he is an intellectual empty suit? Is it because he is a chameleon willing to say and do anything to get a lead in the polls no matter how disrespectful and dismissive of what the Conservatives in Britain have historically stood for?
Yes. Yes. And yes.
To British readers: I hope you get a chance to vote for a Labour Party led by John Reid the next time the general elections roll around. If you don't, vote for a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown. Even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Tory. You will save the Conservatives in the long run from mealy-mouthed Cameronism if you do.
I mean, at least Michael Foot and Tony Benn know what they stand for.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Winning hearts and minds: On America's underlying decency — Comments (33) »
I Dearly And Desperately Hope That David Cameron Gets Annihilated In The Next Election 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Relative poverty" is another name for class warfare. Fighting that isn't about easing suffering. It's about people with lower incomes being jealous of those with higher incomes. That won't built "One Nation" but will tear it apart.
Our once great allies had two parties, one center left and one very left. Now it would seem they have a left party and a very left party.
I didn't think much of Cameron from the start. When I first took notice of him I thought his only asset was that he was a telegenic candidate and nothing more.
It would seem "Old Europe" is becoming older still. Our best ally in Iraq and the greater War on Terror seems to be Australia, and our new Cold War threat China. With trouble brewing in the Middle East (Iran / Syria) and Asia (China / N. Korea) and with the Soviet bear lessened and our "allies" getting "leftier", I see our dear old friends in England fading away. Australia and India are the future.
Where have you gone Maggie Thatcher; a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Re: Our once great allies had two parties, one center left and one very left.
Are you seriously implying that the Tories, under Mrs Thatcher, were "center-left"? Relative to what? Ayn Rand?
>>Are you seriously implying that the Tories, under Mrs Thatcher, were "center-left"? Relative to what? Ayn Rand?
She expanded nationalised healthcare at an enormous rate, was the most articulate spokesperson of green issues of recent years, and while she cut back the size of government a little, it was from 42% of GDP to 39%. That is still pretty big, don't you think? Compared to Massachusetts, say.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I appreciate you standing up for Maggie and the conservative party in England. Never the less I stand by my comment. For more insight consider reading reading the conservative positions on their party site.
British conservatives do NOT believe (by and large) in mass privitization of most industries, nor elimination of most social programs. They did believe in a strong military and in supporting the US (that is until Blair sided with us, then it became expedient to turn on us for political points. Some friends).
The conservative party in England believes in light socialism, while the labour party borders on outright communism. There is really no viable conservative party that is right wing in the American sense, at least in British domestic policy.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
We British Conservatives, DO, usually believe in large-scale privatisation, though most do not endorse dismantling of social programmes.
Of course, that means most people do not support privatisation of health care or social security, as opposed to American Republicans who . . . oh, er, I suppose that is not so much of a difference after all.
It should be remembered, though, that our starting point was much greater nationalisation than was ever experienced in the US. By some measures we are now ahead. In the 80s we privatised, most notably, Telecommunictions, British Airways, British Gas (a natural gas company), the water and sewage companies, and most airports.
In the 90s we extended that to the electricity industry, railways, coal, and others.
Many of these were simply never nationalised in the US, but as a frequent traveller, I really wish you guys would catch up and privatise your airports, which are among the worst run in developed world - they have no sense of commerce or enterprise, which is rather odd when the American people have such a strong sense of both. It is the big international airports, especially those in NY, which are among the worst. Some municipal airports, such as Indianapolis, have brought in the privatised British to run their facilities for them.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Thank you for enlightening me on this issue. I defer to your wisdom on this.
What do you think of the future of British conservatism? Do you think Iraq has put a major wedge in our relations, or is this temporary? I think the US is starting to move towards Australia and India as the threats in China and N. Korea grow, as well as the threats of Islamic facism (where Europe seems to be less gung ho).
I would hate for relations with our best friends to further deteriorate, but after 9/11 I believe that the incursion into Iraq has brought terrorist insurgents flooding into Iraq...
...where we can kill them. Sounds good to me.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
a rather inarticulate one like Al Gore. But then, I always felt that Margaret Thatcher was passionate about the environment. It was not just a matter of positioning her for the next election as it seems to be with Gore.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I doubt I will get the chance to vote for a Labour Party led by him, and I certainly wouldn't. The man is an instinctive statist who thinks all problems will go away if only the government has more power to regulate people's lives. I don't want a national identity card, or any of the other Home Office lunacies. Terrorism needs to be confronted by confronting terrorists, not law-abiding citizens.
