Make money on the Ken Clarke rollercoaster
September 6th, 2005revised 0800
-
ICM and Populus surveys send punters to Clarke again
The above chart showing the implied probability of Ken Clarke winning the Tory leadership based on best betting prices illustrates the amazing volatility that there is in the markets over the former Chancellor’s prospects.
After making a lot of progress following his speech last week attacking the Government on the Iraq war the Clarke price moved out sharply after weekend press comment was dismissive of his chances. Then came last night’s ICM poll on BBC2’s Newsnight showing that the veteran Tory was four times more popular amongst ordinary voters than any of the other contenders. The ratings were Clarke 40%: Davis 10%: Cameron 4%: Rifkind 4%: Fox 3%: Willetts 2%.
-
Even more striking were figures showing that a net 12% of voters would be more likely to support the Tories at a General Election compared with deficits of 3% and 4% for Davis and Cameron
The findings were reinforced this morning by a Populus poll in the Times which gave Clarke support of 41% - up from 20% in mid-July These forms of poll might be headline-grabbing but reflect, surely, that the the Tories have been out of the spotlight for so long that Ken Clarke is the only one with a name that those surveyed recognise. The one significant figure that might have an effect is ICM’s 12% possible extra support for the Tories which shows that Clarke has a good image. The fact that he has held a senior position in the tobacco industry for several years does not seem to be a problem.
As a political spectator I would love to see Clarke up against his successor at the Treasury - the humourless control freak that is Gordon Brown assuming that he does become Labour leader. Whether such an election would follow the latest ICM poll I doubt and I am yet to be convinced about Clarke’s prospects under whatever system the Tories choose for the leadership election. Like Michael Howard Clarke would be a one-election leader and in spite of his change on the EU there is still a lot of hostility towards him.
As a punter, however, I’ve been backing Clarke when his odds move out, like on Sunday, and laying him when, like last night, his price tightens. These huge price movements provide real opportunities for profit and I am quids in on Clarke whatever happens.
MessageSpace Advertising
Great - but he won’t win! Looks like it’ll be Davis … and another crushing Tory defeat 4 years later. What a shame!
” the humourless control freak that is Gordon Brown assuming that he does become Labour leader.”
With all due respect, you’re start to look like a blairite version of Clare Short when you talk about Brown. How much did he raise your taxes to deserve all this dislike?
I initially wanted Cameron to win because I thought Clarke had no chance and wouldn’t make a serious bid. However that is patently not the case now. These polling figures are bound to have an affect on the parliamentary party and will hopefully push those in marginal constituencies towards the Clarke camp.
Seems to me the take off of the Clarke bandwagon is probably good news for Davis. He can now put hiself forward as the stop Clarke candidate! Does anybody ever get elected as tory leader unless they are seen to be stopping somebody else?
The problem with these new polls is that they are largely based on public familiarity. Clarke has been around the block so many times that the average voter knows something about him, whereas the other candidates are still faceless nobodies to most people.
The other problem that Clarke has is that he is the leader-in-waiting for a party which no longer exists - the pre-Thatcherite so-called ‘One Nation’ conservatives. The irony is that this party is probably electable, but they also probably have less than 20 MPs!
3 Possibly Max - time will tell.
It could equally strengthen the resolve of the Convention and prevent
the Parliamentary Party even getting the opportunity (even if your anaysis is correct)
I just find it a tradegy that one man can divide brother against brother as Clarke does.
Some of us warned back in May that Howard’s elongated “Stop Davis” change to the rules would end in internecine warfare, a debacle at Blackpool, a free ride for a despicable Prime Minister and his appalling Government and huge stockpiles of amunition for the opposition parties to hurl at us.
Sadly, we’ve only got ourselves to blame.
KC earning a living from tobacco has never been an issue for the public. For an ‘expert’ commentator to ever think otherwise simply shows how out of touch he is.
But KC’s euro-enthusisms are toatally different. A combination of TB and KC enthusiastically promoting the Euro would have produced an almost unstoppable momentum for it. I fear us ‘backwoodsmen’ in UKIP would have been unable to save the country from this serious damage and danger.
Many tory memberss are clearly worried about where KC might take them.
However, he has gone some way to admitting his mistaken euro-enthusisms, and he may not need to go much further to change some activists’ minds. Particularly those who ache to see ‘Con gain’ on election night.
Re Andrea 2. For a good description of Gordon Brown read this review by Simon Hoggart of Tom Bower’s biography.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1322144,00.html
4 Lurker:
“Seems to me the take off of the Clarke bandwagon is probably good news for Davis.”
Although I’m ‘talking my book’ I strongly agree.
David Cameron (who I would happily support if he took DD out)must be in despair at the events of the last week and the resentment between their (DC & KC) camps must further raise the prospect that they’re respectives supporters votes will not be fully bankable by the other when one of them is eliminated from the final show down.
eeee their respective supporters even !
Ken Clarke’s poll rating is hardly surprising, but doesnt actually mean very much. A previous thread talked about how Hilary Clinton has a high poll rating, but that was unlikely to lead to her getting the Democrat nomination, and was more to do with name recognition. KC does have many qualities, but he is not the person to lead the Conservative Party. A Party leader needs to have a party there to lead. DD, DC or Liam Fox could do this, and none of them would scare the voters.
8. Mike Smithson, to be fair he gives the impression to be a boring man even to me (a Brown’s fan).
11 jeffh. Only in a party so wedded to idealogical purity would poll ratings not “actually mean very much”. The last time “the anyone but our Ken candidate” wandered past the nations radar he sank without trace - remember IDS !!
To paraphrase - those who don’t learn the lessons of political history are fated to repeat them. The Tories have to learn to be more pragmatic and not simply elect a man in their own narrow image … else another low 30%s drubbing is on the cards.
I’m a bit sceptical of these “More likely/less likely” polls. There’s a significant difference between “Would X make you more or less likely to vote Conservative” and “Who will you vote for”.
Anthony Wells has summed up some of the older polls from the last contests on his excellent site. In February 2003, Ken Clarke caused a net loss of 2% in the voting intention question (from 32% to 30%) during the IDS leadership. It is also notable that Ken Clarke had the worst satisfaction rating in Maggie Thatcher’s last Cabinet (-42 (with 39% rating him “very bad”) against Maggie’s -13 (with 37% rating her “very bad”)).
The recognition factor is a definite factor. He does seem very likely to be the most divisive figure that the Tories could choose.
Having thought about this more overnight I think the key factor is how those polling figures look in a months time.
If Clarke maintains such a lead, then I will start to think that he really does have such a large level of popularity and that it is not purely down to recognition.
Now I still have problems with the man, but I have not yet decided who I would like to lead the party and he is certainly one of the leading candidates for me.
But looking at the age breakdown in the Daily Mail, I notice that the one age group which Davis seems to beat Clarke in this poll is for the 24-34 year old category. I think this is particularly interesting.
1: It perhaps questions Cameron’s team argument that he would appeal to the young.
2: It perhaps shows that some of the youngest votes in our population may be inclined to vote Conservative.
3: It perhaps shows that some analysts predictions that a larger group of people, born under the Tories are becoming happy amd more confident in calling themselves Conservatives are emerging.
Then perhaps it may just be me clutching at straws!
14 Andy. You are correct our Ken is a divisive figure but so was Maggie. And part of the reason that Ken’s government rating were poor was that he was prepared to take on the producer interests in the teaching, medical and police sectors, something that is now seen as the right thing to do.
Why our Ken enjoys such a popular profile must frustrate and tantalize the Tories in equal measure. But the plain fact is that he is the only Tory with such ratings with the remoteist prospect of upsetting the Labour applecart. The Tories may have an activist popular right wing leader in DD or a voter popular centre-right leader in Ken. I know which one is more likely to return the Tories to the game, and so do most others.
15 - IDS was seen as the only man who could unite the party and look where that got us. In our last two leadership elections we have ignored the public and gone for William Hague and IDS. If we continue to willfully ignore them how can we possibly complain when they reject us. The bottom line is this - Ken Clarke will win more votes than he looses. We returned one MP from Scotland largely because we look and sound hectoring, harsh and out of touch and it turned off middle class voters in their droves.
People have to feel good about voting for the centre right and consequently we need a leader with popular appeal. With any of the right wing candidates we’ll hold onto our South East bed rock but I for one am sick of losing in almost every other part of the country.
15. James M, how figures showing that Davis is leading Clarke in the 24-34 year old category could prove your second and third point?
17 Max. Spot on. BTW Any view on our trip up the fjords on Wednesday. I’m tempted to have a nibble but is it heart(s) ruling head …. probably
A little economic fact not often mentioned is that when Kenneth Clarke was Chancellor the UK’growth rate was higher than that which the UK is currently experiencing. New Labour inherited from Clark an economy in a good condition.
The Conservatives obviously love leadership elections so much they want to have another one in 4 years time.
Jack W et al - my personal bugbear against Cuddly Ken is that refused to serve in the Shadow Cabinet for the past however-many-years.
As someone who wanted a strong Opposition, surely it annoyed you that Ken Clarke was not Shadow Chancellor - the economy has been Labour’s trump card through the last two elections; Clarke as Shadow Chancellor (a big beast, and Chancellor for 5 years of economic success under the tories) could have done some serious damage to that.
Plus, I think that his time as Education Secretary and Health Secretary would come back to haunt him if he was to become Leader of the Opposition. A perfect result for the Tories would be a DC or DD win* with KC agreeing to be Shadow Chancellor with similar standing as Gordon Brown in the Labour Party.
*Actually, a Theresa May win with KC as Shadow Chancellor, DD as Shadow Home Sec and DC as Shadow Foreign Sec [or possibly even IDS as Shadow Foreign - he's got a very good relationship with the Americans] would seem to cover all bases, but the chances of this result are miniscule.
21. Alex, without tory leadership races, we would be left wihtout something to talk about.
19 - I’m pretty sure it’ll be the usual story. A brief glimmer of hope followed by the enevitable crushing dissapointment!
“IDS was seen as the only man who could unite the party and look where that got us.”
What would now remain of the Conservative Party had KC become leader in 2001, and subsequently campaigned alongside the Prime Minister for the introduction of the Euro and the European constitution? Core Conservatives might have dutifully voted for any Conservative 40 or 50 years ago, but they won’t now.
I welcome the fact that KC has subsequently changed his mind on these issues. I wish he’d been prepared to work with the grain of party opinion 4 years ago. I want to know where he, and the other candidates, propose to lead us. I dislike his obvious contempt for Conservative members and voters.
25 - And MPs i would guess.
Jack W you seem to think those of us who do not with the see KC as leader are somehow idealogical purists and happy to be in opposition -far from it. The Conservative Party got the boot in 1997 because it was seen as pretty rotten and had lost its reputation for economic competance. KC was a leading figure in that Gvt. He has done very little over the past 8 years to help the party back into power, and seems to despise the majority o members - the people that raise the money, knock on the doors and deliver the leaflets. He would be devisive and open old wounds. Hardly a recipe for electoral appeal.
22 Andy. I’d have prefered that our Ken had been in the shadow Cabinet. The irony is that by staying out he hasn’t been saddled with the failures of Hague, IDS and Howard in the publics collective mind. Not fair but true.
21 Alex. You’re being optimistic …. if the next Tory leader doesn’t push the ratings up considerably - 38%ish - within 2 years he’ll be toast and another Howard like coup will be a distinct possibility.
24 Max. I’m putting £100 @ 9/2 on a tartan triumph down Norway (way).
A fool and his money …..
Jack W: The question for me is - would those failures have been lessened by KCs presence? I’d say that they would have (especially if KC had been Shadow Chancellor).
Jeff H 27. You seem to be ignoring the central fact that I made at point 20 that the UK economy performed better under Kenneth Clarke than it is performing under Gordon Brown. If the Clarke performance represented “economic incompetence” how would you describe Gordon Brown’s current efforts?
If Clarke became leader it would be interesting to see this being argued with Prime Minister Brown.
I don’t believe the bulk of members are going to walk out just because KC becomes leader. As I’ve said before I couldn’t care less what he thinks about me as a party member and I don’t care if he hasn’t helped the party as much as he could. All I want to do is win again. I would love to have a leader for once who doesn’t harm the party when he comes North of the Border, and I fear that David Davis and in particular Liam Fox would do exactly that.
27 jeffh. I’m afraid you are making the classic mistake of thinking that the activists are more important than the voters. We simply don’t care about the internal wrangles in the Tory party (although it provides us with endless comment). Come election day we’ll look you all over and do the deed, and the deed will be much easier with our Ken than yet another largely anonymous right wing no-hoper.
It should say something to you that for all his baggage, that the voters want our Ken, as I said last night do you want a gold embossed invitation from the voters ? Because you’ll not get one and we’ll continue to ignore you if you ignore us.
I agree with some of the points being made.
I have never really had a huge problem with Ken Clarke that I would definetly not back him, but I do have concerns which previous posters have raised.
1 - His distain for a large number of the party members.
2 - His lack of suport for the Shadow Cabinet since 1997.
Now I want a Conservative Party which actually espouses true conservative ideals, but one that can sell them in a more positive manner. I think we had some half decent policies at the last election, but we sold them in cold, hectoring tones.
Equally I admit that politics is a popularity contest and while I want conservative policies, you do not get them in opposition.
