Why to close ranks, excluding the rebels, is self-defeating
There’s no intention to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs here – it’s just thinking out loud, that’s all.
The dilemma facing the Tory party member is daunting. Whatever those outside think, there is a bond, which I felt in Manchester, which goes beyond politics. The Tories were never a purely ideological party like Labour, they don’t wish to reconstitute man in the image of the yahoo, they like civilized liquid lunches and so on.
The few days in Manchester for me were like a trip to paradise – everyone so polite and good-humoured, the food and drink excellent, the conversation stimulating. So, the issue for the Tory member is not just one of politics – it’s also camaraderie and a way of thinking about things. It might not be your cup of tea but it is certainly theirs and why shouldn’t it be?
Do you want every spare minute of your day devoted to dire things like totalitarianism, the binge-drinking ASBO and the recession? Andrew is right in that the culture under a Tory government is infinitely preferable to one under the socialists. I saw the vestiges of the latter in Russia.
Having said all that, the political issues won’t go away. Quite frankly, continued involvement in Europe perpetuates and now, post-Lisbon, accelerates the following:
1. The move to totalitarianism which shows itself in the executive’s complete disregard for form – look at the EU accounts for a decade and a half for a start, look at how democracy works in the EU Parliament. Do you really think a bunch who would act like that in Parliament would safeguard your rights and freedoms?
2. The intrusion into the sovereignty of this nation in the matter of dictating policy to Westminster or worse, bypassing Westminster and dealing direct with the regions, with the effect of emasculating the PM and Cabinet, turning them into rubber stamp wielders;
3. The spread, over the whole community, of the socialist malaise of nanny state, overregulation, the “turn your neighbour in” mentality of the USSR, the non-jobs jobs, the ideological instruction e.g. in the questions asked on any job application today, CCTV on every corner, huge databases and so on.
4. The reduction of the middle-class to a state of “just above serfdom”, to keep them politically compliant.
5. The economic malaise of a once great trading nation, with huge subsidies extracted from Britain, France and Germany to pay for the other parasitic nations and restrictions on whom Britain can trade and deal with, depending on the whim of Brussels – the main one hit being America.
An EEC would have been acceptable to most Brits, as long as we were free to trade with whom we wanted. An EU jackboot state, the brainchild of the Bruderheist in Bavaria, the same bunch who spawned the Third Reich, is totally unacceptable.
Not only that but now Lisbon’s passed, the process has now accelerated and now is the time to get out, not in five years. What’s this rubbish about negotiating the repatriation of powers in 2015? Does anyone seriously believe that would be possible?
It has to be now, everyone knows it, even the Europhiles who have their own reasons for selling us out know it. Now or never, before the claws are so deeply embedded in this land that it will no longer be possible to depart.
And let’s be quite clear – to say the economy comes first before Europe is to misstate the real issue. The economy in Britain IS the EU. The EU is intricately interwoven into it and no future government will be allowed to move on the economy without the EU’s say-so.
So yes, the EU is the number one priority, in order to commence the process of getting us out of this economic mess.
Returning to the dilemma of the Tory Party member, what is he to do? He sees two parties under the one roof – let’s not lie about this. One is aligned with Brown, despite the rhetoric and the other is aligned with the UKIP, LPUK, small c conservatives everywhere and the ordinary British cit who is sick to the back teeth of all the corruption, loss of jobs and the behaviour of politicians.
The first is the clubbable, old boy, genteel world of niceness and the second is full of disgruntled citizens. More and more and more, the decision is between one’s party or one’s country. The qualification to this is anyone who does actually genuinely believe David Cameron is truly Eurosceptic.
There’s the rub and while that doubt lingers, unresolved, the Eurosceptic Tory member is torn between two unpalatable choices. Also, our expectation that the ES Tory MP is going to selflessly destroy himself and his parliamentary career is not just a question of the gravy train but the loss of all which has been built up, the connections, the friendships and so on. It’s so easy for us to expect sacrifices when it is not us doing the sacrificing.
There’s no doubt, in a far less drastic way, that because of my stance, opting for country over party, that I’ll now be shunned by Tory bloggers whom once I counted as blogfriends and I can’t blame them, even though I remain a Tory.
Look at it from their point of view. David Cameron in their eyes [quite erroneously, I believe], has the best chance of putting the Tories in power, even in a minority government, for years. Is that going to be upset at the eleventh hour by Eurosceptics pushing something which, for this type of Tory, is not a first-priority issue? Let’s worry about Europe later, they say, ignoring everything which was said at the Tory Conference in the Freedom Zone by our own MPs, by the TPA, by independent speakers, all saying the same thing.
There’s the dilemma for the Eurosceptic Tory member. Standing up for my country, as opposed to my party, is not a major issue for me personally. I’ve never been a party person – the eyes have been on the big picture at all times, whilst still getting my mark in the square come election time, surely the bottom line in terms of party politics?
That’s me but then there are the true party people who have put in years of hard work, who have entire friendship groups based on their membership of the party and who are within a hair’s breadth of victory … so they think.
