Conservatism is a broad church

strapworld

I have read this twice!

Can anyone believe it. At the top of the Conservatice Party we had Cameron and his inner circle discussing what being a Conservative was!!

The we get this :-
"Perhaps the best description is that it is a pragmatic creed, wary of dogma, going with the grain of human nature, and focusing on effective policy that leads to real improvements."

What utter and total nonsense.

At least the socialists know what their party stands for!

So we have a leader, a conservative prime minister, who has no idea what being a conservative is about.

That explains everything and now I understand fully why I cannot stand the man.
An out and out opportunist!

Rhoda Klapp

You can pay your subs, you are in a broad church. You are expected to vote for us, you are after all in a broad church. But when we get our sticky fingers on the levers of power, you may find you are locked out of church, troublemaker.

toco

An excellent piece which for me encapsulates what the Conservetives in this era are all about.The Coalition is performing well particularly given the financial mess Labour created and long may it continue.The feeble Red Ed and his trades union paymasters are steeped in the past and can never represent the majority of us who are not consumed with envy and do not expect the state to provide everything for us.

Mike

'Perhaps the best description is that it is a pragmatic creed, wary of dogma, going with the grain of human nature, and focusing on effective policy that leads to real improvements. We have some fundamental values â“ a belief in individual freedom but also in social and personal responsibility, an understanding that power must be devolved as close to the people as possible, a knowledge that people do best when they have as much control as possible over their own lives, and a desire to enable everyone to achieve their true potential.'

This sounds just like those New Labour people who go 'I'm a socialist, if socialism means ...' and then list a lot of positive attributes that no one would say they were not, with nothing to actually distinguish it from anything else.

kinglear

The Conservative Party would no longer exist if each generation did NOT question what it was, what it stood for, and where it was going. I agree the message during the election was blurred - but the overarching belief that people can make things better ( not the state) has resonated throughout history

DavidDP

Excellent piece. A description of Conservative thought and ideology which is applicable now just as it was 150 years ago.

AlanL

Most conservatives are united around the philosophy of "smaller state is better" - but only in economic matters.

In fact, it is in economic matters where conservatives are most pragmatic - driven more by what will increase overall GDP/wealth, and less by idealogical dogma. By contrast, the Left typically holds dogmatic views about, say, penal taxes which actually serve to reduce GDP/wealth.

However, it is on the social aspects where some conservatives pick up idealogical dogma of their own. Rather than choosing the penal systems which minimise crime or reoffending, some conservatives have a strong desire to incarcerate or use more CCTV, even if that results in more crime (see the US as a prime example). This is not even a left/right or wet/dry divide. Some right wingers are strongly in favour of a larger judicial state (e.g. Tebbit) whereas others wish to reduce powers like detention without charge (David Davis).

So I am willing to accept that as conservatives we all share a pragmatic view in economics - in social matters, however, "conservatives" range from social liberals, who believe the state should not intervene in peoples private lives, to social authoritarians, who believe that the state should be an instrument in setting moral values of behaviour.

This is not just a broad church - it is a factional split waiting to happen. Only the dire need to focus on economic matters is keeping it suppressed.

2trueblue

The reason people do not know what a Conservative is that the party does not know.
Your article gives no clear message, no clear intentions, nothing. It sounds nice but as you said Mrs and Mr ....want to know what they are going to get if they give you their vote. (And they should have got rid of T May who coined the phrase 'The Nasty Party' all on her own.)

That is why they did not get their majority. Cameron does not understand that people can process quite complicated things. A good example, when he said he would give us a referendum on the EU he should have had the wit to qualify it with 'If the treaty has not been ratified by the time he was in a position to do so.

Too many of his advisers are from across the pond and they have a shorter attention span than the punters in the UK. What works over there does not always knit with the UK population. I would just like to feel that the Tories have some idea where we are going. So far the strategy in major areas has not been thought through...

The family allowance
the bank tax
the 50% tax
the school/sport agenda
It has all the hall marks of ideas written on the back of a fag packet, just like Blairs lot.
On the schools sports issue, taking the money schools received for the previous arrangement, which was part of the Culture budget and replacing it with what?? It left Hunts area better off but will the same
amount go back into the schools budget?
I have visions of Liebore here where money was re-announced that was not 'new' money, but money already accounted for.
I think the coalition has offered many benefits but in the end will fail as the egos will not be able to shut up and do what might be best for the UK. D Davis is wild card and totally out on a beam, his own.

