And Now, An Intermission

Well, this has been an interesting week. I started this blog a week ago as a kind of proof of concept, to see whether I would enjoy the exercise, and whether I'd find something useful and interesting to say.

In that time I've seen traffic steadily increase (especially thanks to a link and a kind comment from Albion's Seedlings, a blog which is always worth a visit). Return traffic has picked up too. I hope that this means that a few people out there have found what I've done so far of some interest. I've certainly enjoyed it, and it has already helped me think out the issues I've covered more clearly for myself.

At the end of this week, though I'm leaving for Christmas... almost three weeks with family and friends. There is snow on the ground already at the Mid-Atlantic Family retreat, and soon I'll be sitting in front of the fire nursing a large Scotch while I look out at the garden. This means that I'll be out of range of a PC for most of the time till the start of January. Posting will therefore be light, and I'll be turning comments to "moderated" for the duration.

Despite this I hope you'll have a look at the content below. Please come back again in the New Year, subscribe to the Atom feed to the right, or bookmark this site. Drop me an email with suggestions for things that could be done better, or with blogs that I should add to the blogroll. And if you have a blog yourself, then of course links are always welcome.

All that remains for me to do is to wish you all a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. Thanks for dropping by.

Give Up The Rebate?

A very well argued case in the Times today by Kaletsky suggesting that the UK should give up the rebate on purely practical grounds.

Key quote

in addition to offering British politicians a pretext to neglect EU issues, the existence of the rebate has destroyed their moral authority in Europe when they have campaigned for reform. Every time Britain makes a proposal to rationalise the EU budget or hack off an unnecessary limb of the European bureaucracy, the opponents of reform have only to mention the rebate. Britain is then forced into a tactical negotiation over money, rather than principle.

Because of the rebate Britain is always on the back foot in EU negotiations and has failed in the manifestly just cause of agricultural reform. If Britain wants to lead Europe, or even influence it constructively, we cannot just say: “We want our money back.”

I'm not sure that I agree with him, but he makes a good case. Read the whole thing.

Admitting Defeat

What a shame. Oxford colleges may be losing their ability to choose their students.

Now, you may have views about underlying reasons for poor admissions from state schools (although bearing in mind the dyed-in-the-wool liberal consensus in academia I must confess I'm amazed that anyone could suggest that they suddenly during admissions week change from Guardian-reading sandals-wearers to proponents of the old school tie). I simply don't think that changing a system that's worked pretty well for 800 years is the right way to go about solving this problem.

How about fixing state secondary education first?

Movement In The Professions

Interesting signs that senior lawyers may be returning to the Tories. Now all we need is the rest of the professions...

You Can Only Change When You Accept You Have A Problem...

Sometimes there is a right answer and a wrong answer to a question.

Most of us remember the long debate over entry to the ERM. It went on for years, and all right-thinking people were on one side of it: the Labour Party, the Trades Unions, most of the key players in the Tory Party of the Major years, the Press, much of the City.

There were not many people who disagreed, as I remember.

But let's be clear.

The people who thought it was a bad idea were right. Joining the ERM was a blinking stupid idea, and lots of people lost their houses because of it. And it cost the Tories their reputation for economic competence.

Now, the Tory Party has been dodging admitting this properly for years. We've gone round in circles using forms of words to pretend that it's not that clear cut, in part (it's always appeared to me and I'm sure to others) to save the faces of those who had their fingers in the blood of that decision. This lack of ability to be clear on this issue has meant that this mistake has infected the whole of our economic credibility. The public could spot that we weren't really telling the whole story, and drew appropriate conclusions.

Today we finally did it. This speech, covered elsewhere extensively, draws that line. Quite importantly, it also innoculates Cameron against his presence that day.

Now we've admitted that it was a mistake, and the leadership is from a new generation, we can begin to address the other elements of the issue.

There are two parts to that:

• Independent audit, and basic structure
• Detailed specific economic policies

The speech (full text here) deals with the first of these two issues, and appears to do so well. It covers the second in less detail, but frankly that's fine. I'll try to have a more detailed look through the details (here) from that perspective soon, but to me it's by far the least important part of the three key issues.