Thus I need to find out more about the contenders views on the bread and butter issues, hear the views at party conference and then decide. In the end any choice is going to have an element of stabbing in the dark:
- Davies may not come across as appealing to women voters; Clarke may get stung for his tobacco links; Cameron may waiver under pressure.
Could anyone tell me what kind of people are likely to be more prominent in a Clarke, Davis, Cameron shadow cabinet?
29 Andy. I’m not sure, but we are where we are, and a large dose of pragmatism is required of the Tories, but will they take the medicine?
I think that NuLab has proved that you can totally alienate your activists and still go on winning General Elections.
Jack - Exactly, no-one outwith the party could care less about his stance on the Euro or the fact he hasn’t served in the shadow cabinet. Its just not something people talk about. People want pragmatic solutions to the problems they face - crime, housing, health and education. Not asylum, immigration and the Euro.
Sorry max
I do support you in the ascertion that there is need for something more than a rabid right winger as leader. Or, as I have stated before, we would never get out of the south east. However, I feel in my heart that Clarke is a traitor He hasn’t helped in opposition, He wanted to sell the country down the drain. If he comes in me and most of the members in Bury and a lot I know in Bolton will go. I wouldn’t work under such a dishonourable man.
36 - Good points Max and true points.
That is what I want in a leader, but why would someone like David Davis not offer than just as successfully?
I’m not talking about a ‘rabid-right winger’. I’m talking about someone who is unwilling to tackle problems head on in whatever way works regardless of ideological dogma. My fear is that if we get a leader who is identifiably from the right of the party we will be finished in parts of the country. We keep electing people who are seen as loyal, eurosceptic and right-wing - it has got us nowhere. Ken Clarke was a fine chancellor who helped rebuild this country’s economy - I would hardly call those the actions of a traitor.
Most of us who are amateurs in politics support a party because we have certain beliefs, and hope that our party will articulate those beliefs in opposition and act on them if it wins an election.
I can see why a professional politician would take the view that winning an election is all that matters, regardless of the nature of the policies espoused by his party, because his livelihood depends on it. But an amateur’s livelihood does not depend on it.
So can someone persuade me that the *only* thing that matters is that the Conservative Party should win an election, even if in office it pursues policies I thoroughly disagree with.
(As I’ve said, I welcome the fact that KC has proved pragmatic on Europe. But I want to know what else he stands for. Simply saying he’s more likely to win than any other candidate isn’t enough. And treating those of us who have made sacrifices for the party with dismissive contempt is not the wisest electoral strategy).
Max @ 31 has just saved pb.com from another interminable missive. Hear Hear!
Sure, I’ve been dismayed and frustrated by KC over the last few years, but he is the man of the moment NOW in best capitalising on Labour’s third term travails. Surely, having an existing high name recognition and favourabilty factors are notable assets whatever the reasons (who cares?!), rather than having to spend many months ‘introducing’ the new leader to the wider and sceptical electorate with perhaps an uncertain outcome.
Here’s asking for some ribald ribbing from Jack W, but his apocalyptic effusions of ineluctable cataclysm if anyone but KC is chosen are just plain daft, at least at this stage…who knows what direction either DC or DD will take. Going so OTT can be counter-productive to the cause…
Dear Max I aggree with you. Its just that I don’t come to the same conclusion as leader as you. I much prefer DC. I find Clarke too partisan, You need members to win these marginals and to keep a tory vote presence, You will lose members with Clarke in.
20 Countryman. Indeed and very ironic.
Clarke’s reputation as a successful Chancellor was built of the strength of the economy following our escape from the economic straightjacket imposed on us by the ERM.
The perversity of this is that he, other Conservative Europhiles,
Labour Party and the LD’s were all mad keen advocates of joining it.
Euro realists (the vast bulk of the Conservative party not to mention
mainstream Britain) including poor old Lamont were all vehmently opposed to joining but lost the battle.
We were proved right, Lamont got slotted, the party’s reputation for economic competence was (quite rightly) destroyed and a debilitating and destructive in fueding began in ernest that continues to this day.
Clarke was one of the main protaganists but bizarrely remains in the eyes of those with short memories absolved of any responsibility his the catastrophic misjudgment on not one, but two of the most key issues that any politician will ever have to make.
Not learning from his mistake on the former (ERM)he continued to ignore any and all advice from colleagues about the Euro, often being quite offensive to boot.
Never mind Sovereignity, nor the loss of our ability to control the economy, I’m Ken, I’m right and the rest of you are wrong.
Now we are being asked to set this aside ? - I don’t think so !
It really is a shame that he wasn’t Chancellor at the time instead of Lamont.
He and the rest of his ilk would have got their just deserts and although it wouldn’t have made any difference in ‘97, history would record a far fairer picture on those responsible for the party’s current predicament.
As several of us have said before, a Party Leader by definition can only be the Leader if he has a Party, Clarke won’t have.
Sean that is a similar dilemma to me and one that I have not yet overcome.
I want so much to see principles I believe in put in to active, working policies. As you say that is why we often help the party. But equally the more I think about the situation and see polling evidence I cannot help but think that now might be the time for me to swallow an element of pride and elect someone who might not fully mirror my views but will at least get the party I love elected again.
In the end Sean the general public like it or not are not interested in politicians or ideology. Hopefully this might change in the future, but we can only work with the situation as we see it and pragmatism seems to be a key answer.
Having said all this, none of it will be easy!
Indeed we perhaps should organise a counselling session, next to the bar at the party conference!
John O I hardly think it a missive if people have geniune concern over there party leader, a leader who needs good grass roots to work the marginals (or are they magically to return Clarkites in a wave of pagents and military processions) yet treats us with contempt. I was just stating members will walk away. He can have the leadership, for what its worth, for he won’t have any members, of whom I will be one of them.
I sometimes despair of people who insist on trying to make witty comments but show themselves as catty sloanites with no real class at all
44 James M
I understand and can’t deny I don’t occasionally have pangs of self doubt myself.
Go and look yourself in the eye in the bathroom mirror - it will give you a definitive answer !
Kind regards
Ok Tory Boy I am off there now!
I could see KC developing momentum- just because, as Max points out, the Tories are sick of losing. However Michael Howard making way for an older man is a faintly strange spectacle. “The Pudgy Health Insurance Risk” does have an awful lot of hostages to fortune- not just the BAT stuff- which could come out very badly. I think in some ways the Euro issue is for some Tories actually a cover for deeper feelings of unease. A famously slothful, overweight smoker, there will always be questions about his energy and indeed health. He is pugnacious and combative, but as many in his own party will testify, these skills can be deployed in the service of misjudged arguments (see his time at health). So while none of the candidates set the heather on fire, the temptation to go for KC may be overwhelming. However, there are some serious risks (not least, what happens if a coronary does get him- he will be around 70 at the next election ?) and there are many who will fight KC all the way.
Sean - I didn’t mean to say its just about winning. I believe broadly in low-taxation, a tough stance on law and order, Unionism and Britain remaining a free and soverign state. I feel these values are best served by the return of a Conservative government. And thats where I feel Clarke is the only man who can facilitate that.
Stuart - I respect your views greatly and sincerely hope you will remain in the party (as I will) irrespective of who wins. DC would be my second choice but I feel he needs more time to grow into the job.
S Penketh @45. Apologies, but I don’t understand your response to my comment. Would you mind rephrasing and I’ll gladly reply? I certainly wasn’t casting aspersions on any fellow Conservative.
I think KC has gone a lot farther down the road of calling his party a bunch of tossers than Blair ever did. As a LD I would be absolutely delighted if KC were to win. He removes at a stroke the biggest reason for former Tories not to vote LD (EU). His image is also rather close to that of CK… would love to see Tories hammering out leader when their own drinks and smokes even more than ours does! He also has lots of nice stuff in the past to attack on, and to round it all off he would have to step down when the Tories don’t win next time as they won’t and we would have yet another election.
Isn’t it obvious from the remarks on the site that there is a significant body of Tory opinion which will up and leave if KC won? What is it about fighting and own goals the Tories so love?
If Ken Clarke will leader, will his two main cheerleaders Ann Widdecombe and John Bercow get top Shadow Cabinet positions?
Perhaps Widdy as Minister for Modernisation and Bercow in charge of developping the Tory manifesto (this will probably cause a strong headache to Sean Fear
If Clarke is elected a sizable proportion of our MP’s would never back his stance on the war or europe. I’m sure Blair/Brown would fashion lots of votes on all sorts of issues showing that Clarke couldn’t command the support of his party. The public would never elect a divided opposition.
Clarke’s appeal is as the anti-politician speaking his mind on issues he cares about and not worrying about spin - a Clarke leadership would lose this appeal quickly as he would have to keep his mouth shut to keep the party together - something I don’t think he is capable of.
Some good points Jon - it really is a tough choice for the Conservative Party. If I do get the vote, it is going to take some good soul searching.
KC seems to have some strong arguments on both sides - as such rather than DC being the big risk, I think KC is now the big risk candidate - so do we risk it or not?
Only time will tell!
Do any of the other candidates have websites yet?
51.”As a LD I would be absolutely delighted if KC were to win. He removes at a stroke the biggest reason for former Tories not to vote LD (EU). ”
and it’ll remove some of the strongest reasons for former tories-now Libdem voters not to vote tory again.
sorry John O just re read that. The Last passage was separate and was meant at a dig of KC over his (and his ‘followers’) many ‘wittiscism’ over the membership having the vote.
I did, however, think you were suggesting I was entering missive territory, I was just replying that I was arguing that KC was too desicive and would lead to resignations, We can’t afford resignations we need people to work those seats, especially seats such as Bury South to stop them slipping further.
However, thought you were saying I was entering into a missive, Was just stating the problems I thought we
55 - Exactly. I’d just add “droves of” former Tory voters
56 - Thks. I can you reassure you further. ‘Missive’ in this case simply meant “comment”. In other words, Max @31 articulated my views perfectly and therefore I had no need to bore everyone by repeating them. I was not making any reference to your good self or anyone else for that matter.
Oh Dear :(. Wish I could be like Disraeli, ‘Never apologise, never explain…”
Good Lord i’m a mess today
John T - I have no doubt the Labour party would raise the issue of Europe but I suspect KC would oppose entry into a single currency or entry into the constitution under his leadership. As to the war - I honestly can’t see Blair wanting to raise that as an issue. Its far more damaging to them than us. Would it not also be the case that people may draw the conclusion that Labour were obbsessed with Europe, and running away from the real issues.
60 - I sure Clarke thinks he can just put the issue of Europe to bed by promises on the big two issues. In the next three years he would have to constantly hold positions he doesn’t believe in, on all the smaller European / Transatlantic issues that come up, or lose the parliamentary party. As I say something I don’t think he is capable of.
Sorry O/T did anyone see the 1987 election yesterday. I caught the tail end which featured a young Harriet Harman. I never thought I’d say this but she was a bit of a fitty!
62. How things change. Did you see John Redwood? shocking. Ken Clarke has hardly changed in 18 years though.
Andrea - the number of pro-EU former Tories is miniscule. A few years ago the whole of the pro-EU Conservative movement left to join the LibDems. It was 100 people or about 1/6 per constituency. I have yet to meet that person in the 4 constituencies I know well so I assume the other 2 must have got him. Lucky them eh?
I would have thought most very pro-EU Tories would have departed when Mrs T took over….
In my canvassing I have met literally hundreds of people who will not vote LD at parliamentary level because of the EU. I don’t recallanyone telling me they were now voting LD because of it, yet presumably they would have been glad to tell me unless they were aware of my views!
62. She’s still a pretty woman (though I don’t like very much her hairstyle)
63 - To be honest Woody JR’s not really my type!
64 - “I have yet to meet that person in the 4 constituencies I know well so I assume the other 2 must have got him. Lucky them eh?”
It was a her, and she’s moved to the South-East to become an MEP
48 - I think this is a very good post. Sure Europe is a big issue for many, but I do think it acts as a convenient cover for a lot of other problems people would have with Clarke.
I would also worry greatly from a Conservative viewpoint that, contrary to JohnT in 53, he would not “reign himself in” after becoming leader. When in government, even with a very small majority, he was very keen to take on those in his party who he disagreed with (remember the VAT on fuel fiasco). That’s fine when it really is a rump, but would he be able to accept the reality of a majority of the Parliamentary party being on very uneasy terms with him?
O/T Will the LibDems take Rik back?
64. I’m not talking about Europe only. A socially and economically liberal could attract many voters away from the Libdems IMO.
63. Post some photos, please.
Funnily enough my original post said him/her but it was lost in editing BV. Torridge isn’t one I can claim to be an expert on though I did have a pretty fair idea we were going to get thrashed… and the reason? Broken record time….!!
Andrea… I think precisely the opposite. As I’ve said before on this site the Conservative vote is considerably smaller than the conservative vote. KC would help it to remain so.
66. Don’t deny it Max. You know you love him. 5 minutes of listening listening to Harriet Harman would make you prefer John redwood. What a humourless woman.
68 - I said he would have to reign himself in to keep the party together but I also said it was something I didn’t think he was capable of. As you say it is not his style or record to do so, leaving us with a divided opposition even further away from power than now.
71. we’ll wait and see….oh maybe not,because the tories will elect someone else.
72. Woody, it seems there’s no Labour female MP you like.
72 - She does sound dreadful. I don’t want to admit any feelings for JR in case I upset Jack!