Tim Montgomerie

I could spend much of the afternoon responding to this Fiona but I'll say just one thing for now. In the language of the playground, I didn't start this!

I've only joined a debate initiated by Nick Boles and Sir John Major. They have started an argument in favour of continuing coalition after 2015. I'm simply arguing for a majority Tory government, pursuing mainstream conservatism. In ongoing alliance with the LibDems we don't get mainstream conservative positions on Europe, crime, tax and public service reform. We only get the liberal half of the 'politics of and'.

yank

"We spent months trying to define what Conservatism really is. I don’t think we ever really got a pithy soundbite, because the root of its success is that it evolves to suit the times."

.

No, you are spectacularly wrong.

And your marketeer's quest for a "soundbite" demonstrates how far wrong you and Dave have gone. That's why he failed to win the recent election, even while facing nonsense on stilts.

Conservatism is a temperament, impervious to your foolish attempts at redefinition.

Conservatism just is. And Dave just isn't.

Chris

As a socially liberal, financial conservative Conservative, I don't really understand how some people on the "right" can advocate personal freedom and responsibility in economics whilst also wanting to pry and interfere with peoples' personal lives.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Verityred

Good article, glad it got the doddery dinosaur Strapworld frothing at the gills.

'At least the socialists know what their party stands for' he gibbers.

Do they? I really don't think so, they are all over the place.

Times have changed, catch up or fade away.

Chuck Unsworth

If you cannot define conservatism you cannot discuss it.

Frank P

yank

Thank you! It's a pity that it needs someone from outside to define what conservatism is and will always remain. Unfortunately it is the only way to inject objectivity into British politics now, from the only place where conservatives still exists - for the time being, anyway, but watch out! Things are a bit iffy there too, recently.

Half a century of covert modified Marxism here has eventually produced deluded little apparatchiks like Fiona Melville who joins the Conservative Party without even knowing what conservatism is and needs to debate it.

In 1990 Carlton TV was shoe-horned into a coup on London ITV in a corrupt deal. One of its privileged PR men was much later manufactured (with the help of Fran Luntz) as the new 'Conservative' Leader. In each case it it was disastrous for both the organisations concerned - and the United Kingdom. Maggie was responsible for the first jig-up in revenge for "Death on the Rock" made by the egregious Julian Manyon. If she has foreseen that it would ultimately lead to the second jig-up, perhaps she would have had second thoughts before setting that train of events into play: another beautifully limpid example of the law of unintended consequences.

Boudicca

It would appear that the 'broad church of Conservatism' only applies if you are prepared to accept that the EU now governs Britain and don't rock the boat.

If you believe otherwise, the Conservative Leadership doesn't want you and will prevent you from becoming a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. Hardly Democratic, but then what is Democratic about our Government these days?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/100067176/cchq-betrays-tory-members-by-counting-better-off-out-membership-as-a-skeleton-in-the-cupboard/

Cynic

Fiona writes, "I worked for CCHQ, David Cameron’s leadership campaign and them back in CCHQ again. We spent months trying to define what Conservatism really is." Presumably this was in order to ditch all the key points once in power?

Verity

Fiona Melville writes: "A long time ago, I worked for CCHQ, David Cameron’s leadership campaign, them back in CCHQ again."

I won't quote the subsequent Sixth Form equivocating drivel. How old are you, darling?

The Conservatives have misplaced their base. A real Conservative leader could find it again in a New York minute.

Verity

To quote Yank: "Conservatism just is. And Dave just isn't."

Quite.

David Ossitt

yank.

“No, you are spectacularly wrong.
Conservatism is a temperament, impervious to your foolish attempts at redefinition.
Conservatism just is. And Dave just isn't.”

yank has got it just about right; one could go on to elaborate, to list the principles and ideas that all conservatives share but it is hardly necessary.

It is all in the name ‘Conservative’, as yank writes, it is a temperament, an inclination, an attitude of mind, a true conservatives can never be a floating voter.

It is an unbending belief that all forms of socialism are at best misguided and at worst pure unadulterated evil.

Vulture

This article defines exactly what is wrong with Camerono's misnamed 'Copnservative' party, why it will never win an election under his leadership, and why we are heading for hell in a handcart.

