political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Luff Rallies to Cameron's Defence
Peter Luff, Tory MP for Mid Worcestershire, has written a lengthy analysis of the state of the Conservative Party HERE. Well worth a read.
It's a long nerve-soothing piece meaning we're sticking with Cameron.
The economic weather is turning against Brown now to match the meteorological. It's not bad luck this time. It's all of his own making. See Guido. (is that swear word round here?)
sorry to mention guido again - twice in one day that's bad - but newmania, you are receiving accolades for your brilliance on the top order-order thread - granted anonymously - but quite clearly heartfelt. Please accept my congratulations.
Luff says lots about what DC "stands for" but hardly a single word about policies. And absolutely nothing that the right of the party can connect with.
As it stands currently, many of us former Conservatives are likely to be just as unhappy under DC's Conservatives as we are under a Brown Labour government. So unless the Conservatives come up with something distinctively different from what is being offered by the NuLab neo-Thatherites, I shall be staying at home on election day.
Christ almighty! If I hear anyone else say that the Conservatives have no policies I will poke Iain in his eyes with a compass.
Just give me a hint what Labour's policies are, lads? Sure they are doing things, reacting to things, ignoring things, back tracking on things and avoiding doing things (eg a referendum on the EU treaty)but what is their message, their vision? Everything is OK, don't worry we've got it all under control?
As far as I can see they have done everything they set out to do in 1997 and it's all buggered up now and they have no new ideas. They are tired and the only "good" thing Brown can do is get us out of Iraq PDQ and scale down our involvement in Afghanistan. Pouring aid (ie our taxes) into Africa might make him look like Mother Theresa - come to think of it he is getting a bit wrinkled - but unless this is linked to expansion of free trade it's money down the tubes (SNAFU).
Brown's foreign "policies" will disguise Labour's complete failure on the domestic front.
I heard David Blunkett on Radio 4 this morning saying the plan was always to increase the prison population to 80,000 and then introduce programmes to educate and rehabilitate prisoners so they did not re-offend and, thus, be "tough on the causes of crime". He admitted they had failed to deliver on the last bit!
Brown, as the "most successful Chancellor for 250 years", was at least party to all these failures to deliver not least because of the draconian way he controlled all expenditure and tax-raising decisions.
I won't start on tax credits because you've probably already stopped reading. But please, if anyone knows, let me know what Labour's policies are.
"critics...must fall silent if [the conservatives] are to win at the next election"
So Luff wishes to wave goodbye to Iain!
This strikes me as a continuation of the self-delusion that large camps of the conservative consensus labour under.
Criticism is a vital part of any political and analytical apparatus which enables situations to be dealt with - to pretend that any or all criticism can be simply and passively ignored to death is a conceit of the highest order which provides a real signal of the vacuum at the heart of the tory party and political system in general.
There will always be critics, yet however great the irritating nuisance caused by their pesky presence the inability to overcome and assimilate issues is a flaw that cannot be papered over by any level of irrisitible newness (or Blairite Nu-ness for that matter).
Cameron makes an obvious contrast to Gordon Brown in that he may actually be in tune with the country, but out of step with membership (as the combined evidence of successive general and leadership elections on both sides would suggest) - such divergence between leader, members and electorate is likely to tear the unity of their party apart if it hasn't already destroyed any adherence to a principled critique (which is what Peter Luff appears to advocate, as well why, presumably), although this contrast does highlight the subjective nature of how to electioneer successfully.
Whichever is ultimately true, incoherence does have a habit of being exposing.
The test of whether money can overcome sense is looming and will be a defining event for the next generation, but considering the pitiful results attained by the monied approach at the recent by-elections the answer to this question is already resolved.
So how long before the heavy financial investment made by conservative backers is recognised as lacking 'value for money'?
I read the first few paragraphs of the piece, but then fell in to a coma.
ReplyDeleteUnderstandable really, if he'd written it for the benefit of Labour supporters he'd have included some pictures.
ReplyDeleteBit wafflesome I thought although I agree with pretty much all of it
ReplyDeleteParagraph after paragraph of small dense text, can't be bothered.
ReplyDeleteWhat did he say?