64 Jon, I fully accept the thrust of your posting.
Wouldn’t be Conservative to stick with a strong successful policy would it though ?
What’s this lever over here do ?
Shotgun Foot Bang !!
You LD’s must be loving this and I can’t say I blame you, I’d be beside myself in your position !
If we lost our edge on Europe and you lot tightened up on your touchy feely side (particularly over Law and Order policy)selling the blue brand on the doorstep would become far more difficult I agree.
The most bizarre thing of all around this proposed change in the rules is that (apart from being designed to screw up DD’s chances)it is predicated by the leadership on the basis that we must never again
have an IDS moment.
Excuse me, ahem, but who were the people who gave us a choice between Clarke and IDS - indeed those self same MP’s !
So we (the mainstream party) are stupid to have selected one of their choices (who some found unacceptable particularly in hindsight) over another (who very many found unacceptable and still do)
I despair at times !
Jon @64, Nice one. But there’s a much wider picture as well you know. And that is that there are very many former Tories who have since voted LibDem (and Labour) because of a generalised but powerfully held perception of Conservative ‘extremism’ (that of course I think is misplaced…but there you go).
I believe that the ability for these voters to be wooed back is much enhanced by KC as leader (as both yesterday’s ICM and Populus polls have apparently confirmed).
Perhaps it ought to be said as well that Tony Blair’s views on Iraq are totally alien to a large segment of his MPs and the party membership but it does not seem to have done him any harm.
The choice for the Conservative Party is very clear: does it want to win elections or merely to satisfy the desires of its membership? It was when Labour changed from being the latter to the former that it came back to power. There is no point in being in politics unless you are striving after power.
74. There are a few I like. I find Diane Abbott funnt on This Week as she has zero credibility and attacks Blair. Kate Hoey and Gwyneth Dunwoody are OK. Caroline Flint is quite tasty. Can’t really think of any more apart from the women in the cabinet and can’t say I’m too keen on them.
TB I’m loving it but I reckon quite a few of our members are frightened by the thought of KC… but thinking from our point of view in Exeter where the Tories won’t be in play next time it would be much easier to squeeze the Tory vote with KC in charge than a conservative’s Conservative.
75. Max, I would warn you against an affair with Reedwood. He has not a good reputation:
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/nred03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/03/ixportal.html
78 Sorry Countryman - simply don’t agree with your summary.
There’s simply no point being in politics if you don’t strive and fight for things you believe in.
If you’re only in it to do something you don’t believe in but do it ‘better’(in the individual in question’s opinion) than the other lot because you don’t like the colour of the other lots tribe colours you might as well get yourself a proper job (and earn more money !)
Otherwise your principles are protituted and you become a whore
Our ‘edge on Europe’ has achieved nothing in the last 10 years. Surely people have learned we are in opposition becasue we don’t talk about the issues that really matter to the electorate. How many non-party members do you think wake up in the morning worrying about the single currency or the constitution. I’ve said this before but go out and speak to people who don’t vote for us but might and ask them who should leave us. Noone mentions Davis, noone mentions Fox but plenty people mention Clarke.
Sorry bit of a slip - should be lead us rather than leave us!!!
82 - But whats the point of being in politics but never being in power? The party was built on pragmatism and doing the best for our country. I subscribe to that over any ideology.
82 - But whats the point of being in politics but never being in power? The party was built on pragmatism and doing the best for our country. I subscribe to that over any ideology.
FWIW here is my Shadow Cabinet of all the talents, excluding MH presently. :
Conservative Party Leader: Ken Clarke.
Deputy. Party Chairman and 1st SofS: David Davies.
Chancellor: William Hague.
Chief Secretary: George Osborne.
Foreign Secretary: Malcolm Rifkind.
Home Secretary: Anne Widdecombe.
Health: Teresa May.
Education & Skills. Andrew Lansley.
Constitutional Affairs. Michael Ancram.
DEFRA. Tim Yeo.
Transport. Julie Kirkbride.
Defence. Nicholas Soames.
Culture. M & S. Alan Duncan.
International Development. John Bercow.
Work & Pensions. John Redwood.
Trade & Industry. Francis Maude.
Chief Whip. David MaClean.
Lords. Lord Strathclyde.
Others up for grabs !! Get yourself a by election.
87 - Not bad - I particularly like David McLean who has done an excellent job as chief whip. I’d like to see Caroline Spellman in their somewhere.
87 - do you think Cameron is that bad Jack? Unworthy of a place when Yeo, Ancram and Lansley are in there?
Max at 83 - but isn’t that partly because no-one has heard of Davis and Fox, unlike Clarke? Surely the question isn’t ‘who have the public heard of/like at this point in time?’, it’s ‘who would be best once they actually have the job’? Whoever gets it will have time to become known.
It is a great pity 87 that Alan Johnson was allowed to change the name of his minstry back to Trade & Industry. I rather liked Productivity, Energy, and Industry.
87 - Zilch for Cameron?! I think he’d do rather well (and mature) shadowing the Home Office.
89 book value. You have to be a good butcher !! Truth is I missed him completely, he’s made a big impression on me:lol: and Dr Fox too
:lol: I’ve a few spare slots, they can absail down Big Ben for places !!
90 - I think it says something about Clarke that he is a minister from the Major era but still remains popular! And it also says something that Davis and Fox have held fairly high profile jobs but so few people have heard of them. I’m also not convinced that they are two people the public will neccessarily warm to. My concern is, as I’ve said that, people will not listen to the arguments of the center-right if they are not coming from someone who is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be ‘nice’.
84 Max - Are you sure it wasn’t a Freudian slip…….
Made me laugh in any event !!
Cheers..
96 - I thought it might! But honestly it was just a mistake!!!!!
94 Could be the crux of our difference of opinion on the way forward.
If you believe that Clarke is either ‘Centre Right’ or ‘Nice’ I fundamentally disagree.
Further are any of the 1000 bods question in the opinion poll likely to post leaflets during the rain for the party and attempt to lead opinion locally.
Without our party workers, they won’t even get to hear about Clarke in any event.
I’m not sure if Tory leaders have to actually appear ‘nice’. It might be sufficient simply to not appear ‘evil’.
Clarke’s entrance into the contest enhances the hopes of the Davis camp. Rank and file members who cannot abide him will surely want to reject the changes in the voting procedure,so they can support Davis in a membership vote. All this will delay the contest even further. How can a party make such a hash of a leaderhsip contest?…hardly a convincing example of its fitness to run the country.
The move for Clarke in the markets isn’t matched by his support in the parliamentary party at the moment. If, as seems increasingly likely, there will eventually be some form of electoral college to choose the new leader, Davis will be the main beneficiary.
98 Keep smiling mate - we only get one chance at this life.
Might as well try and enjoy what’s left of it despite HMG’s
efforts to depress us !
Must go and post my In Touches now (cue the rain) - speak later. you later
89/92 book value/John O. Leader of the Commons is spare, will that do ? If not in my first reshuffle:lol: I’ll swap Cameron into Education and Skills ….. now for Dr. Fox !!
101. Jack, Dr Fox could become Defence Secretary and could go to Soames. Yeo could go home (or become junior minister for Fertility)
102.”could go to Soames”
It should be “Soames could go to DEFRA”
There is no doubt that electing KC will cause upheaval in the party. However those who predict large membership loses or many Tory votes going elsewhere are I suspect mistaken. A KC leadership would cause some to leave but others would join the party. Likewise some votes would go to UKIP but they would be massively outweighed by voters coming home from the Lib Dems and Nu Labour.
If you add the 12% posted by Newsnight last night onto 32% and you get the Tories on 44% enought to get into power. That is a very powerful argument for KC and is the reason I back him. Frankly I prefer DC or DD easily over KC but who will win Richmond (where I live) and return us to power KC I am afraid.
BTW the repeal of the proposed rule changes may benefit KC. It is hard to see where he could get the necessary votes amongst MP’s many of whom (including the new lot) seem to have no inclination to vote KC. Amongst party members KC has a strong 40% bloc (as witnessed in his battle with IDS). Combine this with his new position on the EU, the opposition to Iraq (which many Tories agreed with, though not myself) and another election defeat and I suspect he could win amongst the membership.
Frankly the moment Tory poll ratings shoot up following the election of KC is the moment most Tory activists forget their loathing of KC with the realistic prospect of power back on the agenda. What most of us yearn for are the days the Tories poll circa 40% and over, something only KC gives us an immediate chance of.
102 Andrea.
No Dr Fox is off to N.Ireland to absail down the Mourne Mountains and Two brains can go and figure out Deregulation !! Sorted !! Oh to be leader of a great party 
Of course, …… I am , I forgot !!
I´m not at all sure where my money is going at the oval, but I will be risking some money on Clarke. He will need a big mandate though if he is to do any good. Some of the “bastards” will need to be made to walk the gangplank if the Tories are to put up a united front at the next election.
105. Jack W, the most important thing is that you won’t move Dinky Duncan in a future reshuffle.
104 - as someone who voted Clarke last time I wouldn’t say he had a strong 40% bloc - the complete inadequecy of IDS maximised Ken’s possible vote. In the meantime Clarke has done his best to rundown the party membership which would further deflate his vote.
If we stick with the present system of voting it would be unclear if Clarke would be one of the two candidates put forward by MP’s- he has lost some key backers from last time and seems unlikely to get a single backer from the new intake.
104 - We also don’t know how many people he would be able to attract back as members. People like to follow a winning team after all. Its not just up to KC to stop a split either. Their are also those MP’s who weren’t particularly helpful in the mid 90’s who have to bury the hatchet as well. There is far, far more that unites us as a party than divides us.
Is there any realistic chance of KC actuallt getting the job though via either of the methods. I just can’t see it happening.
P.S I see Sir Malcolm Rifkind is touring the country trying to drum up support. In derbyshire today I hear. I’ve not seen him.
109 Max. Absolutely, people seem to forget that one of John Major’s minor “bastards” became the next but one leader !! How short some memories are.
107 Andrea. I’ve kept Dinky at Culture, M & S especially for you !!
I’ve been visiting this site for a while, and until now I have not been moved to make a contribution. However, the arguments of the right-wing DD-supporting Tories on this thread I thought were just shocking: many of their posts I can quite imagine being written by a 1980’s Labour Bennite - “There’s no point being in politics unless your party represents exactly the ideology you believe in” is the general thrust of their argument.
Tony Blair, who despite appearances is a socialist, realised that in order to bring in most of the policies he believed in the Labour Party would have to change its image and compromise over certain areas. By doing so he has won three successive elections and brought in things such as the minimum wage, extra health spending etc etc that would never have happened under a Tory government. Britain is now a much more socialist place than it would have been had the Labour Party remained ideologically pure in opposition.
Therefore why can’t the right wing DD supporters learn from history that to slightly compromise your beliefs in order to gain power is the only way to achieve anything of what you believe in? The British people won’t convert en masse to radical conservatism by a right-wing, uncharismatic, unimpressive speaker such as Davis.
I’m a right-wing tory myself and would love to see someone like John Redwood installed as our benevolent dictator, but it isn’t going to happen. In politics no one ever gets what they really want but have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and Ken Clarke is a much lesser evil than Brown.
110 Woody. If a party can elect IDS anything is possible !!
Poor old Sir Malcolm - roaming the countryside stirring up apathy , it’s an old one , but rather appropriate I fear.
113 JMD. Welcome aboard. We’re a little light on John Redwood followers or Cornerstone group supporters. I’m sure your contributions will be colourfull !
[76] Actually , as a Lib Dem, I can (naturally see both sides of the argument (
)
There are two issues- one is who the leader should be- and that is mostly what we talk about here. However there is another question- how should the leader be chosen. Almost unnoticed, I sense that the Conservatives are flirting with major problems. MH’s determination to wrest back control of the electoral process from the membership is leading to serious ructions (and frankly quite right too- see many postings passim). The increasingly bad tempered debate on this issue- and the potential delay to the election until next year- are of growing significance. There is a full scale rebellion brewing that could make Blackpool into a real bloodbath.
Meanwhile, if he gets the leadership, KC will NOT be taking prisoners- he will not scale down anything, even if all his colleagues object. His personality will not compromise further than it has to in order to get the leadership- after the leadership is attained you had better tread very carefully- this is why there are so many die-hard anti-Ken feelings amongst the Parliamentary party.
Meanwhile, on September 16th it will be 13 years since the Tories had their nervous breakdown- Black Wednesday. Since that time, the party has done nothing but talk to itself- this abject failure to connect with the voters we comment on constantly- but time is running out for the Conservatives- it is not a question of KC, DC, DD- it is a question as to whether the party can actually unite behind any of them- all carry risks, all have their enemies. So as a Lib Dem, I view this mess with some bemusment, but some optimism for our prospects. I think that the split over the electoral process is also a badge of even more profound splits in the Tories- and maybe irrecoverable ones…
JMD I cannot agree.
Clarke is a liberal in a blue coat. Why on Earth would I want to vote, let along campaign, for him. The day he becomes leader is the day I and many others head straight out the door.
It’s all very well talking about opinion polls (which are hardly a precise science) but without the support of Conservative activists and donors Clarke is a dead duck anyway - and our beloved party is destined for oblivion.
Wake up and remember why you’re a Conservative!
Iron Lady - She’s back. She’s meaner than ever.