It won't really matter when Nick Clegg's Europhile, wet, green, pinko, 'Liberal Democratic' party disappears because Cameron's Conservative party is the same thing under another name.

The job of real Conservatives is to get rid of Dave, Fiona and all who think like them.
Under their 'leadership' we are all doomed.

Tiberius

Tim M: this argument was "started" by those who did not (and in many cases still do not) recognize that the Conservative party was only once again electable after Cameron, with his different style and approach to policy, became leader.

The determination of whether what you call "mainstream conservatism" can win a Tory majority in 2015 is a work in progress. What is certain, though, is that it would not even stand a chance if Cameron had not led the party in the way that he has.

Stephen S

Good article, and excellent point made by AlanL, which is for me the main issue.

Conservatism (for me) means personal responsibility, personal freedom and a smaller state. To achieve this we need a society with a strong moral sense. Previously, public service and institutions like the church were instrumental in providing this, but not today.

The difference between say, Tebbit and Clarke on matters of justice are so far apart it’s hard to believe they belong to the same party.

Peter From Maidstone

Chris, can you be specific about what prying and interfering some on the "right" are proposing?

Simon Stephenson

Fifteen paragraphs of management-speak to say that you ain't going to form a government if you don't win enough votes from the centre, it's dangerous to associate with anything principled in case the TV and the tabloids come out against it, and that whatever your side's doing couldn't possible be improved upon.

It's like reading something from 1984.

Thanks.

libertarian

This article is a load of wishy washy political nonsense.

What we want is a Conservative party or indeed any party to grow a pair and stand up to the rubbish thats been dished out by ALL political parties national and local for the last 20 odd years. Its got nothing to do with being more right wing. It has an awful lot to do with being far LESS LEFT WING. At both local and national level the Tories are now a mild socialist party and I think you'll find Ms Melville that if anything has been comprehensively debunked it's Big State, Keynesian, nannying, interfering no nothing, market socialism, blairite third way Eurodross.

ps

The Mrs and I had a big row last night, where do I ring to get Dave and George to come round and sort it out? Can't have us getting divorced now can we, might upset the kiddies and its hard enough with them still living at home unemployed, aged 29 and 35

an ex-tory voter

A complete explanation of why cameron is such a waste of space. No passion, no conviction, no leadership, just simple "lets get into power and stay there pragmatism". Without, conviction, passion and leadership there is little point getting into power. Cameron will stay there only as long as it takes the Labour Party to choose a real leader and take over driving the nation in the same direction as that in which he is currently travelling. The Conservative Party ceased to exist many months ago, it will never recover under his "leadership" and will be forced to remain married to Clegg and his pseudo-socialists in order to cling to power. Cameron and his coalition are a disaster for the nation, it is time true tories left him to his own devices and started afresh.

Verity

I see the troll-wrangler sent an urgent email to Tiberius. Thuciddidums can't be far behind.

Verity

This very poor writer, Melville, writes: "A long time ago, I worked for CCHQ, David Cameron’s leadership campaign and them back in CCHQ again...).

What is "a long time" in your frame of reference? Three yeasr? Four years?

Ex-Tory Voter - Agreed. If Dave manages to cling on by his febrile fingertips, then a new Conservative Party will probably arise organically. It might be called ... oh, the New Conservatives, say.

Fiona

Hello everyone, and thank you for all your comments!
A few comments in response to yours:
- We tried to set out a pithy soundbite because for so long people misunderstood or misrepresented and wouldn’t listen to us anyway. It wasn’t an exercise in defining it for us (though – defining where you stand is always a useful place to start if you’re trying to persuade others)
- I want politicians who continually question why they do something, what they stand for, and whether it’s all worth it. I think we’d live in a pretty stultifying place if we didn’t
- As Conservatives, we are (or should be) pragmatic enough to know that policy that works is better than one that doesn’t
- I agree that the Coalition generally and the Conservatives in particular have sometimes not been great at explaining what they’re doing and why
- I think this discussion about mainstream vs liberal is entirely separate to whether the Coalition continuing is a desirable thing in and of itself
- And that the mainstream vs liberal distinction is unnecessary
- I agree that Conservatism means people having as much control as possible over their own lives. That does not, however, mean that we abandon people who need help
- Unless you gain power you cannot change anything. Of course, after only 6 months, we don’t yet know what this government will actually achieve. But so far, I think it’s doing (or planning on doing) some great things – schools reform, welfare reform, prisons reform, devolving power to local communities... I accept that we can’t necessarily know whether these will work (though at least they are basing their proposals on principles not headlines, and on evidence not prejudice), but we won’t know until we try, and Britain certainly needed change.
Thanks again!
Fiona

Tanuki

Must confess, I have big issues with Cameron, Tim Montgomerie and his 'mainstream conservatism'.