As for Churchill, great guy. Economically illiterate, but a fantastic war leader. As for his views on the welfare state - essentially that nothing should ever be amended - you can keep them.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
He had set Blair back on his feet for several months. However, what was actually occurring was a Leadership crisis in New Labour and a revolt of the Back Bench against the Government's alliance with Bush and the United States. There are also a host of other disagreements, terrorist tracking and detainment, top-ups, NHS efficiencies, the Scottish regiments, and of course Blair's Waterloo-his attempt at Schools' reform (which was cleverly backed by Cameron early on in an attempt to split New Labour).
However, this notion that the Tory Party should gain credibility by embracing the addled politics of Polly Toynbee and the Guardian editorial page is mind-boggling in its implications: an entire party, bereft of ideas to the extent that it must go beggaring to the worst of Fleet Street to gain street cred. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would have laughed this proposal into the dustbin of history.
Bold colours for the Tory Party, not pale pastels.
I am beginning to think that David Cameron is an insult to fine empty suits everywhere. If I wanted and empty suit in Great Britain, I would go to Harrod's. And Churchill is mentioned in the same column as Cameron? An insult to the memory of the Great Man.
Meanwhile, Pejman leaves us with the obvious conclusion: William Hague, thou art Pericles...
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Sadly, that's what happens when you lose three straight elections.
All politician, no core values other than poll figures.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I'm an American living in the UK at the moment, and it's been great fun to annoy my friends with comments like "You all just need to bring back Maggie" or "I think Margaret Thatcher should lead again." Seriously, even the Tories here hate here, although we are talking about people in their early 20s. The Tories really do need someone with balls though; it's just gross how squishy Cameron is.
...than what happened this side of the Atlantic six years ago, when a Republican presidential candidate ran on the creation of new entitlements and massive domestic spending increases?
This thread is about the Conservative Party in GB, not about GB and the Republican Party here. Go find an original thought, we'll wait here regardless of how long it takes. Promise.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
People on this site are outraged that Cameron wants to use economic weapons to contain "relative poverty" - that is, to make sure that the rich-poor gap doesn't grow, and make sure there is opportunity at the bottom.
Some might say that there is a place for that philosophy within conservatism. Clearly people around here disagree. Well, fair enough.
But people on this site have been wondering why Jim Webb isn't a Republican. Answer: he holds similar socio-economic views to Mr Cameron, as detailed above.
Now, if there's a place for that within US Conservatism, then we get all the Webbs under our tent. if not, we don't. But if any of the same folk are decrying Cameron's views whilst feigning confusion as to why the Webbs of the world aren't Republicans... then it's very disingenuous.
Conservatism in economics is all about making sure there is an opportunity for people at the bottom to move up by dint of their creativity and hard work. To a certain point, I know a lot of Conservatives who would balk at getting rid of all safety nets.
However, this idea that the government should be in the business of preventing individuals from getting "too rich" is seriously incompatible with Conservatism. It assumes that the accumulation of wealth is a zero-sum game i.e. Bill Gates making one billion dollars somehow deprives me of something.
That is what is at the very essence of the view (Jim Webb's) that the government should regulate the rich/poor gap. It shouldn't. It's based on envy and unfounded resentment and it negates people's freedom to choose and profit from their hard work.
So long as the economy is growing and standards of living are rising within all socio-economic strata and there is mobility between the strata (i.e. one can conceivably move, over the course of his lifetime, from the lowest fifth to the highest fifth of income earners), I think that the Government is doing its job.
this idea that the government should be in the business of preventing individuals from getting "too rich"....
Where are you getting that from? Certainly not from Mr Cameron's speech...
and on MTP. Yes, there is no place in this party for failed envy driven policies that seek to punish the producers and hire more beaureaucrats to herd the "obese" car, tv, owning "poor" that they keep poor lest their be no need for herders of the poor.
The "gap" he speaks of is due to lower middle moving to middle and a massive movement of middle to upper middle. This is called GOOD economic news.
There will always be underachievers but the way to decrease those ranks is through policies that encourage marriage, personal responsibility and quality education thru choice.
The theories Webb embraces are a documented failure worldwide incl in Europe, Africa and the USSR. They fail every time they are tried.
When you punish wealth accumulation and productivity, you get less of it. The RICH have enough to live on. They don't have to invest. But we need for them to want to invest. The Webb's of the world punish those that create jobs.
This is fundamental.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
But I think that Cameron may have a point.
I love Churchill. I think that he is the epitome of a leader. However, the Tory Party has been relegated to minor party status. Tories hold about a third of the seats in Parliament. He's experimenting with compassionate conservativism, he's just dressing it up differently.
Personally, I am a conservative because I believe very strongly in social values like traditional marriage and not killing unborn children.
I believe that individualism is the way to success. But that doesn't mean that I believe that the Ayn Rand wing of the party is right about an unregulated free market being the fairest form of economics.
I'm a fiscal conservative. But one can be a fiscal conservative and support programs such as Pell grants and Stafford loans that give individualistic types the opportunity to make something of themselves.