111.”Andrea. I’ve kept Dinky at Culture, M & S especially for you !! ”
Jack, you know he’ll be terribly funny. With Dinky anything is possible.
JMD - You make some powerful points, but I equally believe that we should not make the mistake of copying the New Labour package. People are getting fed up of it and I honestly believe there is a large group of the apathetic out there who want pragmatic, conservative focused policies.
113 - I wonder whether Michael Ancram specifically asked Sir Malcolm to take on his old mantle as unity-candidate-who-nobody-supports this time, or whether he just took it upon himself to do it?
119 - I agree James. I don’t think a New Labour MkII will work. I think we still have a relevant message but we need someone aho can speak to the electorate and relate the broad Conservative philosophy to peoples everyday lives. I think some of our policies at the last election were overly complicated. We need a few big ideas that will really capture the electorates ambition. Too often we speak in rather abstract terms of freedom and choice without relating what that would mean to the electorate.
The crux of the matter, IMO, is whether or not you think a Conservative government is an end in itself. I don’t. It is quite possible to have a Conservative government that is worse than the Labour alternative (Ted Heath’s government being one example). That doesn’t mean I think that that is how a government led by Ken Clarke would turn out , but it does mean that I want to know why he, and his rivals, want to be Prime Minister. And it’s why I think that saying that “X is more popular than Y” doesn’t take us very far.
121. What do you make of the flat tax idea Max. I see George Osbourne has commisioned a report into it. Would be bold and radical.
122 - Quite. And some comparisons with Labour in the eighties vis a vis the nineties, although superficially attractive do miss something. Labour activists do genuinely believe that a Tory Government was and will be intent on destroying the country, increasing poverty, destroying the unions … etc. Many Tory supporters rather admire many aspects of this Labour government, even if they are loathe to admit it.
116: What’s wrong with being a Liberal??
The Lib Dems piled on an extra million votes in May - wouldn’t the Tories like a slice of that?
PS - if Ken Clarke is a Liberal Dead Duck, does that make him “Duck a l’Orange”??
One thing about Kenneth Clarke is that he stuck to his principles even though this meant losing out in 2001. He could easily have found a form of words that would have been more acceptable to the party at large but didn’t.
The only real policy difference that he has had has been on Europe - which has now been diminshed in importance.
I find it hard to fathom why some of the hard-liners say they will walk if Clarke was elected. They are Anti-EU nutters in a world where Europe is not an issue anymore.
I am still trying to find out what Davis has got that makes him so appealing. What are his qualities? He cannot speak effectively and he is often tongue-tied in interviews. He clearly has a good mind but unless you can get your points over then you do not have the key leadership quality.
What amazes me about this discussion is
Regarding DD, why is he always labelled as right wing. I know about the death penalty statement but what else classes him as right wing and Ken Clarke as more left wing.
120 James. I unaware that Michael Ancram has ruled himself out yet!
So the good Marquis could be the Former Unity Candidate Knowingly Uttering Platitudes or FU…. Oops !
The other problem with Clarke is the damage that he does if he stands and loses (something that he refuses to acknowledge). With hindsight (even without!) one can see that he could never have won in 2001, and he bears as much responsibility for IDS happening as anyone else (although if you believe that Portillo would have been a disaster then it was a leadership contest with no solutions). Once Ken stands whoever wins (other than him) will be defined in the General Public’s consciousness as being “not Ken”, a massive handicap to start with. People can support his candicacy by all means, but they should also acknowledge that him standing and losing could leave them in a far more difficult position than would otherwise be the case.
Personally I think DD short-term idiocy over ID cards rules him out. The strategy he represents is to appeal to working class labour voters (his pretty overspun background is an example of this). These voters like Labour but don’t like criminals and don’t like immigrants. They love ID cards.
130 - DD short-term idiocy ? What does that mean? Opposing ID cards is a long term strategy.
Not all Dream Tickets are successful. Some bring a shudder even to NuLab spines.
130 - they won’t like paying for them.
130. Except that maybe ID cards are not so useful against criminals and immigrants
129.”and he bears as much responsibility for IDS happening as anyone else ”
Alex, are you blaming Clarke for standing in that leadership contest?
One thing about Kenneth Clarke is that he stuck to his principles even though this meant losing out in 2001. He could easily have found a form of words that would have been more acceptable to the party at large but didn’t.
But isn’t that a great part of the problem that many Conservative activists have? They are being regularly told to swallow their principles in pursuit of power, and support a man who … refused to swallow his principles in pursuit of power.
134 - Yes.
135 Alex. There’s the rub ….. but the activists can’t become leader or have the chance to become PM … and our Ken does.
136. Why don’t you blame Portillo for not having being able to get enough votes to reach final round?
There is an interesting paper on ’selectorates’in both main parties with a Scottish focus.
This Lib Dem is hoping for a Clarke win. The “bastards” as someone called them will certainly remember that he was the man who knifed Thatcher. They will be back on form. And Max’s belief that more unites Conservatives than divides them will soon begin to look pretty hollow.
129/136 Alex. Wonderfully bizarre:lol: It’s the type of logic that has got the Tories where they are today !!
138 - The problem was that 2001 was really an election where the Tories needed a Coronation. And that was the basis upon which Portillo wanted the leadership. He needed a powerful mandate for change, and once it became clear he wasn’t going to get it he lost the appetite for the battle and from that point his campaign suffered. Clarke’s candicacy had a lot to do with that. Of course there are many other factors, but Clarke’s candicacy in a contest he could never win was a major contributory factor.
139 B2W. 28 days to elect a leader - The Tories can but dream !!
Perhaps Mike might run a little competition on which year the next Conservative Leader will be elected !
123 Irrespective of the arguments for or against the flat tax idea and personally I am still undecided between the benefits and disadvantages , I am pretty sure that it would not be that beneficial to the Conservative party to take it on as policy . Those who would benefit most are more likely already to vote Conservative and those who need to be persuaded to vote Conservative such as pensioners are likely to lose out . The opposition parties would find it easy to portray it as the Conservatives taking from the poor and giving taxcuts to the wealthier .
142. but why don’t you blame tory MPs too? Nobody obliged them to vote Clarke. They could have left him with his die-hard faithfuls and vote Portillo. It’s their fault if they didn’t understand that the party needed a coronation.
141 - what don’t you like about my ‘logic’, Jack?
127 - Woody, it seems to me that KC is regarded as liberal because of his views on Europe and on certain social issues. I don’t think however that his views on the whole can be seen as anything other than center-right. To be honest though we’ve heard so little about policy that its impossible to draw conclusions about the policies pursued by a Clarke/Cameron/Davis led party.
As to a flat rate of tax I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion politically. Professionally as an accountant I think its a terrible idea - we need to make the tax system more complicated not less!!!!!
140 Peter. Mrs T asked our Ken and he told her flatly she’d lost the confidence of the cabinet. He at least stabbed her in the front, unlike her erstwhile idealogical friends who left her to swing in the wind and deserted her at the first whiff of grapeshot - spineless wretches !
“To be honest though we’ve heard so little about policy that its impossible to draw conclusions about the policies pursued by a Clarke/Cameron/Davis led party”
That’s what I would like to hear.
145 - I didn’t say that I didn’t. But it was inevitable that once Clarke stood he was going to draw support. Just as he will this time. But it will all come to naught if he doesn’t win - which for him, unlike other candidates looking for shadow cabinet posts etc, is the only point.
145 - it is a good reason why restricting leadership contests to the MPs is such a bad idea - they think they’re running Oxford Union elections and will cast their votes for the most ridiculous reasons or personal slights. There is a reason why the frontrunner rarely wins these elections - because it is so easy to manufacture a “Stop-X” Campaign against them. The 2001 contest was only a slight deviation on this in that the MPs could only do the stop Portillo part of this - they then set up the conditions for the stop Ken campaign but had to leave it to the members to deliver the knockout blow.
146 Alex. The responsibilty for the IDS catastrophe lies squarely with the wallies in Parliament and the wider party who for one moment thought that a “minor bastard” was in any way, shape or form upto the job of Prime Minister. And then to compound the error it took over two years to rectify the collective massive boll*ck they dropped.
To blame our Ken for the mess is a hilarious take on the issue. I commend you for the attempt though
151. I agree. All these talks about tory members being so stupid to have chosen IDS, but who voted Portillo out last time? The always brilliant tory MPs who are so in touch with the country (if Edward Leigh is in touch with the country, I’ll leave out UK from my potential holiday destionations list).
Alex, Not sure about logic, but I (mis?)interpret your argument as saying KC shouldn’t stand, precisely because of his extensive general public support, and that his defeat would alienate that same general public. Which is the general public (or a significant component of it) that the party must convince to win an election. Hmmmmm
152 - you miss the point, Jack. The members choosing IDS over Clarke was an inevitability (and not a particularly difficult one to foresee). There is a decent argument that it was not even a mistake depending on which perspective you view it from. I agreed the mps played a major part (but i have addressed that above). I should also I suppose that the person who should accept the ultimate blame for IDS becoming leader is IDS himself
Here’s tory backbenchers last big concern:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361471&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
154 - JohnO I’m not putting that forward as a significant reason for him not standing. Just pointing out that it is a consequence of his defeat.
156 - Well it is a disgrace
156 - I notice they do not actually accuse Mandelson’s boyfriend of not meeting any of the requirements for citizenship: the Duncan Fletcher story is a very flimsy excuse to bash their usual enemies.
BTW I agree it is unfair on Fletcher if the reason he has been denied citizenship is that going on tour with the England cricket team has stopped him meeting the residency requirements.
People have talked about Clarkes contempt for the membership. But surely it is equally contemptable to take no account of the publics views on the leadership as we did with IDS. We have to get away from the idea that the party belongs to the membership and the MP’s and only our views count. If we wish to represent the British people we have to show that we listen to them.
169. yes, it’s unfair on Fletcher that his being on tour prevented him to achieve the requirements for citizenship, but Reinaldo has nothing to do with it. Strange that they didn’t throw Cherie Blair in the mix too.
98 - AT - A particularly silly comment.
116 - Leaderine - I’m here to serve, do with me as you will
140 - Peter - I’m having an out of body experience…
I fully agree with you (another LD supporter) as well !!
It’s so obviously true it hurts.
Tea finished (Tea bag in cup - no Tea Pots, Urns or Kettles etc in sight Jack !) back to the In Touches
156 Well, it wouldn’t be the first litle incident that seems to have happened in Croydon’s corridors while a Labour Grandee is in need, is it?
I suspect that it is far more dodgy that he has been allowed to achieve the residency criteria than that he has been granted citizenship having completed it.
To 116…
“JMD I cannot agree.
Blair is a liberal in a red coat. Why on Earth would I want to vote, let along campaign, for him. The day he becomes leader is the day I and many others head straight out the door.
It’s all very well talking about opinion polls (which are hardly a precise science) but without the support of Labour activists and the unions Blair is a dead duck anyway - and our beloved party is destined for oblivion.
Wake up and remember why you’re a Socialist!”
164. Why? I thought it was easy to achieve the residency criteria.
166 - I believe you generally have to have some worthwhile justification to stay in the country for five years.
I’m sure it’s all above board though.
167. Alex, well, I think keeping Mandelson (how old Mandy is?)busy is a worthwhile justification. Otherwise how many damages could he have done?
Btw, I think he was in UK to study.
He should have two or three degrees by now then. A very employable man
Mr Smithson (jnr?):
I think there are many in the Labour party who would say you prove my point.
It’s not surprising that Liberals like yourself are supportive of Blair and Clarke - they are both fellow travellers and there is barely a BAT cigarette paper between the two of them.
My esteemed nick-namesake didn’t get where she was by pandering to the lowest common denominator. She stuck to her guns - and sure enough, the voters followed her lead. It cannot be any coincidence that the wishy-washy centrists that both preceded and succeeded her terms of office were so much less successful.
156 Andrea. I haven’t linked the Mandelson article yet, but would I be correct in thinking that one of the Tory village idiots such as Edward Leigh, Julian Brazier or Gerald Howarth provided a suitable qoute. Go on make my day
170. Or a slow learner
Btw, the tories are complaining now, but when he came in the country in 1996, he lived with Howell James, John Major’s Political Secretary.
172. Jack, it’s Gerald Howarth who is complaining. He called Reinaldo “Mandelson’s escort”. Pretty unclassy, but from Howarth I wasn’t expecting anything else.
“My esteemed nick-namesake didn’t get where she was by pandering to the lowest common denominator. She stuck to her guns” - it wasn’t a problem for her: the guns she stuck to WERE the lowest common denominator.
173 - Ah but Andrea you’ve fallen into the usual trap of thinking this story is homophobically inspired, when really it is inspired by the hatred of Mandelson
The Tories have a strategic as well as a personal choice to make. The red-meat Tories (Fox, Davies) will keep the core vote, close down the threat from the right and appeal to illibral, working class Labour voters.
The one nation candidates (Clarke, Cameron) will lose ground to the right wing protest parties but appeal to middle class, educated voters, particularly younger ones, some of whom have gone to Labour but most of whom now vote Lib Dem.
The Tories have to decide if they follow the Bush model of becoming the party of the working man angry at the idiocy of the liberal middle-class (with big business on board) or stick to the traditional Tory model of professionals, women, the aspirational and the patriotic worried by the dangerous radicalism of the lower classes.
