Other blogs

Today I have decided to include poignant links to articles about the Tory leadership... Fickle I am.

Anyway, here's today's excellent offering: Albion's Alchemist

At all costs?

Is it really worth it? The Conservatives and commentators (characterised by Peter Oborne's article in this week's Spectator) may be considering choosing Ken Clarke as the next leader.

The reason, apparently, would be that he is the most likely candidate to win at the next election. Apparently 40% of the British people want Ken Clarke to be the Tory leader. As more than 40% of the British public voted for Blair and the Lib Dems at the last two elections, we can only assume that that 40% doesn't know what's good for them, so why should the Tories listen to them?

Possibly, too, there is some benefit to the Tories in having an electable leader (which would make a nice change), but why on earth would the Tories want to gain power at the expense of their excellent post-Thatcher/Major ideology? David Cameron is cited as being liberal, but only on social issues - which can only be a damn good thing. On economic issues, his supporter, George Osborne, has announced "an independent commission to look at the implications... of flat tax[es]" which is a move in direction the country and, therefore, the Conservatives should be moving. David Davis is a little less liberal, despite the media's implication that he is a whole lot more so, and equally right-wing on economic issues; he is also continuing to work and allowing the leadership not to distract, as much as he can, from Labour's failings. Liam Fox, the Scot, is weak on English issues but a typically good egg, generally.

Ken Clarke is socially inconsistent, as I said before, and economically Gordon Brown's bed-fellow! Not only that, but he has a penchant for giving away our sovereignty and currency that no-one in England and in their right mind believes is the best thing for Britain or England.

The Tories must embrace, advertise and act-upon ideology and not, repeat not, seek power at any cost. Especially if this results in another Conservative government, typified by Major's floundering Prime Minister-ship (though he really is a good speaker in person), that reconfirms and damages further the public's opinion of Conservative economic mismanagement.

I've said it before, and I'll say is again, anyone but Clarke (though preferably David Davis).

Ken Clarke bashing

Just in case any MPs (for they'll surely be choosing the next Tory leader without 'our' input now) are tempted to believe Clarke's hyperbole, I would just like to remind you what the EU does 'for' us:

Now, I see, the EU is wasting £70m on an advertising campaign to stop people smoking. As the NHS is doing a perfectly reasonable job on providing public health advice on this matter, it seems to be a perfectly wasteful way of spending my money. If anyone really doesn't know that smoking is bad for you, or that there is help available by checking the internet (from a phone box if necessary), then there's really no chance they'll pay any attention to further adverts.

The David Davis for Leader blog, has an excellent post on the problems with Ken Clarke (and there are many). Let's all hope that whoever the leader is, it isn't him!

Why Ken Clarke is wrong, wrong, wrong

Ken Clarke has made a speech today that reconfirms that, while he may be the most likely candidate to win a future election, he is also the least Conservative member of the party.

With hindsight Clarke was right about the war in Iraq. With hindsight those of us who never believed in the story of WMD or links to terrorism were wildly optimistic that a war could be carried out easily and quickly (though possibly in part due to a complete lack of preparedness for the insurgency). It is also obvious that the war in Iraq has made us an obvious target for Muslim extremists. However, what Clarke implies when he says that the Iraq war made us more likely to be attacked, is that there is some justification, and indeed, excuse, for the bombers. Someone once said that one person's terrorists is another's freedom fighter - these people are not fighting for their freedom, they're fighting to remove ours.

I'm not a neo-con, and I am socially liberal, but to convince me that Clarke were the right person for Number 10, he would have to satisfactorily explain to me, and most other Tory members, how his support for the euro and all things EU (whether it has waned or not) can be balanced against the political balance that Conservatives normally attempt to reach. How can the man claim patriotism if he would willing surrender more of our sovereignty to a foreign and non-democratic organisation.

As Chancellor, Ken Clarke presided over tax cuts, but not the swingeing ones that we should have experienced. As a member of Thatcher's government he did not make vocal complaints against her censorship of the media and 'arts'. With his track record as an economic liberal and inconsistent about social issues how can he seriously take the newly right-wing Labour party to account? The Labour party that has involved itself in privatisation, erosion of social liberties and imposition of social legislation is far closer to Ken Clarke than it is to the majority of the Conservative party.

While it is not good for the Conservatives' image, we also need to be honest about the need to restrict further immigration until those that are already here have had time to assimilate and avoid further ghettoisation. We also need an honest declaration about the need to treat harshly those known to be involved in extremist activities.

The main area of clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour at the moment should be a more obvious declaration of adherence to civil liberties, a promise not to set laws that erode people's freedom where it hurts no-one else as well as the more radical and so, exciting, financial liberalisation that was promised by the so-called choice agenda.