The Boy King's Speech
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Conservative Party conference 2011: David Cameron's speech in full - Telegraph.
I could quibble about some of his sentiments; on the importance of government leadership for example, but essentially I agree with every word of David Cameron's conference speech. The problem is I don't believe he does. At least, he lacks the will to make it happen. The Conservative Party, as presently constituted and led, is a dog with no fight. It's a poodle of the liberal left. It might yap irritatingly occasionally, but it's never going to bite them and - most of the time - it wants them to stroke it.
The Conservative Party used to be the political rotweiler of Britain. It was an election-winning machine; a mass movement - and the most important dating agency of the middle classes. It was the largest political party in Scotland (can you imagine?!) and was briefly, under Margaret H. Thatcher, an intellectual hotbed. Sir Keith Joseph (a far better man than our leftist historians will ever admit) had the Centre for Policy Studies shaping national thought for a while. Those were the only times in my life when I had hope for our country's future.
I was never really a Tory though. I don't hunt or shoot, never wear tweed and feel no need to be paternalistic to the poor. I have no desire to tell other adults (unless and to the precise extent that they threaten person or property) what to do with their lives. I didn't give a damn if Cecil Parkinson bonked his secretary, any more than Margaret did. Once I got past my Che Guevara and Mao Zedong-worshipping teenage years (give me a break, it could have been drugs) it seems I was always a classical liberal.
The Conservative Party was only welcoming to the likes of us under Margaret. Daniel Hannan and other sound thinkers now look like Jews in Woody Allen's unkindest caricature of a 1950s country club. I admire their gall and persistence in joining, but frankly what do they hope to achieve? I don't think Mr Hannan has anything more in common with David Cameron's thinking (as opposed to his rhetoric) than with Gordon Brown's.
We need a Broad Right alliance in this country. The BBC's hysteria today about the suggestion people should pay off their credit cards (more sensible advice than which is scarce possible to conceive) suggests that the prudent are dangerously close to becoming an enslaved minority. They can't afford to be divided.
The likes of Dan Hannan are widely respected within UKIP and libertarian circles, for example. They could broker, if not a merger with the Conservatives, at least an electoral pact. The Eurosceptics have been proved right in the most convincing manner. The Tory hush puppy tendency of woolly-thinking wets are as weak as they have ever been since Thatcher's day. Now is the hour, for the good of the nation, to give the electoral quietus to Labour; the greatest divider of communities, destroyer of wealth and pimp to failure and degradation in our country's history. For David Cameron never spoke truer words than when he said;
We must never let these Labour politicians anywhere near our economy again.
If only he had the manhood truly to believe that could be achieved, it just might be.
I think you are right with Cameron. He says stuff that sounds sincere, but a person is left wondering if he actually believes what he says, even if he did would he be able to or allowed to do what he says?
He does not look like he is doing so much of I what would like to see done. Maybe he is like a duck? Looking like he is smoothly sailing along, but quietly doing some serious paddling out of sight. To get results first and credit after? Maybe, but I am not planning to bet on it.
What makes me mad is UK politics is basically voting for who you distrust and disagree with least and it is not much of a choice we get a poor selection. I guess it’s the same most places?
Can the Conservatives be made over into something more for the individual citizen and less for the state?
It looks like Labour is being made back over by the left.
“No more boom and bust”? Riiight.. I do agree Labour have proved absolutely beyond a doubt they so can’t be trusted with the UK’s bank account, savings account and credit cards. No more than an immature, not very bright, drunk teenager anyway ^_^
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, October 07, 2011 at 09:42 AM
You're probably right that it's easier to take over an existing party
than to start a new one (and as you say, this is what Lord Tebbit
encourages), but the Conservative brand is so tainted that I don't
think it can be recovered.
I has also been overtaken by events.
Disraeli famously said:
"I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution,
a Radical to remove all that is bad."
But there is now so little of the status quo worth preserving that
conservatism seems completely inappropriate.
Perhaps the best course for the time being is to join the Conservative
party, but vote UKIP :-)
Incidentally, the rest of that Disraeli quote bears repeating:
"I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry
the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few."
Posted by: Suboptimal Planet | Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 08:44 PM
I agree with most of this but not with the idea that a new party/alliance should be formed.
It is always easier to capture an existing party and alter it than to create a brand new party-thats how the Left succeeded with Labour. That is why people such as Hannan and Tebbit remain with the Tories-and are right to do so.
One could say that the years in the wilderness of the Tories has, in fact, changed their attitudes to things such as sexuality, race, religion etc., in that (I think) most Tories don't care (as much) about them. Certainly, as you point out, Thatcher never did.
But you are right-Dave only believes that Dave should be Prime Minister.
Posted by: MickC | Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 09:39 AM
I don't need to go. Consider the party conferences this year. How much genuine debate and how much stage-managed leader-worship? We are all getting to Pyongyang quite fast enough.
Posted by: Tom | Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 09:05 AM
Che and Mao... your peregrinations round Russia and China begin to make more sense now. Let me know if you start blogging from Pyongyang, I have some cracking photos for your banner! ;-)
Posted by: Mr Eugenides | Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 06:37 AM
Never since the last time we faced the threat from across the English Channel has this country been in need of a Leader.
Instead as you so aptly put it we have a "boy" in charge.
Yet no where do I see anyone of inspiration waiting to take over the reins of power from this mere "boy".
Posted by: barnacle bill | Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 09:23 PM
I Have 'tweeted' this - well said!
Posted by: WitteringWitney | Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 09:07 PM
I didn't give a damn if Cecil Parkinson bonked his secretary, any more than Margaret did. ...
And who cared if John loved Ginny or not?
Posted by: jameshigham | Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 08:56 PM