It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| October | 31 |
| 2003 |
You go away for a few days, and when you come back…the Conservative Party manages to kill off its leader and unite around one candidate. Wonders will never cease.
Not really. It’s a sign of just how up shit creek they really are, and how much they are in need of a paddle, that Howard is clearly their best performer, yet every time he appears on the TV most people’s reaction is to remember that he was the chap they kicked out in 1997 because they hated him.
Their real problem is that they haven't even begun to go through the process Labour undertook in the late 80s of examining just why they lost and what they need to do to win. The treatment of Portillo - and indeed Clarke - is typical. Clearly large parts of the party despise each of them. But in their different ways, both are about the only two people capable of reaching out to voters who have deserted the party – precisely the people which (does one really need to point this out?) you have to attract to win an election. And yet so great is the party's hatred for them that neither will even stand.
Contrast this with Labour and Blair. Almost all Labour members regard him as an interloper and dislike him - just as they did in 1994 when they chose him. But after Labour lost so badly in 1983, it started a process of self-examination, saw that it would prefer to be in power than out, and - holding its nose - did what was required, which led eventually to the election of Blair as leader.
The Tories won't even think about that. They voted for IDS not as the man to win over non-Tories but because he was one of them. And they will have Howard for the same reason, ignoring the fact that he was one of the men to whom the electorate gave the biggest kicking ever handed out to a British party, in 1997.
This goes well beyond welcoming Michael Howard as leader. They have some sensible, if limited, ideas on schools and health. Indeed, they have the makings of a consistent approach built around choice. But...
Here's where it starts to unravel. Because they still haven't analysed Labour properly yet – they still, even after 2 election defeats, think it’s all about spin which the electorate will soon see through - they think that the best approach is to be 'populist'. Hence the plan to abolish tuition fees (thus nationalising universities) and link pensions to earnings (bankrupting the future). Short term popular, perhaps; but a disaster both as policy and politically. First, they'll both unravel under proper scrutiny – during an election campaign - and second, they look exactly what they are: cynical. What they signal is that the party itself doesn’t believe it'll win. They look like policies designed to win short term popularity, not to pierce Labour's plans or convince the electorate of their own ideas.
But worse still is the way the party itself behaves. Portillo was shafted because he was a) too unstable ('foreign') and b) gay (or, rather, 'admitted' to gay experiences). Few Tories have criticised his policy agenda. What did for him was that he spoke about how the Tories needed to talk a new, different Britain, in new language and with newly relevant ideas. His recent programme when he lived as a single parent for a week was a model of what to do. It was dismissed by almost every senior Tory as cheap self-publicising TV.
Then there's Clarke. I have no time for his views at all. But there is clearly only one Tory who does not make voters' hair stand on end, indeed who is – get this for a Conservative! – popular: Clarke. Listening to him today on why he isn’t standing, he’s so far ahead of the others it’s a joke.
In 2001, since we didn't know what mess lay ahead, it was not so culpable rejecting him. I even wrote at the time that they shouldn’t elect him, since Europe was still a key divide and his domestic policy agenda was so lame.
It’s all very different today. There is now only one issue for Tories - avoiding electoral meltdown. That really is the only thing which matters. Literally. It’s, as Yogi Bera put it, déjà vu all over again. Just as after the 1983 election, if Labour hadn’t started to change, and had come 3rd in 1987, the party would have effectively been killed off, so today the only thing which matters – the only thing which matters – to Tories now is avoiding being beaten in the popular vote by the Liberals. It’s either Labour in 1983 and then 1987 all over again, or the Conservatives in Canada.
That means there is only one sensible course of action open to the Tories: doing what Labour did in 1994, gritting your teeth and electing a leader you hate but who will do the business with the electorate.
So what do they do instead? Elect by acclamation perhaps the most despised member of the 1997 government.
The reason is they still think Labour is a bunch of shysters and the electorate will soon realise there is only party which is fitted to power - their own. They haven't even begun – after two election defeats! - to think about the state they are in.
Labour wanted IDS to stay, for obvious reasons. If you want an example of Labour spin at its most effective, it's the idea in today's papers that Blair is now scared of what might happen under Howard. This rests on the bizarre idea that Blair was bested by his old sparring partner. Eh? First at Employment, then at the Home Office, Blair ran riings round Howard. Indeed, it was while shadowing Howard that he devised the 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' slogan which symbolised New Labour, and which catapulted Blair to the leadership. He must be beyond ecstatic at the idea of smashing Howard around once again.