My earlier point is that DD, for the sake of a few hurrahs from Tory Libetarians, makes a mockery of the only strategy that can take him to power. Can you imagine Karl Rove advising the Tories to make a huge issue of ID cards?
Iron Lady,
Just to clear up my political views: I am a classical liberal, believing in the lowering of taxes, the legalisation of all drugs, and the encouragement of immigration, among other things. No political party comes near my semi-libertarian views.
I think there is a profound mistake in thinking that Margaret Thatcher was elected because she stuck to ger guns. Mrs Thatcher, when she was elected, was far more pro-EEC (as it was) than the Labour Party, and had hardly unveiled her radical plans for shaking up the unions. Indeed, I think if you look to the plans from 1979, you’d find the Conservative manifesto well to the left of the most recent Labour one. The political landscape has changed that much.
Mrs Thatcher was more centrist than Jim Callaghan.
The Conservative Party has been stuck in the low 30s for a long time. If the Liberal Democrats and Labour Party maintain their - effective - tactical vote exchanges, then they will struggle to gain seats.
Sticking to your principles is a wonderful thing. But if all it does is give Blair a free-er reign and and easy ride, then you have failed. And failed badly.
Regards,
Robert
176. Alex, I know it’s Mandelsonphobia. Infact I said it’s strange that they didn’t throw Cherie Blair in the mix too (another one disliked by The Daily Mail).
I saw Mandelson on that 87 broadcast with that dreadful moustatche. he was ascreepy then as he is now.
Regarding Reinaldo, that’s a non story. If he’s forfilling the regulations that govern anyone else applying for a passport, then there is no reason for him not to be approved and the Fletcher comparison is unnessessary. I’m glad to see that no Tory with any credibility has spoken out about it.
172 Andrea. I’ll have to do the lottery this week, I need the cash
Gerald Howarth - What a prat !!
176 Alex. You’re surely not that niave !! The Daily Mail is a dreadfully homophobic rag and has opposed all the gay reform legislation over the past decade and revelled in it too.
177 - but i don’t think his position on ID cards is inspired by trying to secure “a few hurrahs” from Tory libertarians. He genuinely is opposed to ID cards, and thinks they’re a very bad idea. It would be a strange political strategy to support something that you think is a very bad idea and, despite a few positive polling numbers, will as a result ultimately prove to be very unpopular - even among the working class!
181. After the election the Daily Mail run an article which suggested to parties not to select openly gay candidates, because they’re losers (they mentioned Twigg, Ian Dale, Nick Boles and the Labourite in Reading East). They failed to mention the ones who performed well (Bryant, Duncan, David Barrow, Marsden, Stephen Williams and Adam Price).
It’s like advocating not to select female candidates anymore because Oona King lost.
Curiously, the Daily Mail is Kenneth Clarke’s strongest supporter, among all papers.
183. It simply panders to its readers prejudices like all papers do. They know a large section of their readership hate people who aren’t married middle class churchgoer. I actuallt have the daily mail to laugh at the way they word their stories. The way Chris Morris wound them up with Brass eye was funny. They just didn’t get the joke.
184 Sean. Strange bed fellows, but the Daily Mail knows the realities of the challenge facing the Tories and wants Nulab out at any price .
181 - there are very few things to which the Daily Mail are not “anti”. On this article the only respect in which I think homophobia is an issue is in the opportunity it gives them to remind people that Peter Mandelson is gay.
If you’re a follower of Hayek, welcome to the fold. You, like me, should find DD or Fox far more to your taste. But why - for goodness sake - would you want that One Nation patrician social democrat Clarke anywhere near public office??
187. I think the Daily Mail will think it appeals to the ‘He shouldn’t be allowed in the country if he’s gay’ section of the readership.
187. They were actually nice in their choice of words calling Reinaldo “Mandelson’s consort”.
Once Richard Littlejohn described Reinaldo as a tray of biscuits passed across party lines: What is he doing here? Apart from being passed round like a tray of biscuits across party lines
188. Brown or Clarke? Your call.
[171] I doubt Mrs thatcher’s succesor would say he was a lot less successful - he got 14.1m votes in 1992, more than anyone else ever has. Her Parliamentary majorities were inflated by what Peter Jenkins once called “the priceless luxury of a divided opposition”…
She garnered an extra 3.2m votes for the Tories in 1979 (when Labour also polled slightly more than it had in October 1974), lost 700,000 of them in 1983 and found them again in 1987. Seems the less people knew about her, the more she prospered electorally!
O/T the electoral commission estimate that 3.7 million people eligible to vote are not registered: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4217180.stm
190 Andrea. I think “Mandelson’s consort” was a back handed compliment at best.
191 Robert. Spot on.
[188] A follower of Hayek… Dr Fox? At least your namesake did actually READ Hayek (although it was said that Keith Joseph merely gave her the edited highlights). Fox pokes his nose into too many things to be regarded as anything except a Conservative.
As for Hayek himself, he preferred to call himself an “Old Whig” or a “Classical Liberal” and I would remind you that he did write an entire essay called “Why I am not a Conservative” (an Appendix to The Constitution of Liberty). The utter failure of Conservatives to actually grasp what Hayek was implying for their view of the state is one of the more bizarre ironies of Thatcherism.
In short anyone calling themselves a Conservative supporter of Hayek is talking drivel- it is like saying you are a Socialist Tory (but then again, there is Bercow). Hayek called himself Liberal and when we talk about Gladstonian Liberalism, we talking about the same intellectual tradition as Hayek, and Karl Popper too, I might add. The fact that some Tories advocate some Liberal principles is not exactly conclusive is it, when you can say the same of New Labour, and, with far greater intellectual honesty- the Liberal Democrats.
After all, one of the most noted disciples of The Chicago School, but especially Karl Popper is George Soros- not, I submit the Conservatives favourite personality..
191 Davies please Robert!
When is Teresa “kitten heels” May going to declare her hand? Women candidates are supposed to add an average extra 2% of the vote in constituencies where they stand and this could well be repeated nationwide.
She clearly understands the need of the party to modernise, has a signature image (those heels again) and comes over as a pragmatic Conservative.
All eyes should turn to Angela Merkel to see how she fares in the German election. If she does well couldn’t Teresa May become the British version? I think she could trounce dour Brown any day….
Biscuit tray? Must be cockney rhyming slang!
198 - There is a lot to be said for May but she hasn’t got the support and I would be very surprised if she stands now. The Merkel analogy doesn’t quite work though. Although more presentable than Stoiber, if the CDU/CSU win it will be despite their leaders’ public image not because of it. More interesting is how Merkel fares after the election (presuming she becomes Chancellor).
195. Gladstonian liberalism has been defunct for over 100 years. The present day Liberal Democrat party bears very little comparison to the Liberal party of Gladstone’s day, which was a pro-business party committed to minimal state interference in the economy and the lowest possible taxation. Economic liberals fled the Liberal party after Lloyd George’s embrace of socialist approaches. Current Lib Dem policies hardly look likely to bring them flooding back. Paddy Ashdown used to hold up Sweden as an ideal model for the UK, i.e. a country with one of the highest levels of taxation in the world.
194. Jack, The Daily Mail has problems with the citizenship of someone called Luan Plakici (from Albania) too. I don’t know who the hell he’s.
123,144-By the time of the next election the flat tax should be a major issue ,some 11 countries have already adopted it (Greece is the first of the old EC countries to adopt it) and many others are currently reviewing it,including Angela Merkel’s party in Germany which looks like the first major western economy that will adopt it.
The UK Treasury has already looked at it and rejected it and prior to the release of its findings (blanked out all sections of the report that were favourable to it),and then released the report under its infamous ‘Freedom of censored information act’It seems the main issue is that the entire concept is contrary to Brown’s political dogma.
Under a flat tax system everyone pays less iresspective of income,lower tax rates generate higher tax income and a mini boom is stimulated in terms of additional investment.
There would also be major government savings as most of the current army of 99,400 tax collectors would not be required.
Apologies if I’m about to sound like the Daily Mail, but…
For a long time impression that Lib Dem MPs – and to a greater extent Lib Dem members – have given is of rather an illiberal lot (In the Hayek / Gladstone sense). Throughout the nineties they were openly advocating tax rises, they seem slavishly wedded to the EU and any pettifogging regulation that they wanted to throw at us – and most indicative of all they have seemed wedded to rather petty societal regulations on matters such as smoking and various other PC issues. The days of genuine liberals in the party (like Cyril Smith (possibly – he was a bit before my time but I remember him as uniquely able to say ‘this is none of our business.’)) seemed long gone.
Now, however, it does seem that amongst both the parliamentary party and the party at large there are increasing numbers of genuine Hayek / Gladstone liberals. I don’t know whether this means that this wing of the party has the intellectual ascendancy, or is increasingly confident, or is just making more noise, but for someone like me it is encouraging. Admittedly in Broxtowe they still seem manically interventionist, but this seems slightly less typical of the party than it once did.
Now if they could just get over their mania for all things from the EU I might be able to vote for them.
Tory Boy - seriously though, do you think ‘nice’ is what people vote for? Did people vote for Thatcher because they thought she was ‘nice’? And there did seem to be a fair few who wouldn’t vote Tory in 2005 because of Michael Howard, who was branded as ‘evil’.
185 – Jack – this is the nub of the argument – the Mail might, but do the Tories want nuLab out at any cost? For some, the cost of having Ken there might be one that they decide is too great.
This is all game theory stuff – for most people with a stake (i.e. Conservative party members) – they are faced with a choice between a high probability winner with a low payback in terms of giving them the Britain they want (Ken) if he wins the election or a low probability winner with a high probability of giving them what the want (whichever of the not-Ken candidates they like best).
I do agree that Ken is the only one amongst them likely to be in with a chance of winning the next election. For reasons best known to themselves the electorate and the BBC seem to have decided that they hate all Tories except Ken, but the Conservative party as a whole doesn’t seem to like Ken, and he doesn’t seem to like them much either. So neither Ken nor any of the not-Kens look like a particularly attractive proposition for them.
In our jobs, being a good speaker is a plus. In the world of politics, being a good speaker is not simply an asset. It is the main thing. What you actually say—it doesn’t really matter.
Which candidate is the best speaker? If you have to think about it, you’re not trying…
We had a meeting of the Lincoln Conservatives First Monday Social club last night and after receiving the following e mail from Ken Clarke 60% of the group now support his bid for the leadership.
> Dear Colleague,
>
>
>
> On Wednesday I announced that I am a candidate for
> the leadership of the Conservative Party. I wanted
> to tell you personally why I believe I am the
> candidate best placed to lead our Party and, after
> the next election, our country.
>
>
>
> Unless we broaden our Party’s appeal, we will never
> win power again. I believe that I have the popular
> appeal and experience to bring swing voters to our
> Party.
>
>
>
> It is likely that Gordon Brown will be Prime
> Minister by the next election. I have faced Mr
> Brown across the despatch box before and I would be
> delighted to do so again. I am confident that I
> have the experience in Government and Parliament to
> challenge Mr Brown’s economic record and his policy
> agenda for the future.
>
>
>
> But we need to do more than challenge the Labour
> Government. We need to set out our policy agenda
> for the Britain of today and tomorrow. We have to
> respond to the issues and problems that face people
> now - creating a strong economy, fighting terrorism,
> tackling the pensions crisis and providing good
> schools and hospitals.
>
>
>
> Our Party needs more than a new policy agenda to
> revive our electoral fortunes. We have to change as
> a Party too. That means building on our recent
> successes in local government. It also requires
> that we build a Party representative of all sections
> of British society. We must again be a truly
> national Party, with stronger representation in
> Scotland, Wales and the cities of England.
>
>
>
> I know that many of you have been concerned about my
> views on Europe. The euro is clearly off the agenda
> for a decade or more and the European Constitution
> is dead. It is time to put the battles over Europe
> behind us.
>
>
>
> I believe that we can win power again but we shall
> only do so if we really want to win. I want to lead
> a united team that works together to bring victory
> to our Party at the next election. I hope you will
> be part of that team.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Ken Clarke
>
>
>
> PS: You can follow my campaign on the website I have
> launched today, http://www.kenclarke.co.uk
Hears to more of it
Actually, JMD (112), John Redwood´s name was brought up fairly shortly after Howard announced his resignation. I, like you, thought he was the obvious and ideal choice for leader of the Tory Party.
Unfortunately, amost to a man, the Tory contributors to this site came out against him - I can´t understand why - but I suppose they have just got into the habit of choosing the wrong person.
208 How very unfortunate !
204. I would like one ‘genuine Gladstonian liberal’ in the Lib Dem party to please be named. People bandying this label about had better understand what it really means - not just gimcrackery like proposing to abolish the DTI but a whole economic strategy based on dismantling protectionism and intervention. That would meaning dismantling the NHS, radically reducing public spending and taxation and leaving the EU. Any takers among the Lib Dems for that?
What do Lib Dems stand for then?
[211] Gladstone was so opposed to state intervention that he spent much of his life regretting that he hadn’t nationalised the railways in the 1840s… try reading Roy Jenkins’ biography of him
206 cookie. A fair analysis. But the Tories DO have to choose. For my part our Ken offers the Tories the chance to get back in the game. I think it unlikely that even our Ken will win in 2009. Ken’s role will be as the Tory Kinnock - to reform the party and bring forward the talents of the party and prepare for government in 2103/14. One thing is sure like him or loathe him, with Ken as leader, the Tories will not be ignored over the next four years - Dull it certainly will not be !!