No. They key for today is that we've drawn a line under the issue. Now we can spend the next few years pointing out all the ways that Gordon has played fast and loose with the figures. That'll be fun to watch.

A Bit Of Culture For You

They've discovered a remarkably well preserved ancient Mayan mural, which they believes dates from hundreds of years before the classical Mayan period. It portrays the creation of the world, and the coronation of a king. This is pretty darned neat.

No news yet as to whether the moonbats have claimed that the scene showing the turkey being offered to the air is in fact evidence of US involvement (clearly a metaphorical Thanksgiving) in the overthrow of the precursors of Mayan civilisation. But no doubt that's a matter of hours. It's all about oil, you see.

Way To Go, Iran!

Looks like Iran may have been taking lessons from old-time Chicago in their approach to Iraq's election. Key lesson, chaps: it doesn't work unless you don't get caught!

Iran Ups The Ante On Nukes

This can't be good.

Gordon Brown Is A Grim Scot With A Grim Mission To Ban Everything

Details of the Cameron swing seem to point to movement amongst women voters. A nice analysis of why in the Times.

Dr Why?

This stuff is just so predictable, isn't it? The BBC takes Dr Who and makes it political. Adds, of course, an anti-war message. Oh, and then adds a swipe against an American President.

Dull dull dull.

They just can't believe that sometimes people who don't particularly like the idea of war might believe that they still have a duty to use force. Apart from WWII cos' that's far enough in the past and the Nazis were rilll rilly bad.

It's the old story, I suppose: the left believes the right is bad, while the right believes the left is mad.

Michael Gove Is A Diversity Pick, Honest!

A really surprising set of responses today on Conservativehome's torydiary to the news of the junior front bench appointments. I was particularly struck by the reactions to the appointment of Michael Gove. You can see my initial reaction halfway down the comments stream. I've had more of a chance to think about this since.

There is, of course, a perfectly rational argument (though one with which I don't agree) that there should be no appointments to front bench posts until a new member has spent a few years in the house. This would be great in a world where we were doing very well, and where there was time.

The problem is that that isn't where we are. There are so many different things that we need to do to change, and to get back into power.

The big issue underlying it all is diversity. The way that we've talked about this so far is relating to candidates (look at the great big dance-around-the-handbags that we had with the announcement of the Gold list by those who were clear it was the end of the world). The diversity challenge, though, goes much further than that - to the very heart of the party. Until being a Tory is normal - in fact until it's actually pretty cool (at least in so far as being a supporter of any party can be cool), we are up the creek. This can happen, too. Just look at the US, where there is a vital and interesting multi-generational conservative movement, of all shades of conservative opinion. We need dialogue. We need a community; we need a community that is much, much broader than the one we have now. A more active Conservative blogosphere would be a good start.

You know what that means though? It means that many of the people that are very comfortable in the current surroundings will be much less so. This doesn't mean driving them out, or picking on them. It's just a natural result of the process of becoming, you know, popular. Like a real political party is. Lots of the new people will be new. That means they're not today members of the party. They haven't done lots of time on the streets. They may be from non-traditional backgrounds for conservatives (social workers, for example, or university graduates, who are somewhat less conservative now than they damned well should be). Many of them will fit nicely into the current structure of local associations. Lots of them won't. Some might have made a living writing political commentary, some of which no doubt won't have been terribly flattering to the Party over the last few years. (In fact, if it was flattering I'd suggest that they are so disconnected from the real world as to be in need of a little lie down).

Now, it's important I stress here that I'm not saying that people that don't like this direction are racist, sexist, homophobic, heightist, or biased against people who live in Ongar. They just like the way their party is at the moment. The problem is that the rest of us just can't let it stay that way.

The key is how we use these new people to develop our ideas and build our party. Saying "they weren't involved during the depths of the Hague years" or "but he's only just entered the House" just doesn't cut it any more. Worse, saying that he shouldn't be promoted just because he's mates with the leader is just barking. If they are good we need them. And we need them now.

That leaves the other arguments about how good Michael actually is and what he believes. I firmly believe the answer to the first question is "extremely" and the answer to the second is "in the election of the next Conservative government". We'll see.

Apologising For The Iraq War

A superb piece this morning in the Times by David Aaronovich on the Iraq war. He's spot on.

