The unbearable blandness of being … a Tory moderniser David Cameron, the young lion of the left of the Conservative Party … and the centre … and everywhere, really, where desperate men dream, has spoken. And he has written. So there is no longer any cause for doubt about what this blank-faced, almost smart, tolerably personable font of ambition stands for. Besides himself, of course. We have been told. We have, in fact, been told this:-
Oh dear. Changed. Attractive. The man has been thinking about change and attraction. As if the electoral angst of politicians hadn’t done enough to change Conservatism and repel people already. What, young lion, is the history of post-Reform Conservatism but the failed effort to adapt to the sinking game of One-Man-One-Vote democracy and a liberal polity?
Alright, you want to get elected, I understand that. Kinnock and Hattersley and poor dead John Smith and Blair and Brown all used to say the same thing in their wilderness years. Can’t do nowt without power. Politicians want power. Not for themselves, of course … oh no. For the people … the country … the party ... the revolution. Whatever. Politicians want power for all the best reasons and yours, apparently, are these:- 1) To improve the quality of life . You mentioned prosperity in the same Vosne Romanee perfumed breath, it’s true. But it is clear that you take its creation not just as a David Cameron thing but as a given. Given a Conservative Chancellor. So when we examine your utterances for the money quote we are left with the quality of life issue. Which in the modern parlance of angst-ridden Tories translates to supporting the Blair dispensation on the mixed economy. The NHS, state educashun, educashun, educashun and all the plethora of locally delivered “services” that don’t really work that well. In a nutshell, the belief that it is nice - as well as essential - to be nice, and the country thinks state provision is very nice thank you. In fact, it doesn’t have to think at all if the state acts in its name. And that’s nice, too. But what’s it got to do with Conservatism? What’s it got to do with the ancient and subtle, practical, vivifying political gift of stability and, thereby, freedom? 2) To be compassionate . Well, yes, we’ve just done that. It’s very nice to throw other people’s money at “people in Britain and the world who are least able to help themselves”. Warm. Cuddly. Very, very nice. But what the hell has it got to do with Conservatism? No, that’s right. Absolutely nothing. It is simply a bribe to the electorate’s moral nature - so terrified are you, little lion toy, of some socialist saying the “n” word. Not “nice”, of course. Not even “Nazi”, though that would be something. No, it’s Kitten Shoes’ “nasty party” … the worst thing that can be said to a Conservative. Forget it. There is no compassion in confiscating taxes for charitable ends. There is only the self-indulgence of the confiscator and the laziness of the confiscatee. 3) And to be modern … and generally up for “the challenges of today’s Britain and offering effective solutions”. Translation: yet more shameless Tory obeisance to modernity? Well, puss, it’s goddamned modernity that got Tories into this fine mess in the first place. In your conference speech you said, “… we have a message that is relevant to people’s lives today, that shows we’re comfortable with modern Britain, and that we believe our best days lie ahead.” But what has relevancy to do with Conservatism? It’s goddamned relevancy that got Tories … Surely, your precious message has much more to do with Blairism. You are telling us that you are the little Tory Tony “comfortable” with his Marxist vision of an elite-managed, melting pot Britain of single mums, betrayed and silenced natives and mythical go-getter ethnics just waiting to be set “free to turn neighbourhoods around”, provide for the old white folk’s pensions (why would they, though?) and on no account do what they’ve always done in the history of humanity. Be themselves. Do you know anything about humanity? Anything at all about that most depressing of diversities, human biodiversity? You seem not to, since you wholly accept the left-liberal prescription that “family breakdown, poor housing, and low aspirations” are a consequence of economic circumstances and plain bad luck. All that’s missing is the usual suspects’ excuse of institutional white racism. But they can’t mean you, because in your speech to Conference you said this …