Clarke seems to be Charles kennedy with more gravitas: Man in pub with a bit of dosh.
But of course Tory don’t want anyone (a) popular or (b) competent - they wouldn’t be Tories otherwise now would they? - which is why they will presumably stil eventually choose ‘IDS with hair (or not?)’. And Tony Blair’s successor corners the ‘nicer’ (small c) conservative voters market yet again.
214.”of the party and prepare for government in 2103/14. ”
may dear Jack, is it a mistake and you meant 2013/14 or are you actually saying they’ll wait a century before winning an election again? I’m not sure Clarke will live so long to continue his party reform!
216 Andrea.
I have this odd feeling that even by 2114 the Tories would prefer Ken Livingstone to Ken Clarke ! Monkey glands is the answer …. so I’m told !!
213. He also promised to abolish income tax if he won the election of 1874. So obviously absolutely in tune with the Lib Dems.
188 - I wish that the Conservatives would indeed have followed Hayek to the letter when they were in the government. Such laws as section 28 proves they did not.
A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.
― F.A. Hayek
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.
― F.A. Hayek
There are plenty of Conservatives who consider themselves to be the true heirs to Gladstonic Liberalism. In fact, the National Liberal Club is full of them.
[219] Absolutely!! One Gladstonian Liberal- I think that there are many, and while the ideas in the Orange Book certainly include plenty of food for thought on that score it is not only “Orange Bookers” who retain the Liberal flame in the Lib Dems. Actually I would argue that the Liberal tradition was never entirely lost from the Liberal Party, and I think that we are rediscovering our intellectual inheritance every day. Liberal Liberal Democrats are persuading people, both inside and beyond the party, of the validity of Liberalism as a contemporary philosophy. The Conservatives, the party of clause 28, of Edward Leigh and Cornerstone and of the Daily Mail may pragmatically adopt some Liberal principles, but it is not and can not become a Liberal Party in any sense that Gladstone or Hayek would recognise.
Even Ken Clarke should have little trouble slamming the EU on their latest plan to make employers responsible if workers get too much sun.
Making builders and barmaids cover up is another example of the EU doing there best to put more people off the institution!
See the BBC Website for more!
Indeed Andy. I’m a member of the National Liberal Club myself (and had my wedding reception there.)
I find Gladstonian Liberalism attractive in principle, but I honestly don’t see it as practical politics these days. Governments (of all stripes) and the vast majority of voters are wedded to the idea that all social ills have an appropriate bureaucratic solution. One can try to change that viewpoint, but that is a process that will take decades to achieve. Political parties that can reasonably be said to be based on Gladstonian Liberalism, are niche parties like the German FDP, or the PDs in Eire. They enjoy quite a lot of upper middle class and intellectual support, but very little mass support.
It’s also hard to see how a Gladstonian Liberal Party could implement its policies successfully unless the surrounding culture was socially conservative, as Victorian Britain was. Social liberalism and an extensive welfare state just don’t work together.
222. Labour MEP Stephen Hughes’ version is different. The Socialist group is arguing that the right winged tabloids and politicians (Liz Lynne included) are cynically mis-interpretating the law.
http://www.socialistgroup.org/gpes/servlet/Main/NewsDetail~2?_wcs=true&lg=en&id=6141&focus=1
We should read that law before judging. does anyone have a link?
You’ve lost me, Sean - in the last line of [223]…
Yes, I didn’t put that too well. The point I’m trying to make is that a party that wanted to keep taxes and spending (as a proportion of GDP) at the same sort of level they were at 100 year ago would only be able to do so if the welfare state was a good deal smaller than it is today. That in turn would require a socially conservative culture which frowned on the sort of activities that place pressure on the social security budget, such as having children outside marriage, divorce, etc. and which was prepared to leave the unemployed to sink or swim.
Andrea, I suspect the proposed law would be unintelligible excpet to specialists in EU law. This is actually a very good example of what I alluded to in my earlier post; most politicians do actually regard a big part of their job as saving people from themselves.
[226] Now I follow you. Reducing tax levels to those of Gladstone’s day is about as likely as a socialist revolution, I’d've thought.
223 - “Political parties that can reasonably be said to be based on Gladstonian Liberalism, are niche parties like the German FDP, or the PDs in Eire.”
FDP in Switzerland, VVD in the Netherlands, VLD in Belgium, Venstre in Denmark and Reformierakond in Estonia have all been quite succesful, and they represent very similar views than the FDP in Germany and PDs in Ireland. Venstre and VLD are even currently the biggest parties in their countries, and FDP has traditionally been the most powerful party in Switzerland, though in recent years it has droppped to the third place, but is still in good position.
Did you choose FDP and PDs as examples because they suited your argument that a classical liberal party can’t succeed, or didn’t you just now about these other parties?
Another Hayek acolyte here, and as you may recall, any Clarke supporter (indeed, one can argue that by blending social and economic liberalism, Clarke is a better Hayekian than Fox, and possibly than Davis).
The strongest substantive argument against Clarke (age and BAT are largely ephemereal) is that he will split the party. This may be true, yet the last Conservative leader to “split the party” was a certain Mrs Margaret Thatcher. Both Thatcher (and indeed Blair) won three successive victories despite alienating a large portion of their own parties: the critique of Thatcherism by Heath, Gilmour, Pym, Prior et al. was nothing if not vitriolic (Dancing with Dogma by Gilmour is a fascinating “wet” Tory tirade contra Thatcher). Moreover, pre-1975 (and certainly during the 50s/60s), it can argued that the Heathite wing was actually in the majority - witness the treatment of the “proto-Thatcherite” Thorneycroft by Macmillan and Heath.
Yet regardless of her unpopularity with a large segment of the party, repeated election successes cemented her position. The simple truth is that, in the parliamentary party in particular, the poll ratings and the prospect of victory have a huge impact on loyalty. If Clarke wins and effects a Conservative revival, criticism will wane and the few shots from Cornerstone and Bruges will be pretty harmless. IDS, supposedly a more “authentic” Conservative - much more in line with Fox and Davis on policy - was dispatched fairly readily despite most activists supporting him in terms of ideological standpoints.
I think that activists are waking up to the fact that purity without power is pretty pointless. Personally, I supported IDS in 2001. I’ve spoken to several others in the local association who have undergone a similar conversion. Europe, which seemed such a big issue four years ago, is now off the radar. Other than that, I can think of few major policy disagreements that Ken has with the national party. Most Conservative voters now feel that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Regardless of his painting as a soft centrist, his time at Education and Health was characterised by tackling vested interests in the public sector unions.
Of course Clarke is not ideal. A perfect candidate would be younger, have helped with the Shadow Cabinet, be less divisive, have fewer dubious business connections, have a more Euro-realist approach and be a few stone lighter. That perfect candidate does not exist. Clarke is the best option available - our party needs to face up to reality and pick him.
(I must admit that Venstre in Denmark has within government become more conservative than it used to be, but it became the biggest party when it was still clearly considered a classical liberal party, so there isn’t a reason why a classical liberal party couldn’t succeed. Its leader, the current Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has even written a book called “From Social State to Minimal State” (Fra socialstat til minimalstat) in 1993, but has changed some of his views in the government.)
The Belgian Liberals are socially liberal (in some respects) but in economic terms are indistinguishable from their Socialist allies. The Dutch Liberals are both socially and economically liberal, but are almost always the junior coalition partners to either the Labour Party or the Christian Democrats.
About the Danish, Estonian, and Swiss Liberals, I know nothing at all.
230. Another Alex. Excellent post !! Be careful or you’ll be branded another of my so called alter egos ……. that is apart from the better spelling, grammar, lucidity and absence of Jacobite references !!
Thinking further about it, I think that both Dutch and Danish Liberals have based much of their recent appeal on taking a very hard line against Muslim immigration, and against multiculturalism.
“Of course Clarke is not ideal. A perfect candidate would be younger, have helped with the Shadow Cabinet, be less divisive, have fewer dubious business connections, have a more Euro-realist approach and be a few stone lighter. That perfect candidate does not exist. Clarke is the best option available - our party needs to face up to reality and pick him”
That does sound like damning with faint praise if ever I heard it.
235 Sean. Yes, but what does it say about the others ?!?!?
“That in turn would require a socially conservative culture which frowned on the sort of activities that place pressure on the social security budget, such as having children outside marriage, divorce, etc. and which was prepared to leave the unemployed to sink or swim.”
I don’t see the connection. Freedom comes with responsibility, and that means that people are responsible for themselves, not that somebody else, like the state, would take the responsibility. People can take insurances for the possibility of unemployment, and there is always charity for those who can’t.
Some people can be single parent without state support, others can get support from the other parent, even in the case they aren’t married, or other relatives, or find another person with whom they can raise their children, or in extreme cases give their children adopted. What is different to the Gladstone era is also that contraception has been invented. If people would know that the nanny state doesn’t come to help, they might be more careful.
The point is, that you are mistakenly assuming, that truly liberal politics are driving towards the same end you are, and that like you, they wouldn’t really trust that the free markets would have the best result.
234- Sean Fear, don’t the Netherlands have 2 Liberal parties? Is it right or am I confusing the Netherlands with another country?
So would you be prepared to advocate, as part of your manifesto , that people who had children they couldn’t support, or who were out of work, or developed drink or drug problems, could expect no support from the state? I don’t have any intellectual objection to this, but I doubt if it would prove electorally popular.
“The Belgian Liberals are socially liberal (in some respects) but in economic terms are indistinguishable from their Socialist allies. The Dutch Liberals are both socially and economically liberal, but are almost always the junior coalition partners to either the Labour Party or the Christian Democrats.”
The Belgian Liberals are also economically liberal (and considered to be economically on the Right side of the Christian Democrats), but in the coalition with the Socialists, and before last election also with the Greens, they have been unable to express their economical liberalism, which is still clearly visible in their programs.
As for the Dutch Liberals, they have been in government nonstop since 1998, first in coalition with Socialist, then with Christian Democrats ,which has consumed their support. However, in 1998 they got 24,7% of the vote, and thus became the second party of the Netherlands after the Socialist, and before the Christian Democrats. I remember that soon after that they became the biggest party in a local or provinical election. However, after the populist politician Pim Fortuyn had reshuffled the pack, in 2002 GE VVD dropped to the third place after CDA and LPF, but remained bigger than the socialists. In last elections, in 2003, Socialists rose to the second place after having been refreshing themselves in opposition, but the LPF lost most of its supports, and VVD remained in the third place.
Still, as whole, I think they have managed well despite the circumstances. As you can see from this chart http://www.parties-and-elections.de/netherlands2.html the development of their support has been very favourable on the long-term. I’m sure that next time they fall into opposition, they will be able to win back the lost support.
And though they have been paying in last elections for being in government, they have been also able to achieve many of their objectives.
Guys whilst I am flattered by the occasion reference, I never was, nor am I ever likely to be, a member of the Lib Dems. So references to the Lib Dems “having me back” are ludicrous!
I am far to liberal, economically and socially, and much too democratically minded to ever join the Lib Dems! lol
240. Isn’t D66 a liberal party too? If so, what’s the difference between them and VVD?
“Thinking further about it, I think that both Dutch and Danish Liberals have based much of their recent appeal on taking a very hard line against Muslim immigration, and against multiculturalism.”
Read 231. Venstre didn’t win in 2001 because of a conservative program, the conservative line they have been practising in the government is due to fact that they are in a minority government and dependent on the support of a Right-wing populist (and naturally xenophobic) party, which they have had to satisfy. And that caused a drop in Venstre’s support in 2005, though it remained the biggest party.
As for the VVD, that is not so clear. The most vocal critic has been Hirsi Ali, herself a muslim and a MP of VVD. The criticism has been aimed mainly towards they way Islam treats women, and such things.
And as I have lived several years in the Netherlands myself, I must say that calling VVD just a “junior partner” is a strong understatement. Though they have been slightly smaller than CDA and the Socialist, it seems to me that they have dictated their demands to the government policy.
242. Isn’t D66 a liberal party too? If so, what’s the difference between them and VVD?
VVD is a more classical liberal party, and much bigger. D66 is what could be called a “new liberal” or “left liberal” party. VVD is concerned mainly of both economical and personal liberty, while D66 is concerned of personal liberty and developing of the political process. While they were in coalition with the socialists, the conscription was abolished, the gay marriage legalised, as well as the prostitution (the latter which had been tolerated, but wasn’t formally legal).
There is a very similar situation in Denmark, where Venstre is the big, more classical liberal party, and Radical Venstre the smaller, new liberal or left liberal party.
230 - ” A perfect candidate would be younger, have helped with the Shadow Cabinet, be less divisive, have fewer dubious business connections, have a more Euro-realist approach and be a few stone lighter. ”
Sounds like David Davis to me.
Thank you for that information Hmmm. While there certainly are larger economically and socially liberal parties than I had in mind, I think that it is far easier for them to achieve the socially, rather than the economically, liberal part of their agenda.
244. Thanks Hmmm.
237 - In the real world , the sort of freedoms of choice that you say people have are in effect only available to the wealthy . The poorer people and even those not so poor but struggling to pay council tax and mortgage do not have the financial resources to pay for unemployment insurance , health care insurance , private pensions etc etc . Your next argument will then be of course that with contraception availability they should not have children either making parenthood the preserve of the wealthy too .