OK, I'm a "child of Thatcher" - growing up in the 1970s - a time when the flaccid Heath and Wilson governments brought us three-day-weeks and power-cuts.

My 'mainstream' conservatism is intrinsically free-market and supportive of the individual not the collective.

I hate corporatism - whether represented by entrenched big-business or state-monopoly [yes, NHS, British Medical Association and other cliques, I'm looking at you].

I loathe Philip Blond and his 'nudge' nonsense: truth is, 'the Man in Whitehall' can never know what is really right for me. If you government-types try to 'nudge' me I will kick you - hard - in the shins.

I don't at all appreciate the current Tory 'family' stuff: it's horribly paternalistic and last-millennium. Sarah, Lavinia, Jocasta and their pony are just as much a 'family' as the traditional mom/dad-and-2.4kids are. Whether or not they're 'married'.

I want a 'Mainstream Conservative' party that is wholeheartedly pro-business and celebrates individuals who make it big, rather than one which stiffs anyone who earns more than £100,000 with punitive rates of income-tax. Meritocracy should not be capped.

Then there's the civil-liberties part: "If it harms none, live as you will" - I'm a Libertarian at heart and really wish the Conservatives would lighten-up on the whole issue of personal consumption of alcohol & recreational pharmaceuticals.

OK, if you steal to fund your habit or end up lying in the gutter after too many Peronis you should end up in jail - but truth is, there are millions of people who enjoy a spliff, a line of Bolivian Marching Powder, a couple of E's or a bottle of Veuve du Vernay at the weekend - and can in the meantime hold down a perfectly satisfactory and non-harmful lifestyle. Why punish their happiness?

john steadman

So it's all pretty clear now - Conservatism is whatever it needs to be to obtain power.
Inspirational and heart-warming to all real Tories, who most of us are fairly capable of identifying even if the author can't.

150 Wat Tyler

'Being a Conservative means preserving what is good'.

Like sovereignty?

Er, um.

Sorry, I know you 'won't let the matter rest there'.

normanc

Is this a parody comprehensively taking the piss out of Cameron or a serious article?

On the internet it's so hard to tell sometimes.

TGF UKIP

I'm always delighted to read pieces like this by people like this. Just reinforces how right I am to loath the whole sodding London lot of them.

The sooner UKIP changes its name, moves its HQ to the provinces and espouses a broad provincial conservative platform the sooner the whole rotten, progressive clique of them will be destroyed. It'll be only fair, y'know.

Tiresias

A piece so full of ill-defined abstractions that it could have been written by James Purnell or David Miliband. What does being a centrist appear to preclude being able to write clear English?

Some questions: what is the grain of human nature that conservatives work with? Can something be simulataneously be pragmatic and a creed? And is conservatism, even in the rather limp form that Fiona advances, an instinct or point of view that sees value in "over-arching narratives"? Surely our belief in freedom and individuals leads us to be suspicious of, or even hostile to, the wish to see everything in terms of a single story?

If you believe in individuals the question of why one will be better off under a Conservative government can be answered. People will be better off under the Conservatives because they will be more able to identify their own interests, given greater freedom to pursue those interests and retain more of the rewards of that pursuit. All three conditions have to be in place for the initial belief in individuals to become a political position. Under David Cameron's leadership we have seen so little evidence of deregulation and such a lack of commitment ot reducing tax - even as an ultimate rather than an immediate objective of policy - that one wonders if he can really believe in the first. It may be hard to define conservatism: but if a Prime Minister cannot make it significantly easier for individuals and businesses to pursue their interests than the government led by Gordon Brown or to retain more of the rewards of their efforts than the government led by Gordon Brown (and so far I see little evidence of either) then I think it fair to wonder he should in any menagingful sense be called conservative.