In the light of this, where does a Eurosceptic coalition of freethinkers stand? Pushing it uphill of course. To me, it feels like Skynet in Terminator 3. Hellbent on getting it up and running, success almost within reach but because it is based on a false premise, resulting in the destruction of the world the moment the button is pressed.
There is another aspect. Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer have made a stand and are now standing there, isolated. Is anyone else coming to stand alongside them? Or is the party now going to silently close ranks, shutting them out?
This is no spurious point because under the Westminster system, there is a creature called a voter. These voters have seen the act of self-sacrifice and don’t give me the niceties of there being no EU front bench to step down from – these two will be ostracized as sure as night follows day – and these voters are watching and making up their minds which way the party jumps.
If it closes ranks with the mistaken notion that this show of unity and loyalty will impress the people of Britain, then they are out of touch with reality. The reality is that it is not Cameron’s Maggyesque ability to force the Eurosceptics into line which will impress but rather the willingness for the party to take a moral stand and say enough – we will fight for this country and sacrifice ourselves to do it.
No one else is asked to make these sacrifices but a government is expected to, especially in the light of the snouts in the trough concept of politicians that virtually the whole country now has. A government which takes an unpopular position, even if it’s going to cost the people, as long as the people see that is is really working in their long-term interests, their children’s, will go along with it.
Most people were silent about the shadow budget but conceded that something had to be done. Fine, that was good of the Tories. The EU Referendum turnaround was not and it is a red herring to say that it can’t be about Lisbon any more. Too right it’s not – it’s about withdrawal from the EU and/or repatriation of powers – now.
In this, the Tories under Cameron have slipped back and will be hardpressed to cross that line next May.
So yes, this is the dilemma. I respect Andrew’s decision to stay in the party and he clearly feels that David Cameron can still be influenced. He believes the Tories will be in government, despite Camerons’ actions. He might even know something we don’t. However, I humbly cannot embrace that hope that Cameron can be influenced from within – I’ve seen the Europhile arrogance at first hand and David Cameron is beset by these people, the bulls of Bashan.
No wonder he’s already weary, before the show even starts.
Filed under: Politics & economics
“4. The reduction of the middle-class to a state of “just above serfdom”, to keep them politically compliant.”
That would be the housing market that does that, mainly.
James,
Nicely put. Regardless of political affiliation, country should always, rpt always, come before party. The disregard of this lies at the heart of our problems. That is why I maintain we now live in a democratised dictatorship, in which Con’Lab/LibDem have been complicit.
As you say any ‘referendum’ in 2015 will be far too late – by then the UK will be ‘enslaved’!
Mark – quite right and I’ve been looking at your posts on housing as maybe the key factor. There came a point where the ability of a young couple to buy a first home passed beyond reach.
WFW – I divide ‘Con’ into two – the real small c conservatives and those under duress of Brussels. It’s been so for decades – look at 1979.
A Labourite [that rare creature you still find walking about] said to me yesterday: “Your type of conservatism will never come to power and neither will the communists.”
I didn’t bother saying that the communists are already in power in Brussels – no point bringing another issue in.
I think I agree with your “now or never” analysis, because the way things are going in a few years time the decline of the UK economy may have continued to such a point (and possibly not as distant a point as one might think) that the UK may end up being one of the net recipients of EU funding rather than one of the net donors. And getting the public to vote against an inflow of cash will be tough, to say the least. Although the rest may actually throw the UK out then, rather than send any money back
.
In actual fact the whole EU concept needs to be annihilated. I don’t believe the majority of European citizens agree with it. If we were by chance able to break free, I doubt we will be the last.
The danger is, that Cameron is either ignoring or underestimating people’s hatred of the EU. The major parties have forgotten that it is them who are the “public servants”. It’s all very well being loyal to your party but a politicians first priority is to the people he/she represents!
We don’t want to pay taxes to a bunch of people who tell us what to do and then whinge and moan when they have to pay for their own cleaners and gardeners!
Simple fact is, we used to live in a democracy. We want it back and any politician that believes otherwise is delusional.
The issues are plain.
There is no time for self-serving bullshit.
Years ago a boat left these islands.
Is that to be the only way.
Or will the cretins forget their social allegiances, realising that those allegiances will be torn to shreds by the new order anyway.
Simply put–do nothing now, and you will never do anything again.
That is the stark choice.
Will the cretins wake up?
Look Here
This could make the boy look exactly as he is, a castrati
Well, there may be some hope left. These folks know what the EUSSR is like from bitter experience.
Exposes the political scum in this septic isle for what they really are.
But then again, how many of the public realise that the expenses noise is to distract from that which appears on these pages?, – 99%??
Or 1%??
Don’t rely on Prague.
Activate the cretins in London.
[...] The big question tonight is: Cameron. Is he signed up to this? Which will Cameron put first? Party or Country? It is a question that many have been soul searching over, as James Higham writes here. [...]
Cameron will put himself first. If he sees the tide turning he will float with it and change his mind. Let us remember that for years cameron has led the tories against the most hated party in my recollection yet made no progress. How is that going to translate to votes when he then splits the party? The tories should stand by their principles andlet the dice roll.