I am sorry , Hmmm , that is not my definition of a Liberal society
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1768741,00.html
According to a survey of of 100 Conservative association chairmen made by The Times Clarke is their preferred choice.
Populus poll (always in The Times):
Labour led by Brown 39%
Conservative led by Clarke 37%
Labour led by Brown 43%
Tory led by Davis 33%
249. Those numbers suggest a big fall in support for Lib Dems/Others. If the others have held their ground (and they were up to 10% in the last Populus poll) then the Lib Dems would be down to around 16%. It will be interesting to see how the questions were phrased, and whether Kennedy featured in the list of options.
Rik [241], I feel you are regressing into woolly thinking again, so you are not really fit yet to come back into the Lib Dems.
You have already admitted that you were once a subscribing member of the SDP, which took over the Liberal Party and became the Liberal Democrats. So the idea of your “coming back” is entirely appropriate. Lib Dems are always open to accepting a repentant sinner, and indeed there recently has been much talk about you in Lib Dem circles following your bitter attack on a former Tory Prime Minister.
However, you said “I am far to (sic) liberal, economically and socially, and much too democratically minded to ever join the Lib Dems! lol”
This is a very odd statement, even coming from a former Tory Parliamentary candidate (for Sutton & Cheam). Can you please:-
a. explain what you mean? and
b. provide evidence?
And why, oh why, at the end of your message, do you suddenly break into maniac laughter?
I am worried about you, Rik, and I think I am not alone. Why do you not talk things over quietly with your wife? It might help.
230 Another Alex An excellent post. There is one weakness to the KC theorem. I don’t think he can win.
Pessimists and opponents of the Tory party will say that the task of winning in the next GE from our current base is too difficult. In which case Ken’s chance at power would not be until he was 75. But in truth if he lost in 2010 he could not ‘soldier on’. He cannot take a long term view. He has one shot only. And that limitation has serious consequences.
If, like me, you believe we can win in 2010 is Ken the man to do it? If he is and he did how long would he be able to keep the job of PM in terms of health and vitality. As a proposition at the next election he would not be a very convincing longer term candidate that offered continuity and security. People would know that win or lose he would have to plunge us into another leadership contest during the next parliament. Pretending anything else would be a fabulous own goal.
The Tory party has to think about issues like that. We do not need or want leadership elections every four or five years. As we have seen it tends to make the real job of creating an effective opposition that is preparing for government rather tricky.
Can Ken win? He is portrayed by many journos as the winner for the Tories. But it is one thing to win a beauty contest opinion poll on the leadership before the other candidates have fought the good fight, and quite another to win a real poll after the other parties have had a good crack at demolishing the winner. Ken is particularly vulnerable to the past especially in terms of his record in health and education. His Labour and LibDem opponents, all younger but apparently as experienced, will hammer his age and his ability to connect, and BAT will be far from ephemeral when it comes to those black arts that Campbell wields so well. Coats will be trailed, books will appear, hints will be dropped , comedians will be primed. One Kinnockian stumble on a beach, one Third World child worker photoed with a smiling Ken while her little fingers are rolling cigars and it would all be over but the grieving.
As Ken has one shot at the prize he will be tempted to go for broke and that could lead to serious mistakes and unforced errors. His very low popularity rating at the end of the Thatcher and Major years was largely because he came across as detached and contemptuous, something party members also have felt. Any series of fruity put downs of ordinary people or their concerns would have the pack baying for the Hush Puppies.
If he had been a little more sensitive to the party and the people on Europe in 1997 I would have gone for Ken like a shot. But now is not then and time and the environment have moved on. The last thing we need is an old man in a hurry who simply sees the party as a vehicle for his long cherished ambition. He is a party animal not a party man.
250. Lorcan, the Libdems are around 18-19% in that poll (look at the article linked).
B2W [252] KC’s record (as remembered by non-wonks) is as Chancellor, and that was excellent. GB inherited very healthy public finances, which has meant that it is taking loads longer for the socialist govt ‘to run out of money, as they all do, sooner or later’. (A typical KC quote).
But the biggest mistake is to under-estimate the importance of public persona, public speaking and telly-friendliness. That is the huge edge KC has over all the other candidates, and thats what wins elections. To confuse that with ‘name recognition’ is self-deluding at best.
Should the tories have had him as leader before? Not if he’d taken us into the Euro, thanks.
Some scepticism must be applied to these polls. Clarke has just launched his election campaign and got a fair bit of favorable publicity. Davis, for example, has hardly been seen for weeks. It is not totally surprising that Clarke is polling well, not least because he will have “converted” (however temporarily) a fair number of ‘don’t knows’. His current numbers could be seen as akin to a party conference boost (which can often be worth a large percentage rise). It will inevitably fade unless a serious bandwagon gets going - presumably Davis is just holding fire to see if it will run out of steam.
[232] There are two Estonian Parties- Keskerakond (The Centre Party) and Reformerakond (The Reform Party)- that are members of Liberal International. However having met many members of all parties in the Estonian Riigikogu, the gaps between all the parties, from Social Democrats on the left to Isamaaliit on the right are smaller than the gaps within the UK Lib Dems. The current coalition is Reform-Kesk, under Reform PM, Andrus Ansip. In power, they have maintained the limited state philosophy (also flat taxes-the first to do so in Europe). In fact I think it fair to say that Estonia is the prototypical Neo-Gladstonian state.
255. Alex. My assessment is that Davis is very aware of the fate of front runners in previous elections and his tactic is to keep a low profile until when it really matters.
The real problem he has got is that he is not a natural speaker and does not come over well on TV. The big danger for him could come at Blackpool when delegates and the media will be only too keen to compare his performance with the other contenders.
I have got a strong feeling that Sir Malcolm Rifkind might come over very well in this context and, for the first time ever, I have made a small political bet.
For Rik W to say he is too democratically minded gave me a big laugh… so presently he is a member of a party which apparently supports taking the vote away from its members and majority rule on a minority of the vote? Come on Rik you can do better than that for insults surely?
256 - Keskerakond is actually a populist party built around the personality of Edgar Savisaar, and it is probably on the left side of the Social Democrats. (See for instance here.)
Liberal International has from the nineties accepted also some non-liberal centrist parties as its members. Other examples include the Centre Parties in Finland and Sweden, and at least used to include Centro Democrático y Social in Spain, but I have a faint memory that the latter might have been dismissed from LI.
Though Reformierakond isn’t the biggest party of Estonia, in most cases it has had the chance to choose its coalition partners, and thus it has had a lot of influence to the Estonian politics, perhaps more than any other party since Estonia regained its independence. As it has been long time in the government, it is generally considered to represent the continuity.
Re. Venstre - really not much like the Lib Dems I’m afraid. Roots are as a farmers’ party and lately very conservative in areas like immigration. So much so that Norwegian and Swedish liberals have called for Venstre to be excluded from the international ‘liberal’ forums. Fogh Rasmussen himself now calls liberalism ‘outdated’. Not that liberal in the economic sphere either - only in favour of very minor reforms to the extreme welfarism of Denmark.
254 David Kendrick My thesis is that the public’s memory will soon be refreshed by our opponents. A long history in politics is not a bar to being leader but we do need to recognise that the longer the career the more bodies there are to unearth.
This has to be an important element in the judgement about a leader. Not the only one. In one sense this is all excellent news. If the electoral system stays unchanged, as it should, and Ken can still win the leadership, then he will be unstoppable in 2010 if we all get behind him. But we shall need a good storyboard to deal with the past and the immediate aging future.
It would be ironic indeed if KC won the leadership because he enjoyed the backing of party members, as opposed to MPs. While I think the Populus poll overstates his support among party Chairmen and supporters (Yougov gave DD the lead among Conservative voters a couple of months ago), it’s plain just how important Europe is to Conservatives, and just how much good KC has done to his prospects by ditching support for the Euro and the EU Constitution. Had he done so four years ago, it’s likely he would have won.
A word of warning to those who are adding the 12% net “more likely to vote Tory” onto the 32% Tory vote and getting 44% - that isn’t what the 12% means. Twenty per cent would be “more likely to vote Tory” - but that isn’t broken down by current preference or by whether or not “More likely” means “Actually will”.
The 8% who would be “less likely” are similarly unknown.
For all we know, the 8% less likely could be committed Tories who will definitely not vote Tory if KC is leader, and the 20% more likely could be Lib Dems/Labour who are going from 0% to 5% likelihood to vote Tory (or even those who did reluctantly vote Tory last time and would be happier doing so with KC in charge).
Alternatively, he could have decreased the likelihood of those who wouldn’t anyway and increased the likelihood of waverers.
Which would mean that he would have 24%-52% of the vote. That’s quite a range, and is really meaningless.
The Populus poll today is a better way of doing it (who would you vote for if …), although I’d agree with the caveats of those who have already pointed out the “conference” style boost that KC has over the others at the moment. A series of such polls over a month or two would be genuinely informative.
The VVD was in government in the following periods: 1958-1966; 1967-1972; 1978-1981; 1982-1989 and since 1994. They have never been the largest party in any coalition, but have usually been very successful in influencing policy. Especially in the late 1970s and in the 1980s their economic agenda – pro employer, cutting taxes and social benefits, anti state, liberalising – formed the basis of the governments economic policies. Their decision in 1994 to go into coalition with Labour opened the door for finally tackling a number of non-materialistic issues, like the gay marriage. At the same time that decision meant a blurring of the perception of the voters of what the party really stood for. This led to a significant number of their voters, won from the Christian Democrats in the 1990s, returning to that party in 2002 and 2003. the party is still struggling to regain those voters.
Although Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes from a Muslim background, I doubt whether she still considers herself to be one.
To make clear the difference between VVD and D66 is not easy, especially since they have been in coalition since 1994 (with a few months interruption during the first Balkenende administration). The main differences are on social issues and not so much on economic. One bone of contention is how much of our liberties can be surrendered in the fight against the threat of terrorism.
Policy wise D66 probably is the Dutch equivalent of the Lib Dems; it portrays itself as the Greenest of all the parties. The party gets its support disproportionally from people with higher education qualifications and with a “Guardian” perspective on life. The party has lost a number of activists recently, who thought the party has gone to far to the right.
The VVD is more of a mix of Tories and Lib Dems, with a lot of support from self employed people and high earners. A significant part of its appeal is based on its image as a tax cutting party. Their latest advance started from 1989 when its then new leader Frits Bolkestein started talking about the possible disadvantages of immigration. He was the first mainstream politician to do so. Green issues are usually not high on the agenda and the environment must take second place to the economy. Within the party a battle is raging between Conservatives and Liberals about the future direction of the party.
248 - Mark Senior wrote “I am sorry , Hmmm , that is not my definition of a Liberal society”
Though I enjoy greatly discussing political philosophy, this is probably the wrong forum for that. Its purpose is different, and the message board formate makes profound conversation somewhat difficult, though not impossible. Therefore I will try to keep this as short as possible.
Liberalism in its core is not a consequentalist ideology like some others, where the end would justify the means. More important than what is the outcome is the process, how the people are treated.
The point of liberalism is to give individuals the freedom to make their own decisions - and to meet the consequences of their decisions. If a group of “wiser” people are to plan what should be the outcome of the process, that means, that the individuals must be forced in one way or another to work for that particular outcome. (That is how planned economy works. Individuals don’t have responsibility as somebody else makes the decisions for them, but that also means that the individuals can’t have freedom.)
The supposition of Sean Fear in 226 was, that the objective of a liberal policy (I’m not here discussing the policy of Lib Dems, but the theoretical policy based on classical liberalism, which Gladstone represented to a certain point) would have the same objectives and priorities than he does, that if the process would lead to different outcome than wanted, the process would be altered. What he doesn’t understand, is tha in classical liberalism the process has the priority over the outcome.
That might sound cruel to somebody, but just look at the societies, where the outcome has had the priority, and where individuals have been subjected to the “greater good”. Planned economy - do I need to say more?
However, in 237 I tried also to demonstrate with my examples, that giving people the freedom to make their own decisions and the responsibility of their own decisions might not automatically lead to an ultimate disaster, as Sean Fear suggested. But as I am not a consequentalist, for me it is more important that people are treated fairly than that the outcome is optimal. It happens to be, that giving people freedom has also lead to a better results for the whole society than enslaving them. Therefore though the classical liberals in 18th and 19th centuries didn’t perhaps pay much attention to the outcome of the prosess, but to the prosess itself, the outcome was also better than later in those societies, where the process has been subordinated to the outcome.
I quoted Hayek earlier in this thread, did you notice this quote:
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.
― F.A. Hayek
There are more of them, which are based on the same principle:
From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.
― F.A. Hayek
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.
― F.A. Hayek
To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be […] controlled in everything.
― F.A. Hayek
The more the state plans, the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.
― F.A. Hayek
- And you can find the same principle from all other liberal thinkers, who matter. Of course there are some who are liberal only by name, and in reality socialists, but liberalism has a tradition which is over 300 years old, and by examining it as a whole, you’ll soon find out who really represents that tradition and who only exploits its reputation.