MessageSpace
My gosh, what a long rant!
Let me say, I agree that the first job of any new leader is to prevent the Tories from slipping behind the LibDems and down further into total obscurity. However, I am not entirely sure that Howard is such a handicap in achieving that objective.
The problem is that the field of potential candidates is weak.
Clarke has even more baggage than Howard. In each of the Cabinet posts he has occupied he seriously p*ssed off some sector of the 'industry' he ministered; ambulance and other health workers while he was at Health, the Police while he was at the Home Office.
If the field were wider than MPs and could embrace ex-MPs looking for a seat, then Malcolm Rifkind would be a shoe-in. He's head and shoulders above anybody else and more than a match for Blair / Brown.
Portillo, is a total inadequate not because of his foreign, gay experiences etc but because his new-found touchy-feelyness is such a polar shift from his previous defence minsistry exerience.
Ancram, is another harmless old duffer. His role is to be the 'Willie' for the next leader.
Redwood, a superior policy maker but not a leader.
Davis, perhaps, but he's heartily despised by too many Tory MPs.
Who else? Boris Johnson? Next time, yes, he would be a serious candidate. Liam Fox? Same, Stephen Dorrell? A boy in a man's job.
So, it has to be Howard. And I beg to differ on his performance vis a vis Blair. It's my recollection that Howard took his foot off the gas to ensure he didn't crush Bambi but just scared him off into the undergrowth.
But in saying of Blair, "it was while shadowing Howard that he devised the 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' slogan which symbolised New Labour" as some kind of praise that you reveal the hollow core at the heart of everything that Labour under Blair has done. Nothing, except mouth slogans and charge us more in taxes for the privilege of hearing them do so.
Howard must take an immediate chance to overturn the 'something of the night' and '14 unanswered Paxman questions' tag that is supposed to be a major handicap. This requires a rapier riposte of the quality that Sir Alec Douglas Home deployed to deflate Harold Wilson, who thought he'd hit gold with the jibe, 'the 14th Earl of Home' by answering that he supposed Harold must be the '14th Mr Wilson'. Little was heard from Wilson on that front after that.
If Howard does that quickly than Widdicombe's comment will be turned as a weapon against his detractors.
In essence, I agree with the thrust that the party membership doesn't really understand the party's proximity to total extinction and how it must re-engage. But by comparing it now with Labour in '83/'87 you highlight the fundamental differences between the two party memberships.
Labour members are in the party because they have political ideas and think, eat and breathe politics. Conservatives are in the party for social reasons, to be with people from the same slice of society, and to be with people like themselves. They hardly have a political idea in their heads.
Labour party members intrigue, Tories socialise.
Whatever about his past record against Blair, Howard has been truly superb against Brown, a joy to watch - and Brown's no mug after all. And I'm not convinced that his past record will really matter that much, except in so far as it could get him bogged down on areas he doesn't want to go on. His candidacy speech yesterday was very impressive too - though I suppose that has to be the easiest speech you could ever make.
As for Boris Johnson...I am utterly perplexed as to how some people mention him as a potential leader, much as you can't help but like him. Surely he's no more than an, albeit brighter than he affects to be, entertaining distraction. But a potential Prime Minister? Maybe I'm missing something.
James: "As for Boris Johnson...I am utterly perplexed as to how some people mention him as a potential leader, much as you can't help but like him."
I do tend to judge him from his newspaper columns and editorship of The Spectator as well as reports of interventions in the HoC rather than his tv appearances on 'Have I got News for You'. I never watch the programme.
And all in all I have to say I don't understand the whole anti-Howard thing on a personal level. Sometimes he can look a little creepy or smug but I am consistently impressed by him when I see him interviewed. Admittedly I'm only really familiar with him post-2001.
Great analysis as ever. Wrong conclusion though. The man new Labour fear the most is Tim Yeo. Only Tim can save the Tories.
Oh dear. Well I agree with some of the substance of what you are saying Stephen (especially re. Clarke and Portillo) but I think your conclusion is somewhat out. What will be key will be the sort of frontbench Howard can assemble. It has the potential to be head and sholuders over the old one. Though apparently Ken Clarke won't be in it, more's the pity. I really think it would become him to take up a post and get on with it at this stage to be honest, though I see where his frustration is coming from.