His final section says it all.

I do apologise. For Abu Ghraib and Donald Rumsfeld. For not understanding the insurgents. For the looting. For the dire planning. I apologise to the election workers assassinated, the police trainees blown up, the parents of children caught in crossfire and everyone else that the planners and executors of the invasion that I supported, and still support, may have let down by neglect or stupidity. I recognise their bravery and their determination to succeed despite everything.
But a disaster compared with what? Compared with Saddam and sanctions or Saddam and cyanide. And that — the thing that Matthew presumably preferred — was not a disaster? Snort.

I don't agree with his whole list of course, but could do an equivalent one of my own.

Let's remember what's happening. A small group of people are, quite succesfully running a campaign to kill literally thousands of innocents. Democracy is beginning to take root. Progress is being made. Freedom is on the march. As for me, I'm on the side of the newly freed. If you're going to count the problems caused by action, you need to count the deaths caused by "realism" over the last 50 years. I think you'll find that that pile of bodies is quite high.

The Comments On Candidate Selection Prove Cameron's Point

Cameron's proposals on candidates have set the fur flying on conservativehome.

I don't like the idea of preferences myself. However, Cameron is right that we need to take diversity seriously. Just like on environmentalism (see posts below), that doesn't mean some of the nonsenses that we've seen from the diversity lobby on the left. Instead we need to create a conservative approach to these issues. This proposal is a good first try. No doubt we'll see further versions over time.

The more amusing part of the reactions is the suggestion in these comments that the system we have in place today works, when it is patently clear that it doesn't. We all know good quality candidates, especially women, who have been bounced out of the system. On top of this, most of the best and brightest that we have are doing proper jobs, and having families. Maybe they spend part of their 20s or 30s working abroad. Certainly they are likely to have significant travel commitments. Unless they are very lucky these activities don't mesh very well with active involvement in the voluntary party, and that means that when they come to think about applying they are aware that their political CV is much weaker than their professional one.

The strongest part of the proposals, then, are the suggestions of using external headhunters, and going outside the current party. If we do that well then we can actively raise the quality of all on the candidates list, and increase diversity at the same time.

And please note: I say this as a married, white, male, heterosexual, public school and Oxbridge educated father, who works in the City and is a regular churchgoer. So I'm hardly talking my own book.

Lawyers Complaining Of Too Much Paperwork?

It appears that the degree of bureaucracy at the Serious Fraud Office has reached such epic proportions that there have been a spate of resignations. When the lawyers start complaining about paperwork you know something's wrong.

A Call For A British "National Review"?

An excellent piece by Alex Deane on the Platform blog of Conservative Home. Key suggestion for action:

The term ‘right wing’ is often used as a derogatory term or insult in itself.This way of thinking permeates through to our children via their parents and teachers to the extent that by the time a child’s political consciousness is formed, there is a presumption that being on the right is bad.
We have to combat this in a positive way. We on the right must set out our stall – get into the habit of talking about public philosophy, demonstrate that there is a viable alternative to the social-democratic-leftist consensus. We need to explicitly contest the left’s narrative of mankind’s future, and their dominant philosophy of human progress. At present, the left’s flabby consensus mindset goes unchallenged – that the left is innately progressive and progressive is about progress and therefore is innately good. In Britain, much that is being abandoned is good and much being taken up bad – we must show that there is a coherent school of thought that protests about that, and not just spasmodic individual reactions to change. We need to show that the broad church of Conservatism is the most interesting intellectual place to be – that there’s room both for the moderates, and for muscular conservatism.

Well worth reading.

A Message To Ken Clarke

Just looking at the pictures on this BBC piece tells the whole story. Ken Clarke is the man of the past. David Cameron is the man of the future.

The simple facts of the issue are these: Ken Clarke and David Cameron both ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Ken Clarke was the first person to be eliminated. David Cameron won by a 2 to 1 ratio. During the campaign pretty much the only clear policy David Cameron suggested was withdrawal from the EPP.

So what does Ken say?