A useful test for the belief in individuals is overseas aid. I suspect we will have different views on whether the grain of human nature is to be generous or not in supporting other people with whom a sense of affiliation may be limited. In truth, in different circumstances that amy alter the sense of affiliation the urge to generosity may vary enormously. What is undoubtedly true is that there are numerous ways and numerous agencies other than the government able and willing to convert individual donations into assistance to people in other countries. This can be both for relief of immediate distress or longer term development. When individuals are so able to express their will and make quite precise choices about how to do so, why should a government that claims to believe in the supremacy of individuals involve itself in the matter by the compulsion of tax? Given a choice between allowing individuals to express their own nature and will by private donation or taxing, irrespective of economic circumstances or other spending priorites, simply to meet an arbitrary United Nations target what would a conservatve do? He or she would do other than David Cameron. A conservative, we might agree, is not someone who thinks it good to use other people's money to flaunt their own high sense of their personal morality.

TGF UKIP

Long, long overdue especially given how the One Continent gang sabotaged Hague, IDS and Howard but Tamzin Lightwater signals what might be a fightback by some backbenchers. No point in holding our breath, though, given the supine nature of the these creatures in times past. Let's just hope the new crop are made of better stuff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8196241/Tories-warn-Cameron-Listen-to-us-or-we-mutiny.html

Widmerpool

Well at least this piece has wound up the Boneheaded Backwoodsmen on the Right of the Tory Party!
Maybe one day these poor dears will get it, that they are as unelectable as Labour under Michael Foot!

2trueblue

Fiona, I'm sure you are a nice person but your 2nd effort worries me even more than the 1st. I am now convinced that Cameron has the wrong people out there advising him. Or maybe he is just the wrong man for us.

Edward McLaughlin

Is this one of those churches that Rod Liddle reckons should be knocked down? Seeing as it's not being used and all that.

Frank P

After Fiona's two efforts above I think we can safely deduce that Cameron's conservatism is not so much a broad church as fraud church.

Frank P

Fiona and friends are depicted here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsmL64JNnX4

Yes, well ...

Verity

F Melville - Ref your post above, you have misunderstood every point made pithily and succinctly by the people posting hereon.

Betapolitics

Frank P: I can confirm that the Fiona in the Youtube video – who is helpfully showing people how best to enter the bath “butt first” – is not the author of the above article. Sorry to chip in but I felt the need to rebutt your allegation…

Betapolitics

Frank P: I can confirm that the Fiona in the Youtube video – who is helpfully showing people how best to enter the bath “butt first” – is not the author of the above article. Sorry to chip in but I felt the need to rebutt your allegation…

Fergus Pickering

The leader was John Major. He led the party to electoral disaster. The leader was William Hague. He led the party to electoral disaster. The leader was Ian Duncan Smith. He would have led the party to electoral disaster but he was replaced by Michael Howard who led the party to electoral disaster. The leader is David Cameron who is now our Prime Minister. He is obviously useless and needs to b replaced by Christ-your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine who will lead the party... Heavens, haven't we been here before?

Frank P

Betapolitics

Oh what a pity - thought the pictures suited the prose in the post.

Dimoto

Nothing wrong with the sentiments of the blog post, but I really hope Fiona has nothing to do with the writing of leaflets ...

As for the "lost election": Brown's rating improved dramatically with the banking crisis, the frightened sheep all wanted the "experienced" government to keep making reassuring noises (as the boat sank).
From then on, it was always a big ask, and the Cons fell a bit short.
If the coalition holds, the advantage of government should give the Cons a decent majority next time - provided they start reducing taxes before the election.

Herbert Thornton

Ms. Melville describes her and David Cameron's notion of Conservatism as being that of "a broad church".

Unfortunately, it is the very breadth of it that is the problem.

Her and Cameron's "Conservatism" is certainly broad - in the sense that it imagines it can be all things to all people. But in pursuit of this aim, it prefers to don blinkers rather than look at harsh facts. Among those facts are the failure of multiculturalism, the corrosive influence of political correctness but above all, the growing presence in Britain of Islam.

Everywhere that Islam has spread, violent conflict has followed - and if Islam continues to grow in Britain then, as has always happened wherever it has been allowed to take root, there will eventually be violent civil unrest and even civil war.

These are sad facts but they are being swept under the carpet. To call Cameron's Conservatism a "Broad Church" is a smokescreen. In truth it is a Church that is Blind, Blinkered and Bloody-minded.