It's not exactly a surprise, I'm afraid, that Ken Clarke will not take part. Whether Portillo takes part remains to be seen. Neither Clarke nor Portillo has much interest in Michael Howard making serious headway. The Tories are going to lose the next general election and Portillo, Maude, etc want to be in pole position to seize the controls in the aftermath of that defeat.....assuming that there are any controls left to seize. Portillo being a member of Howard's Shadow Cabinet will compromise their ability to mount a palace coup. So Howard is already badly hampered in picking a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents.
This is precisely what Dominic Cummings was referring to in his article last week when he said that senior figures in the Tory Party make no effort, which makes it impossible to motivate a successful team. Add to that CCO's management incompetence and the Tories' longstanding inability to build political coalitions with a coherent sense of what they stand for. All told, I can't see Brown and Blair losing much sleep.
Stephen I am sorry to say for once this is total rubbish from top to bottom. You have allowed your hatred of the Conservative Party to overcome reason. Howard - the most hated man in 1997? I think not - M Portillo wears that crown. Blair beat up Howard? errr I dont think so - any MP who watched them "spar" will disagree with you, and by the way I think Tone will come to regret "tough on crime" in the very near future.
Michael Howard was the best Home Secretary since the war, and the first to preside over a fall in crime. He does have one or two image problems to iron out - I will admit - but he is easily the best candidate for the job at the moment. Read Parris in the Times yesterday (Sat)
And by the way Labour are a bunch of shysters and the wheels are coming off - ask the City, the NHS, the Police, Teachers - have you seen long term interest rates? - and everyone is going to think twice - including you - when they have to sign the self assessment cheque in January.
You've been away too long - time for you to reconnect with the British people
Thank you, Kit, for making some pretty telling points. I won't repeat them. However, it's worth challenging the conventional wisdom among the Islington nomenklatura that Tory policy on universities amounts to nationalising them; and that restoring the link between pensions and earnings will bankrupt the country.
I don't really like the Tory policy on universities but it's certainly no worse than Labour's. All that Charles Clarke is proposing is a huge disguised tax hike on students (called "top up fees"), while Whitehall strengthens its iron grip on universities....not least by rigging admissions procedures so as to please the class warriors on the Labour back benches. This is nationalisation in all but name.
As for pensions, isn't David Willetts simply following in the footsteps of the admirable Frank Field? His plans would end the disincentives to thrift created by means testing, and avoid the need to top up state pensions from general taxation. When these offsetting savings are taken into account, are Willetts' plans really such a financial disaster?
Thank you, Kit, for making some pretty telling points. I won't repeat them. However, it's worth challenging the conventional wisdom among the Islington nomenklatura that Tory policy on universities amounts to nationalising them; and that restoring the link between pensions and earnings will bankrupt the country.
I don't really like the Tory policy on universities but it's certainly no worse than Labour's. All that Charles Clarke is proposing is a huge disguised tax hike on students (called "top up fees"), while Whitehall strengthens its iron grip on universities....not least by rigging admissions procedures so as to please the class warriors on the Labour back benches. This is nationalisation in all but name.
As for pensions, isn't David Willetts simply following in the footsteps of the admirable Frank Field? His plans would end the disincentives to thrift created by means testing, and avoid the need to top up state pensions from general taxation. When these offsetting savings are taken into account, are Willetts' plans really such a financial disaster?
I can't understand why a person will take a year to write a novel when he can easily buy one for a few dollars.
Believing in God does not require believing in religion.
What's the big deal about not shipping MySQL client source in PHP any more? I always considered it a source of trouble to have MySQL statically linked into PHP: It meant trouble if other parts of Apache were also using MySQL library functions. And using the system's MySQL libraries with PHP is very easy anyways. Dropping the bundled MySQL code will only make things easier.
This is a nice blog.
When the Conservatives Party win power we will closed down this website as soon as possible, and we will arrest you all and lock you up for life in prison, when we win, we hate this rubbish website. All you Yobs on this website will be put in prison, when we find where you live. May all the people who write to this website go to Hell, that's include all you lot.
aventureux filles pute II aventureux filles uriner II aventureux flic II maman vingt cinq II papa vetille II quarante cinq jeune II kilia eleftheros II kilia fotografia II kilia foto II koutos pateroulis II kafto koutos pateroulis II to pio kafto koutos pateroulis II comfortable fighetta merda II comfortable fighetta prostituta II comfortable fighetta sex II
big booty anal sex* big butt anal* hunter milf montana* hunter milf movie* big mammeries* big natural tittites plump asses* sandy allinternal* simona all internal* assparade free photos* white asshole and black cuck* mff carwash* mff carwash series*