He said it would be wrong for the Tories to be "waltzing off" to find new "ultra-nationalist" allies.

and then

Some of our really hard-line people apparently have persuaded him that he must break ranks and leave all these Christian Democrats, these Scandinavian conservatives and Gaullists and people and start waltzing off looking for allies amongst the ultra-nationalist right in central Europe

Iain Dale puts it very well indeed:

Message to Ken Clarke. Shut it. Your time has been and gone. Get off the stage if you have nothing positive or constructive to say.

Can't add much to that, really, can you?

Stephen Pollard (The Condensed Version)

Good to see that we can expect more posting from Stephen again. Just to play catch-up he summarises his views on most of the main issues of discussion of the recent past. A great list.

More Appeals From Tookie Williams

Still no news from Arnold on clemency. Meantime, more appeals to Supreme Court.

There is a real concern here, though. There has been a huge focus on this case where the chance that there has been a real miscarriage of justice is quite low. Most people then assume that this implies that there are no cases with real merit, and that miscarriages don't take place.

If only the Hollywood folks who have brought publicity to this case would spend some of their time and money providing real funds for proper defence and support for the much broader group of people who can fall foul of the death penalty system in ways that appear unfair due to poor lawyers or lack of money for forensics or investigators we would all be better off. At the same time they could work to protect victims' rights.

If they focused on that they might both do some good, and find that many of the arguments for the death penalty became less widely supported over time. Instead they damage, rather than help, the case for abolition.

Yet More Cindy Sheehan Coverage

And again, the BBC provides more free publicity to Cindy Sheehan. Cover her visit if you want, but if you do so without recognising the nuances of the debate in the US, and in particular the fact that she has now lost much of the profile that she had then you're misrepresenting the true situation.

No change there, then.

The Start Of A Global Movement?

What a great story. You know the way that WTO and other similar organisations keep having to have their meetings behind barbed wired because of the hordes of anti-capitalist protestors bouncing up and down?

Well, this chap decided that the argument shouldn't go unchallenged.

Accountant Simon Patkin has staged a peaceful hour-long protest, which has been interrupted only by a phone call from his concerned wife. He has hung up signs reading "We love free trade" and "Rationality not rioting", and harangued passers-by. "I was trying to catch the anti-globalisation protesters napping," he said. "If you want to win, you have to get up earlier than the other side. "I feel really strongly about capitalism and free trade."

Good for him. If we could get a few more of these guys doing counter-protests every time maybe the argument for free-trade would actually get press coverage.

An Unusual Approach From The FCO

If only they would actually use this speech... and then get the reactions on tape. I particularly like the idea of fully audited on-line procurement. Of course, that makes sense so would never stick.

The 30 Point Spread

The Sunday Times headline says it all:

Tories seize lead in polls

The most interesting thing, though, comes in the following section:

Cameron’s approval rating, with a net 34% of people expecting him to do well, is well above that for Blair and Charles Kennedy, the Lib Dem leader. More significantly, it easily outstrips Gordon Brown’s rating, which has slumped. His net approval rating was 41% before the general election; now it is just 4%.

Let's hear that again:

Cameron 34% plays Brown 4%

And just imagine what might happen if the economy continues to go south. He might REALLY become unpopular then.

The Only Thing I Hate More Than Illinois Nazis...

is Ohio Nazis. Outnumbered 3 to 1.

As Nelson Munz from the Simpsons would say "Ha ha".

Is David Cameron Harold Macmillan In Lycra?

A very strong (and quite long) article in Sunday's Business, which much repays a close read, looking at the prospects for centre-right parties across the globe.

On successful first steps on policy:

But image is not everything; Mr Cameron realises that. He has started to roll out new working groups to develop fresh policies, though his own views remains largely unknown. Some of what he says has been encouraging, some less so. His plan for a US-style National Security Council could bring a breath of fresh air to Tory thinking on defence and terrorism. He is right to stick to his plans to pull out Tory Members of the European Parliament from the European People’s Party, an uninspiring, ultra-federalist group of Christian Democrats, European Constitution lovers and advocates of big government.