150 Wat Tyler

Fiona Melville:

'Being a Conservative means a mix of preserving what's good, being radical, being pragmatic, and acting in the national interest.'

Ed Milliband:

'Being a Labourite means a mix of preserving what's good, being radical, being pragmatic, and acting in the national interest.'

Nick Clegg:

'Being a Liberal Democrat means a mix of preserving what's good, being radical, being pragmatic, and acting in the national interest.'

Oh dear.

John David Barnett

Great article. It will have had a few of our "usual suspects" spluttering and choking.

It's terribly sad that such common sense, descending almost to statements of the blindingly obvious, should arouse such hostility.

dg

Response to Fergus Pickering

"The leader was John Major. He led the party to electoral disaster."

Maastricht? And John Major's favourite think tank was the social market foundation, started by uber-loyal SDP members Daniel Finkelstein and Rick Nye.

"The leader was William Hague. He led the party to electoral disaster."
Advisers: George Osborne (moderniser), Daniel Finkelstein (SDP, moderniser)
Chief speech writer: Greg Clark (SDP, moderniser, famous for saying the Tory party should follow the ideas of Polly Toynbee, hey wait a minute, weren't Greg Clark and Polly Toynbee members of the same political party in the 1980s? Why yes they were, what a coincidence!)

"The leader was Ian Duncan Smith."

Here's the best summary you will read on the time of Iain Duncan Smith's leadership:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410049/The-week-the-kitten-heel-trod-on-the-polecat.html

How right wing it is to try to expel the excellent right winger Norman Tebbit!

How right wing was Oliver Letwin?:-
'Speakers were hand-picked to present a "rainbow" of views, starting with a black woman from Brixton in a turban, to act as a "culture shock" to the Tory audience.'

How right wing was Iain Duncan Smith's conference speech, written by two former SDP members:- 'It was Mr Clark - and Rick Nye, the party's director of research - who helped craft Mr Duncan Smith's speech in the final few days before Thursday.'

Iain Duncan Smith was pushed out by the modernising faction of SDP members who did everything they could to frustrate his leadership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2783077.stm

The notion that the last 20 years of Tory party has been right wing is a myth.

"He would have led the party to electoral disaster but he was replaced by Michael Howard who led the party to electoral disaster."

How is Michael Howard right wing? Take a look at the 2005 manifesto, written by David Cameron. A strange mixture of immigration obsession coupled with politically correct imagery and vacuous soundbites. Pathetic. Please tell me where was the promise for Britain to leave the EU in the last 20 years?

"The leader is David Cameron who is now our Prime Minister."
The deal was, Cameron would humilate party members through modernisation to win the election. He didn't win. His way of thinking was wrong.

"He is obviously useless and needs to b replaced by Christ-your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine who will lead the party... Heavens, haven't we been here before?"
We need a split where the SDP modernisers go one way (same electoral failure as the last 20 years) and the real Tories go the other (same electoral success as Thatcher).

Tiberius

Hi, Verity. I see you haven't learned to avoid making assumptions about people yet.

Very disappointing after all this time.

And a very well expressed post from Fergus.

Incidentally, has any Cameron-hater actually put their head above the parapet to say that David Davis would be PM now if he had won the leadership contest in 2005? Does anyone know if Davis himself believes genuinely that he would be PM now if he had won? There is no middle ground here - if you don't have Cameron as leader, you have Davis. The consequence of that is that Brown is still PM.

Betapolitics

Really good blog Fiona. I found it a very positive and up-lifting read. Conservatism is a pragmatic creed whose purpose is to make all our lives better. That is why it is at its best when at its broadest. Not enough people are positive about what Conservatism can achieve or appreciates the strength flexibility gives to it. The world we live in is constantly growing and changing. True Conservatism evolves step-by-step with society, always maintaining its relevance. Some people miss this. History is very important but we shouldn’t be trapped by it or fall into the habit of being reactionary.

(Declaration of interest: I also blog for Platform 10.)

Fergus Pickering

dg, where did I say that any of these leaders were right wing. I said they were all losers (except Major who did win one election). Do I think a right wing Tory party could win power? No I don't. Do you? And who is the leader you have in mind?

Simon Stephenson

Tiresias : 8.32pm

"A piece so full of ill-defined abstractions that it could have been written by James Purnell or David Miliband. What does being a centrist appear to preclude being able to write clear English?"