OK, you make like you are straight-talking. Politically very chic. Very “tough love”. But surely, old man, I mean, with all due consideration of the issues and all that, and very grave they are too, but surely what you said is, well … that’s … bollocks isn’t it. I mean, that stuff about Darfur. That’s absolutely, cringingly embarrassing, hyper-idealistic garbage of the first order. For pity’s sake, get a grip. Ask yourself what has Darfur and sub-Saharan Africa got to do with Conservatism? You know … Conservatism. The philosophy of the Conservative Party you would lead and, God help us, probably will, and must carry to the doorsteps of England, Scotland and Wales. In answer to my question – only this actually: we want to send our Darfurians and SSA’s back there. That is a Conservative aspiration. I accept, of course, that you can’t say that on the doorsteps. Not today. You would be unwise. But do you have to give quite such a convincing impression of somebody who, basically, hasn’t noticed - and certainly has no critique of - the consequences of eight years of devious and devastating cultural marxist warfare? If only I had the feeling that you at least thought about that … you know, in those empty moments after Mrs Cameron has informed you to your big, bland face that – yet again - she has a headache, and you are lying there in the stale semi-darkness of your Notting Hill bedroom, not too disappointed and musing on the golden morrow. You see, David, I rather suspect that in those moments you think about your future. I don’t believe you care two hoots about ours. You certainly don’t care about the dollar-a-day Darfurians. Or all these young people who are supposed to harbour a deep dislike of Westminster for its adversarial politics. Or feckless-tart single mums who, right there and then, are conceiving in their scores against your wheelie bin. I think you are a right-liberal politician through and through. Right-liberal politicians have been the bane of the Party for generations, and you are yet another. You tout around something you call Conservatism. But it is just Expediency. If you win the leadership like most people seem to think you will, you and the Party will betray us. That’s us the taxpayers, us the Conservative voters, us the damned, benighted natives of these beautiful islands. Nothing more Conservative than a bland mix of economism and unwilling welfarism will come out of your leadership, whether or not one day you walk through the shiny black front door of no.10. I am not at all sure I would want you to. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:43 | # I lost faith in Ancram when he accepted a position in the Whip’s office to drop his opposition to Maastricht. It was a moment when the Party might have broken decisively with machine politics and pseudo-Conservatism. Much was lost when Ancram and the other waverers changed sides. I rather admire Hague. He is now generally recognised as a man of the future, not the past. But it will be another four or five years and another election defeat before his second chance could come. Fox is at least socially conservative and dry. I don’t feel that he has the weight to take on Blair or Brown. I still think it will be between Cameron and Davis, with Davis possibly slightly ahead amongst the membership 3
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:45 | # You may be right about Ancram. I gather he’s announced his support for Cameron, thus putting him in a probable winning position for the 2005 Upper-Class-Twit of the Year contest! Davis or Fox, holding ones nose, unless the Cornerstone Group gets some backbone and comes up with a real candidate. 4
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:44 | # Please not Ancram. I havent forgiven the shade of his grandfather for co-authoring the Treaty of Versailles, that iniquitous instrument of continuing aggression which represented the opposite of a just peace. Post a comment:
Next entry: London’s sudden vibrancy explained
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:48 | #
Splendid stuff, GW. I’m damned sure I don’t want him to walk through the doors of No. 10. Ever since 1990, or certainly September 1992, it has been quite clear that if we must have a soppy Socilaist in No. 10, it’s much better to be one with the Labour Party label. The Tory Party has been trying to modernize itself ever since it knifed Maggie, and look where it’s led them. There is a perfectly reasonable level of Tory sentiment in the country, as eveidenced by the Council elections last May, which if they had been repeated in the parliamentary election would have produced a Tory majority or damn close (if we’d kept IDS, for example). But nobody trusted the odious modernising Howard.
I’m not fond of any of the current 5 leadership contenders—Fox administered an entirely unnecessary kick to the departing Howard Flight, and I wouldn’t buy a used car from Davis.
There are however perfectly acceptable Tory leaders around, notably Hague or Ancram, neither of which I agree with wholly but they are at least decent, intelligent men pointed vaguely in the right direction. Hopefully one or other of them will decide to stand, at which point I think they may well get through to the membership round, and would certainly at that point beat whatever tired old hack opposes them.
The media’s effect in Britain is now particularly pernicious, because parts of it pretend to be Tory—unlike in the US, where everyone knows they’re a bunch of subversives. The Telegraph’s role in lies and propaganda that removed the excellent IDS from the leadership should NOT be forgiven.