On environmentalism:

Mr Cameron was also right to launch a policy group on the environment and quality of life, though the manner in which he has done it raises alarm bells for his whole approach and already represents a wasted opportunity to reframe the debate.
While the Left believes that being Green means rejecting the market and economic growth (and, in extremis, to embrace a new Marxism which rejects even domestic trade, all economic growth and seeks a drastic reduction in the world’s population), the Right should seek to harness free markets and technology to solve environmental problems, hand in hand with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of environmental policies. But Mr Cameron has already gone badly wrong. Instead of trying to think outside the Left-Liberal mainstream on the environment, he is courting fashionable organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth which basically despise the market economy, can never be appeased and will inevitably turn against him.

and later...

But in appointing Mr Goldsmith and John Gummer, the Green movement’s tame Tory (whose main contribution to recent politics was memorably to force-feed his four-year-old daughter a hamburger at the height of the outbreak of mad cow disease), to spearhead his re-think on the environment suggests Mr Cameron is capable of heading in the wrong direction. Indeed, if Mr Cameron means what he indicates he will soon be to the Left of Labour on several critical environmental issues.

and more...

He should instead learn the lesson the Republicans grasped decades ago in the United States: to create real and lasting change for the better, the terms of the debate must be shifted. Fighting the Left on the Left’s terms, as he seems determined to do on the environment, is a recipe for disaster.

The piece ends with the suggestion that Cameron could end up as a Harold Macmillan, who it then blames for many of the problems of the 1970s.

Let's hope not. But meanwhile read the whole thing.

The Fight For Christmas In America

A very BBC story about the current spat over Christmas in the US.

• Lots of detail on the White House Christmas Card (a bit of a storm in a tea-cup if accounts on The Corner yesterday are to be believed)
• Big picture of Laura Bush, face half-obscured by the Grinch (hardeharhar Mr Picture Editor)
• Neutral coverage of the ACLU, described as "an active defender of the religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution"

And any coverage of the actual details of the argument over the meaning of established religion in the constitution? Don't be silly. Far too complicated to worry our heads over.

Tory Expectations

An excellent piece in the Telegraph by Vicki Woods outlining what I think is a common view amongst the mass of Conservative inclined voters.

I think it's freedom I'm hoping for from young Dave Cameron. Freedom from loony-Labour, Soviet-style, statist bureaucratic bits of nonsense such as this. I think he should give us all a break. Knock back some mulled wine. Stop fretting about his policy/non-policy options on the Today programme and in the public prints, and settle back with his kitchen cabinet of bright young hopefuls to unpick the past 10 years.

Yup. Personally, I'm quite interested in the policy options. But let's not kid ourselves that everyone is. They just want a bit of freedom back.

Stupid Criminals...

Words fail me. They really do.

The BBC On Tookie

Astonishing.

Just when you don't expect it the Beeb goes and writes something almost balanced about the death penalty. The reason is the uncoming execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who can be held responsible indirectly for untold suffering amongst America's poor.

Of course, they don't go into detail on his actual crimes (for more on that follow the various links on Michelle Malkin's site (a good starting point is here)). Despite that, they do seem to recognise that the demand for the death penalty, in this case at least, is not simply atavastic idiocy.

This doesn't change my own view on it, which is in fact strong opposition to capital punishment. However, I recognise I'm in the minority on this one, on both sides of the Atlantic. It's nice to see something on the Beeb for once recognising this is a two-sided argument.

Later:

For more coverage a good piece from the L.A. Times

The End Of The Conference

One of the best decisions of the new Conservative leadership is the end of the awful experience of Party Conference. The few that I ever attended were deeply odd: the annual appearance of a shadow world of Toryland surrounded by a great sea of real life. Changing the format is a big step forward to making involvement in the life of the party possible for, y'know, normal people.

Competition Time

Arthur's Seat has just announced his second annual Clerihew contest.

Quip Early, Quip Often!

The Rise And Rise Of Conservablogging

The New York Times Magazine appears to be about to publish an article claiming that conservative blogs in the US are more powerful than their left-wing counterparts. And you KNOW how much it will have pained them to say that.

With luck this will be true in short order on BOTH sides of the Atlantic.

(Spotted in The Corner)

The Pension Crisis Solved!

Gordon Brown poked a hole in your pension? All of your assets tied up in buy-to-lets which are now buy-to-voids? Working until you're 95 on the cards?

FEAR NOT! Salvation is on the way...

Buy an Xbox 360, and resell it on E-Bay...