Because writing in clear English necessarily involves disclosure of the ideas behind your policies, and the reality behind the buzzwords that have become the stuff of mass communication. The modern method is never to present anything in the negative, and never to set out a position that can't be re-represented in the future if it becomes convenient to do so. So the worst anything can be is "not quite as good as it might be, but OK, none the less", and all that is ever promised for the future are, as Tiresias writes, abstractions that commit to nothing, and which can be deemed to have been met by just about any outcome.

I submit that there's a definite age-divide in one's recognition of this. It's very difficult for anyone under about 40 to understand the huge change in communication strategy that has taken place over the last 25-30 years, because they've never lived grown-up lives at a time when the use of ever-positive mood pampering was restricted to therapists and those dealing with reluctant children. On the other hand, those aged 55 and over actually lived their defining years through times when real people dealt in real things, and one wasn't always on the search for a euphemism to take the sting out of a negative.

To we oldies, the idea of life as an ever-developing fantasy is so alien that some of us find it difficult to work out just how society is going to cope with the harsh reality that will eventually be forced upon us.

Frank P

Simon S (11.46am)

"To we oldies, the idea of life as an ever-developing fantasy is so alien that some of us find it difficult to work out just how society is going to cope with the harsh reality that will eventually be forced upon us."

Harsh reality is ever present, Simon, and it descended upon me some time ago; nice to hear it hasn't caught up with you - yet.

The problem is, with the ideologues and dreamers of whom you speak, they either fail to recognise harsh reality or attempt to obfuscate it. As for our current Home Secretary (did you see her abysmal performance on Boulton's Bullshit Hour on Sky today) she seems to be able to do both at the same time.

I wonder whether or not our poster Fiona, during her Cameroonian apparatchik stint, met Anita Dunn the neo-Marxist advisor to both Obama and Cameron? In Fiona's post there certainly seems to be a touch of 'progressive hopey-changey' schtick emerging from the badly expressed and muddled thinking.

With advisers like this whispering in his ear, there surely cannot be any residual doubt about why Cameron failed to secure a clear majority in the last election (against the back-drop of 13 years of the worst government ever to hold the the levers of power in this country and bankrupt it to boot)?

Never has a mainstream political party in this country been so comprehensively hi-jacked. Mea culpa: I have never joined a political party and though I would plead some mitigation, inasmuch that I was debarred from so doing for the majority of my working life, it is true that I later could have done so and didn't. So by default, I and millions like me have allowed the current lightweights to call the shots and piss our heritage down the drain. It's our own bloody fault! We are now being punished for it by the 'harsh reality' of the likes of Fiona and friends calling the shots; having to witness the anarchy and pitiful response on the streets of England during the past few weeks. We stood by for over more than twenty years and let it happen - intimidated by the generation we spawned and deluding ourselves by imagining that we were allowing them to 'form their own opinions' but in reality meekly handing them over to Leftist academics. Now their issue, in turn, have joined the Long March. Conservatism has not adapted or evolved - it has croaked!

HFC

Simon Stephenson has a knack of hitting nails squarely on their heads; I share his concerns as set out at 11:46am.

Also, I find it impossible to disagree with Tanuki, December 11th, 2010 7:16pm

TrevorsDen

Correct the Conservative party is a broad church and its never been as right wing as the loony tunes pretend - even under Thatcher. 'Taking on the unions' was inevitable and any tory govt would have had to do it.

TrevorsDen

Tiresias - The point about foreign aid is that the govt are going to use it as an instrument of foreign policy. So I do not think your point is well made.

Verity

Herbert Thornton - Excellent, as always.

150 Wat Tyler - V well observed!

John David Barnet says this silly article will have a few of the "usual suspects spluttering and choking". More snoozing deeply. This trite, adolescent piece could be marketed as a soporfic.

I see the troll wrangler has got Tiberius up out of bed again. Can Thucididdy be far behind?

Beta Politics - thanks for the warning!

lescam

@Simon Stephenson 11.46 am

"On the other hand, those aged 55 and over actually lived their defining years through times when real people dealt in real things, and one wasn't always on the search for a euphemism to take the sting out of a negative".

Excellent post, Simon. I also get fed up to the back teeth with all the fake optimism and euphemisms plastered all over govt announcements, as though addressing halfwits.