In practise, if we look at the political parties, none of the current ones (at least none of the ones which have any kind of power) represent an ideology in its pure form. And not even the Liberal Party in Gladstone’s era did. Probably that is not even possible, probably a party which would represent pure liberalism or pure socialism or pure conservatism wouldn’t get much support. (But then again, I’m not a partisan, who would be maximising his partie’s support at the expense of the ideology, I’m more interested in the ideology itself.)
However, whether there is a party which represents liberalism or not, that doesn’t change the definition of liberalism or liberal society into something more politically correct or generally acceptable. Liberalism is not something the liberal parties do, it is an ideology carved by many great thinkers and based on few simple principles, or maybe just one. Immanuel Kant has expressed it as follows:
“No-one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end which can be reconciled with the freedom of everyone else within a workable general law i.e. he must accord to others the same right as he enjoys himself.”
As for the “Middle way”, it is just that. It is not liberalism, it is not socialism, it is something in between.
I wish this answer was exhaustive, as I wouldn’t like to come back to it at least in this thread.
265. Hmmm a pretty good description I think of what classical liberalism is about. And your point about no political party representing it now or even in the past is correct too - although I think the mid-19th century Liberal Party in the UK had a great deal of influence from the classical liberal tradition, especially in the economic sphere. Gladstone himself defected from the Tories to the Liberals over the issue of protectionism in agriculture and the uglier side of the ideology can be seen in the Liberal government of the late 1840s opposing proposals to give direct food aid to Ireland during the famine on the grounds it would undermine Free Trade. The Lib Dems today, despite the fantasising of some posters on this site, have very little in common with this approach. Their competition for votes with the emerging Labour party at the turn of the century sent them inevitably in a collectivist direction and there they firmly remain.
265. Hmmm a pretty good description I think of what classical liberalism is about. And your point about no political party representing it now or even in the past is correct too - although I think the mid-19th century Liberal Party in the UK had a great deal of influence from the classical liberal tradition, especially in the economic sphere. Gladstone himself defected from the Tories to the Liberals over the issue of protectionism in agriculture and the uglier side of the ideology can be seen in the Liberal government of the late 1840s opposing proposals to give direct food aid to Ireland during the famine on the grounds it would undermine Free Trade. The Lib Dems today, despite the fantasising of some posters on this site, have very little in common with this approach. Their competition for votes with the emerging Labour party at the turn of the century sent them inevitably in a collectivist direction and there they firmly remain.
“There are but two commandments -
1 Obey the law.
2 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ”
Is that a fair precursor of Gladstone Liberalism and a fair summary of your position, Hmmm ?
I very much doubt if Gladstone would have regarded Alisteir Crowley as a follower.
263 - Whilst I’m always sceptical, like yourself, of “more likely/less likely” questions, the Times’ poll today (as reported by Andrea at 249) conveys two interesting facts. Firstly, constituency chairmen are far more likely to back Ken now than in 2001, perhaps due to a greater hunger for power; perhaps due to Europe being a non-issue. Secondly, when asked a straight question of voting intentions with Davis or Clarke at the helm (versus Brown), Clarke has a 4% edge over Davis. Davis is still stuck in the 30-33% cage; Clarke is well into the high-30s. This may be “recognition” factor, but the very fact that DD has failed to develop any form of public persona despite being the supposed front-runner leads me to suspect that he will transpire to be a rather grey leader a la IDS.
245 - Or, indeed, IDS in 2001!
265 , Hmmm , I agree that this forum is not the ideal place to debate a subject as complex as this . In general I think we would both agree that is important to give individuals more freedom to choose for themselves but you do not answer my previous point that in effect in our society that only the wealthy would have freedom of choice .
Take as an example University Education . Under your minimal state , anyone wishing to have a University Education would have to fund this themselves . You would presumably be happy as they would have freedom of choice whether to do so or forgo further education . In practice the wealthy could make that choice but the poor would not have a choice at all .
In fact let us take it a stage further . Complete freedom of choice and a complete minimilist state would mean no free education for anyone even at age 5 but presumably your purist view would be happy with a situation where a child receives no education at all because poor parents have exercised their individual freedom to spend what little they have on food/private health insurance/beer or something else rather than school fees .
268 tomthumb: ““There are but two commandments -
1 Obey the law.
2 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ”
Is that a fair precursor of Gladstone Liberalism and a fair summary of your position, Hmmm?”
Here I am going back, though I didn’t want to, but as that is such a clear misunderstanding of what I said, I guess I’ll have to clarify my position.
First, Gladstone, as any successful politician, was not a pure classical liberal. He only observed the classical liberal principles in general, but made several exceptions to the rule. But relatively, if we compare to most other politicians, he was a classical liberal.
Second, as an answer to your question whether that is a fair summary of my position: No. That is a positivist point of view, where whatever is the (written) law, it must be obeyed. But I’m a supporter of the natural law theory, which means, that what is justice, is not dependent on what is included to the written law.
And as I said, I don’t believe that the end would justify the means. Even the means which you use when you are striving to a goal which is not in conflict with the natural law, must not break that same law. Nozick called these the moral constraints. So it is not OK to do anything in means to striving to a morally acceptable goal.
260 - Fred, as I said in 231 and 243, Venstre has in the government turned to a more conservative policy, at least partly because it has to satisfy the xenophobic Danish People’s Party, the support of which the minority government is dependent on. However, before 2005 general elections, when Venstre was still in opposition, it could have been described as a market liberal party, and my point to Sean Fear was, that a party which such policy can win the elections.
267 - Fred, the difficulty when we discuss an ideology is that in practise a party representing a pure ideology can’t survive in a democracy. If the voters wouldn’t abandon it, and it would be succesful, soon the power-thirsty opportunists would take it over. Therefore, when discussing parties, we can call them for instance “classical liberal” only in a relative meaning of the word, as compared to the other parties.
271 - First, let me get this straight: There is no such thing as “free education”. Education is always paid for by somebody. In a welfare state they are paid by taxes, but they are still paid. Most people, after being freed from taxes, could afford paying for their children’s education, after all, they are paying for it now with taxes. For the rest, in a wealthy society, there would be free places, charity, etc. Naturally a poor society might have not what to tax, and therefore most of the children couldn’t get education, no matter if the state would be a minimal state or a socialist state. Of course, a society with a minimal state has better chances to get rich, as the private initiative isn’t suppressed.
As for university education, it is an investment. If the education might give the student chance to better earning later, it is profitable to take loan to finance your studies. And if the education doesn’t pay itself in latter better incomes, it is not profitable to the whole society to finance it, either. But I think there would be scholarships for talented students, as there is already now in many countries.
And as for the “positive” liberty, providing choices, they always mean that somebody else must have the obligation to provide the choice, by paying taxes for instance, and that means that people are treated differently in means to to place them in an equal position. As I said, I’m not that interested of the outcome than of the fact how people are treated. I might suffer myself of the prosess, as I’m not my self very well-off, but that is not an issue for me, the issue is whether people are treated fairly or whether they are not.
274 - Yes OK ” free education ” still costs society as a whole but I would argue that having every child educated at school is a benefit to society as a whole well worth paying .
I have yet to see any hard evidence that it is a true statement that ” Of course , a society with a minimalist state has better chances to get rich as the private initiative isn’t suppressed .” is true as a whole or even in any of it’s components .
[275] Mark, “Hmmm” has repeatedly said he is only interested in process, not outcomes. So pointing to the absurdity or wickedness of the outcome of his misunderstanding of Hayek isn’t going to work
274, 276 - so charity and scholarships don’t seem particularly relevant, since on this view nobody’s right would be violated by their absence: i.e. the process would be valid even if that were its outcome.
276 - I A , I take your point but similar theories such as Reagan’s theory of trickle down benefits to the poor from tax cuts to the wealthy seldom have hard evidence to show they work rather than a repeated mantra that they do . I personally would put flat tax in the same boat unless someone can come up with better evidence that it works rather than the Estonians and Greeks are doing it so it must be good .
242 - Both the VVD and D66 are members of Liberal International and the Liberal Group in the European Parliament.
277 - BV , the recent disaster in New Orleans would reinforce your view . In a minimalist state there would have been no help at all for the hurricane victims who would have to fend for themselves or rely on charitable aid from people in neighbour states who would be less prepared to give help knowing that they may need to keep what resources they have in case a future disaster struck themselves .
To me , minimilist state equates to one in which society as a whole would disintegrate into selfish anarchy .
280 - yes. I will remain in my woolly/pragmatic-contingent (delete as appropriate) view that the goal of politics is the balancing of the often-competing goods of “negative” and “positive” liberty.
273. ‘Before the 2005 elections when Venstre was in opposition’….err sorry Venstre won the 2001 election and formed the government afterwards in coalition with the Conservatives and informal support from Danske Folkeparti. They were re-elected in 2005. Sorry again but the 2001 election was absolutely dominated by debates over immigration, with Venstre making this a central plank of their policy platform. They didn’t take this approach in order to keep the parliamentary support of Danske Folkeparti as you suggest but rather a) to try to avoid losing too many votes to them and b) because they sensed the public mood wanted a hard line on immigration.
Hmmm at 272 - I think you overlooked the Second Commandment. Taken in conjunction with the First, it must result in agreement with your basic point that there are no ends, only means, because if you, for example, prevent me from doing whatever I want, you breach the First Commandment. Similarly doing whatever I want is illegal if it prevents you from doing whatever you want. Moving on, did the Good Samaritan observe the First Commandment ?
276, Innocent Abroad: “So pointing to the absurdity or wickedness of the outcome of his misunderstanding of Hayek isn’t going to work”
Dear Innocent, have you ever read Hayek?
“I have yet to see any hard evidence that it is a true statement that “Of course , a society with a minimalist state has better chances to get rich as the private initiative isn’t suppressed .”"
That was of course a mere detail, not the point, but isn’t it enough to compare what liberalism did for those countries which opened their economies in the 19th century (or in some cases, like in some Asian countries, in the 20th century) with what socialism did for those countries which adopted it in the 20th century? My favourite comparison is North and South Korea, which started about from the same level, maybe the North was a bit richer, and look at them now. Of course South Korea is not purely liberal, but its economy has grown much quicker than the economy in some countries, which have had less liberal economical policy. And there are other examples. If that’s not enough for you, I don’t know, what is.
285 - But Hmmm , the choice is not black and white between your version of Economic Liberalism and Socialism . The choice is infinite between the two extremes and all points in between . So , of course your example of North and South Korea is not even close to being good enough for me .
280 - “In a minimalist state there would have been no help at all for the hurricane victims…” So can I now ask for your evidence? You seem to assume, that people don’t help the other voluntarily, so they must be forced to do it. So where do they get the angels to rule them? As I like to quote liberal thinkers, and we are discussing here about United States, I’d like to quote Thomas Jefferson: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” And especially I agree totally with this one: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
282. My mistake. I meant 2001, not 2005. I said it in 243, but made a mistake in 273.
But I think we come back to another point about Victorian society Hmmm. It was Christian. About half the population attended Church every week, and Christianity really mattered to much more than half the population. The Victorian Upper and Middle Classes gave a lot of their money to charity, and devoted much of their spare time to charitable activity. How would your ideal work in a society such as ours, which is secular, and in which private charitable activity is far less significant than it was in the late nineteenth century?
As a whole, this is one of the reasons why I don’t prefer to talk ideology in a message board. Behind the anonymity it is too easy to use personal insults and contemptuous remarks instead of real arguments, and people will gang up to lynch people with differing views. Therefore I think I will now say good bye.
287 - The evidence is overwhelming Hmmm , The government being minimalist would have neither the financial or equipment resources to launch a major rescue operation and whilst individuals across the USA or even world may like to help , they could do nothing meaningful to give any aid other than perhaps prayer .
What Mark Senior is saying, is that non-governmental organisations such as Red Cross are useless. Thank God governments are omnipotent, otherwise in some countries there might be hunger and poverty…
292 - I said nothing of the sort . What I said was that the New Orleans disaster ( and the earlier tsunami disaster ) showed the importance of an immediate large scale rescue operation . Hours count never mind days and the only viable source of such large-scale relief is from government resourses . Red Cross and others have a part to play but at a later date .
U.S. Government has employed police and army to the rescue operation. Police and army happen to be also part of a minimal state, or aren’t you able to distinguish anarchy from a minimal state?
If you look at post 274 for example, I don’t see where the case for minarchism as opposed to anarcho-capitalism has been made here.
“There is no such thing as “free education”. Education is always paid for by somebody. In a welfare state they are paid by taxes, but they are still paid.”
The same could be said for the military and police. You can’t conscript them - that would violate their rights - so you have to tax others to pay them at such rates as would entice them to volunteer.
And as for the “positive” liberty, providing choices, they always mean that somebody else must have the obligation to provide the choice, by paying taxes for instance, and that means that people are treated differently in means to to place them in an equal position.
Likewise, people have differing abilities to defend themselves and their property (or to pay others to do it for them), whether against criminals or foreign invaders. So the existence of state-funded military and police treats people differently in order to place them in an equal position as regards the effectiveness with which they and their property are defended.
I am aware of - though not convinced by - the arguments which justify a minarchy (but nothing more) over an anarchy. But I don’t think they emerge from what has been argued here.
294 - OK Then please tell us exactly what your minimalist state will consist of , you have mentioned police and armed forces but not numbers - anything or anyoneelse ? Doctors , nurses all needed in New Orleans but sadly too few and/or too late .