Oh well. If that fails there's always the National Lottery.

A Conservative Environment Policy?

Following the progress of policy development on environmental and ecological issues may well be a good way of tracking the general progress of modernisation of the Conservative Party overall.

Why?

There are a number of ways that this could play out

1. Adopting the old Kyoto style of approach. This has failed pretty comprehensively, by anyone's standards. The underlying logic and parts of the science appear flawed and the ability to get agreement globally seems unlikely, in particular from the countries that are most likely to be the rapidly growing polluters. Most important, there is an underlying protectionist, anti-capitalist approach behind many of the organisations involved. Without buying their ethos we'll never get their approval... and a Conservative Party that went that far would have trouble keeping their core votes. Or many others, for that matter. It's the simple approach to the issue though: easy headlines, lots of hoo-hah, a bit of Bush-bashing to take pressure off the more important issue of support for the war in Iraq. Adopting this approach would be a sign of the new regime being all mouth and no trousers: Blair Part II.
   
2. Concentrate on "Lifestyle" environmentalism. Rather like older versions of Tory environmentalism: picking up rubbish in parks, and so on. Not terribly effective, and no brownie points from anyone. No upside, and lots of downside, in that we miss an opportunity. This approach, by contrast with the first, would be a sign of total failure of imagination: Major Part II.
   
3. Change the argument. The Copenhagen Consensus is a good example of attempting to triage, and address, major problems we face, while applying sensible economic and political tactics. It takes on the issues raised by the environmental movement, but uses an approach that appears more coherent, and will reach parts of the electorate that wouldn't be reached otherwise.

Taking the third of these three approaches would have many benefits, both for the Party and for all of us. After all, the key issue that is raised by this area of policy is hard to disagree with: we'd better be careful about how we treat the environment. Without dealing with the language and process tools of the current environmentalist lobby, however, and without replacing some of the current consensus with serious (but very genuine) economic and cost / benefit approaches, we'll find it hard both to get answers that fit with Conservative principles, and to be seen as credible in addressing the issues. We don't need to adopt the conclusions from Copenhagen entirely. We do need to learn from the approach. And doing so might help engage a much wider range of the public in the argument.

Can You Please Keep Your Troops In Iraq But Your Protestors At Home?

Since the summer the interest in Cindy Sheehan has dropped off a cliff in the US, apart from the usual moonbat circles. So what does she do?

Come to Scotland, that's what.

For goodness sake.

And of course, the BBC covers it totally straight, with no mention of the book signing she had recently (although to be fair she did claim that these pictures were unrepresentative, however unlikely that is).

I'm all in favour of links between the different bits of the Anglosphere, but couldn't they be something other than this?

Like this maybe?

Age Again

Conservativehome makes the age point very effectively. New Labour... SO last century, don't you think?

Europe & The Generation Gap

It's 23.09 on Thursday. David Cameron has been leader of the Conservative Party for 2 days. A whole range of new appointments have been made, there is a mood of excitement in the Party and the country. We might yet see a Tory in No 10 in our lifetimes...

And how do they lead the story on Newsnight? A mocked-up film poster of DC with asking whether DC has "Met His Match". A package suggesting that Europe threatens to derail Cameron's mandate already. David Curry comes on to say about EPP withdrawal "This is a fight we don't need to have" (odd how the fights that the members and voters want against continued centralisation of the EU are never the ones we need to have). And I'm now watching Paxo point his finger angrily shocked, shocked that withdrawing from the EPP might break a manifesto committment (although Graham Brady did an effective job of pointing out that there might be no EPP to be part of, and that MEPs going against party policy was an issue for the leader).

It really is going to be interesting watching them try to continue to hang the old problems onto the new leadership. I'd be astonished if Cameron does change on this; as Dan Hannan said in the package that's just not who he is. But boy are the BBC going to try to make the story "more of the same old same old".

The other striking thing about it was the age difference. No, not the one between Brown and Cameron... the one between Paxo and Brady (and Cameron, and Osborne, and Villiers, and Hague, and Grayling, and Gove etc). With more and more youngish fresh faces on the Tory front bench, Mr Pointy-Shouty is in danger of coming across as what he actually is - a relic of the previous generation of anti-Fatcher consensus.