Nothing is ever "catastrophic", "about to collapse", "in imminent danger", "possible civil unrest", "national disaster" etc. Instead we are fobbed off with "somewhat unpleasant", "slight depression", "take care", "watch out for" and so on. Everything is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, to echo Voltaire.

Those of us who have lived through WW2 know better, but we are pitied as "elderly pensioners" who are ignorant and senile. Speaking as an old ratbag, never mind elderly, I utterly despise this attitude. Call a spade a spade, and if the country is going down the plughole, say so and forget all this false optimism.

yank

Betapolitics
December 12th, 2010 10:35am

Really good blog Fiona. I found it a very positive and up-lifting read. Conservatism is a pragmatic creed whose purpose is to make all our lives better. That is why it is at its best when at its broadest. Not enough people are positive about what Conservatism can achieve or appreciates the strength flexibility gives to it. The world we live in is constantly growing and changing. True Conservatism evolves step-by-step with society, always maintaining its relevance. Some people miss this. History is very important but we shouldn’t be trapped by it or fall into the habit of being reactionary."

.

Again, it is impossible for those not of conservative temperament to understand what conservatism is about. Your words here are as light as a feather. They simply cannot displace that which is proven and immutable... the real world.

For those like you who fantasize yourselves conservative, attempting to reinvent conservatism into something that lines up with yourselves, you're truly wasting your time. We know what we are, and we know what you aren't. We are cursed with being conservatives. We can be no other. That will always be our approach.

We know each other. Hell, I've never set foot on that pile of rocks, and I can recognize my kind, even strained through pixels and Chinese built servers. We also recognize conservatism's antipode.

On the other hand, you types will always be cursed with not being conservative, or you will be so cursed until you recognize the conservative temperament, and embrace it. Oftentimes, that comes about through the experience of history that you so casually dismissed in your post.

People and movements must be what they are, and it's foolish and false for them to masquerade as something other than what they are. You'd know this if you were conservative. You lose us at "hello", when you so masquerade. No great loss for you perhaps, but better that you should know.

And the thing is, you political operatives are not even clever enough to understand that by kissing us off, and venturing off into the arena of mush-mouthed marketing a la Dave, attempting to leverage some marketing trickeration into getting the mainstream independents to support you, you lose them as well as us. They see through the masquerade, same as us.

Because the dirty little secret is, mainstream independents, properly defined and understood, are in full alignment with we of conservative temperament. Yes, it is so, here certainly (see Tea Party populism), and I strongly suspect there as well. We both of us recognize that you types are hypocritical, lying bastards, however well packaged and focus grouped your words. Those words are mush, and thus you're politically bracketed by folks who full well recognize your masquerade. We and that mainstream are as one. Believe that.

That is the secret, and the true power of we conservatives. We shape the winning debate, because we are in alignment with those mainstream independents. Those people aren't stupid, you know, much as the Spectator insults them with much of what's typed into this blog.

Hell, your boy Tone recognized this, and made haste trying to "sound" like us. So did Clinton here, and they did at times succeed. That is tribute to the power of our arguments, our conservative temperament... that even our opposition is moved by them, and finds political power in that movement.

But a conservative understands that the proper response to that movement is not a mirror, as you and Dave have chosen. That mirror is static, and we conservatives seek to move the needle. You're right (However you managed to blunder into that rightness) in saying that we conservatives are dynamic, and will do a bit of political reinvention, as always, but that won't be inclusive of your mirror, be assured.

Tiberius

Even when I'm tucked up in bed, Verity, there are many who are behind me, and you're certainly one of them.

Verity

Yank ... Well said! (Doffs cap).

David Ossitt

yank.

"We know each other. Hell, I've never set foot on that pile of rocks, and I can recognize my kind, even strained through pixels and Chinese built servers. We also recognize conservatism's antipode."

Profound.

Edward McLaughlin

Simon Stephenson

Well said, all of it.

"they've never lived grown-up lives at a time when the use of ever-positive mood pampering was restricted to therapists and those dealing with reluctant children."

On the positive side, for sure, one week of the war, when it kicks off, will have this chased out of them.

Frank P

A message from Don Colacho to Fiona Melville:

http://don-colacho.blogspot.com/2010/12/2403.html

Conservatism should not be a party but the normal attitude of every decent man.

h/t Vanderleun