Oh, Newman agrees with it - must be nonsense then ;-)
ReplyDelete"He (Cameron) is holding the government to its promise of a referendum on the new European treaty"
ReplyDeleteHe is ? Must be using ESP.
It's a long nerve-soothing piece meaning we're sticking with Cameron.
ReplyDeleteThe economic weather is turning against Brown now to match the meteorological. It's not bad luck this time. It's all of his own making. See Guido. (is that swear word round here?)
Gosh - Tory MP supports leader shock! He's clearly been put up to it by someone...
ReplyDeleteIsn`t Chris K perceptive ( he said charientismically)
ReplyDelete*raspberry*
sorry to mention guido again - twice in one day that's bad - but newmania, you are receiving accolades for your brilliance on the top order-order thread - granted anonymously - but quite clearly heartfelt. Please accept my congratulations.
ReplyDeleteLuff says lots about what DC "stands for" but hardly a single word about policies. And absolutely nothing that the right of the party can connect with.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands currently, many of us former Conservatives are likely to be just as unhappy under DC's Conservatives as we are under a Brown Labour government. So unless the Conservatives come up with something distinctively different from what is being offered by the NuLab neo-Thatherites, I shall be staying at home on election day.
Sure that the commentary in question wasn't paraphrased from the writings of that other great Worcestershire Tory . . . Stanley Baldwin?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChrist almighty! If I hear anyone else say that the Conservatives have no policies I will poke Iain in his eyes with a compass.
ReplyDeleteJust give me a hint what Labour's policies are, lads? Sure they are doing things, reacting to things, ignoring things, back tracking on things and avoiding doing things (eg a referendum on the EU treaty)but what is their message, their vision? Everything is OK, don't worry we've got it all under control?
As far as I can see they have done
everything they set out to do in 1997 and it's all buggered up now and they have no new ideas. They are tired and the only "good" thing Brown can do is get us out of Iraq PDQ and scale down our involvement in Afghanistan. Pouring aid (ie our taxes) into Africa might make him look like Mother Theresa - come to think of it he is getting a bit wrinkled - but unless this is linked to expansion of free trade it's money down the tubes (SNAFU).
Brown's foreign "policies" will disguise Labour's complete failure on the domestic front.
I heard David Blunkett on Radio 4 this morning saying the plan was always to increase the prison population to 80,000 and then introduce programmes to educate and rehabilitate prisoners so they did not re-offend and, thus, be "tough on the causes of crime". He admitted they had failed to deliver on the last bit!
Brown, as the "most successful Chancellor for 250 years", was at least party to all these failures to deliver not least because of the draconian way he controlled all expenditure and tax-raising decisions.
I won't start on tax credits because you've probably already stopped reading. But please, if anyone knows, let me know what Labour's policies are.
"critics...must fall silent if [the conservatives] are to win at the next election"
ReplyDeleteSo Luff wishes to wave goodbye to Iain!
This strikes me as a continuation of the self-delusion that large camps of the conservative consensus labour under.
Criticism is a vital part of any political and analytical apparatus which enables situations to be dealt with - to pretend that any or all criticism can be simply and passively ignored to death is a conceit of the highest order which provides a real signal of the vacuum at the heart of the tory party and political system in general.
There will always be critics, yet however great the irritating nuisance caused by their pesky presence the inability to overcome and assimilate issues is a flaw that cannot be papered over by any level of irrisitible newness (or Blairite Nu-ness for that matter).
Cameron makes an obvious contrast to Gordon Brown in that he may actually be in tune with the country, but out of step with membership (as the combined evidence of successive general and leadership elections on both sides would suggest) - such divergence between leader, members and electorate is likely to tear the unity of their party apart if it hasn't already destroyed any adherence to a principled critique (which is what Peter Luff appears to advocate, as well why, presumably), although this contrast does highlight the subjective nature of how to electioneer successfully.
Whichever is ultimately true, incoherence does have a habit of being exposing.
The test of whether money can overcome sense is looming and will be a defining event for the next generation, but considering the pitiful results attained by the monied approach at the recent by-elections the answer to this question is already resolved.
So how long before the heavy financial investment made by conservative backers is recognised as lacking 'value for money'?