Kremlin lovers in power in the UK
And don’t forget, the Kinnocks, both of the skunks, are now in the ECFR, and hold senior ranks in the UK.
The Tories were never a purely ideological party like Labour
If you really believe this you have missed what is going within the leadership of both parties over a number of years…
You blog so clearly about the real issue almost every week but then you bring it back down to text book political ideals, which detracts from what is really going on.
I also think you don’t understand the core reason why the labour party came into being and their original supporters…
On the day Cameron delivered his bombshell, many were stunned – including the MSM and commentators. Many were fooled, as the poll immediately after the news seemed to suggest.
But one week on, the import of his message is throwing up questions whose answers make Cameron’s pledges seem ridiculous. How much more ridiculous must they seem to Hannan and Helmer, who are intimately acquainted with the working of the EU?
It’s rumoured that Labour will hold the election in March, before budget day. This probably means a change of Labour leadership just prior to or just after the elections.
When this happens, rebel Tories might deem it to be an excellent time to hold la leadership contest of their own; Labour can hardly cry foul, since it would be doing exactly the same thing.
Perhaps this thought has occurred to Hannan and Helmer. Yes, they say they support Cameron, but that is not the same thing as their supporting his stance on the EU. Should they field eurosceptic candidates, the country will be behind them.
I don’t see what they have to lose, except for continuity.
This is the one I’ll address – the attack was too far ranging to cover all in one go.
The Labour Party arose from the labour movement which followed the industrial revolution and it became obvious that workers had terrible conditions, particularly children.
One of the earliest themes was Christian Socialism [I was one myself in my early years] and it was built on compassion for one’s fellow man. This sort of socialist is still in the trade union movement today and is most certainly not communist.
However, the Marxists did come in to infiltrate and hijack the reins of power in the movement and to turn it away form its original purpose, not unlike 2nd wave feminism.
The “textbook” ideology is purist with these people and anyone who’s studied the time knows of the Red Clydeside, the many threads of different interest groups and the way the communists, the most virulent because they were the most ideologically committed, found expression in, for example, the Socialist League, the SPGB, the BSP and so on.
Marxism had less impact in Karl Marx’s land than they’d hoped, a point Lenin bemoaned to GBS. The social conditions were different, being already largely democratic in form. This was the time of vast expansion for the Empire.
Suffragettism now came in to complicate matters for labour and it redirected the communist thrust somewhat. However, it was a sufficient threat for the Zinoviev hoax to be perpetrated to ensure Labour were not returned and it is a measure of the public concern over communism in the labour movement that it overshadowed the other threads – for example, Fabianism.
I was a Fabian, I read my Shaw and Tawney and we were forever up against the Trotskyites [they hate being called that] and the Stalinists. The labour movement is by no means homogenously of one mind.
Moving through history to the current day, what eventually triumphed in Labour was the global socialist and the result was 1997. Obscene amounts of money, coordination the dream of organizers everywhere, they triumphed and hijacked Labour and the other big two alike [they play no favourites] and these are precisely the people I call Them.
Labour has always been about conflicting ideologies and though there are many ideologies on the free market side, e.g. the Austrian School, Friedman, Hayek etc., ideology is not the issue – the getting of power and having a nice comfortable lifestyle is for one’s family and for oneself – that characterizes the small c conservative.
The ones at the top are a different thing – they’re not conservative at all but Them, on both sides of the artificial party divide.
As for whether I personally understand history, that’s for others to say, not me.
Fausty – good take.
I’ve had communication yesterday with fellow Tories and the scenario is complicated. I do see what Cameron is about and the game he’s playing and the reason is the sheer power of what he’s up against, forcing him into certain stances. The autism attack is just window dressing compared to the genuine white-anting going on.
However, there is an equal and different thing going on too – the mood of the people of this island state and what everyone up top is losing sight of is that yes, great treaties of moment in history may be signed by the elite, cast iron bars may lock the people into something they’ve decided but this is to lose sight of the will of the people.
There is, as many are saying, only so far the elite can take the enslavement process – the Solzhenitsyn principle – and we’re close to that now among the pundits like you and me but not quite there with the populace yet.
All the populace see is a couple of brave rebels who are being excluded by a party closing ranks coming up to an election. In a sense, the real conservative freedom lover, as reflected in the Eurosceptics, UKIP and LPUK, along with elements of the Lib Dems and even some Labour people who are more centrist – in other words, the clarion callers of this nation – is largely ignored and the political sphere in the UK is dominated by those up top and the ignorant citizens for whom politics is of as much interest as cleaning the drains.
The danger for the thinkers, s you know, is that they believe that the ordinary person must see the truth and this sort of person doesn’t and doesn’t want to. Jobs and money are the only political considerations and he’ll vote for anyone who promises them.
The greatest danger is that we might get some sort of coalition going in principle [and much discussion is taking place] but in the end, how is that going to impinge on the voters’ minds?
How far are the voters going to take on board that the Big Three, at the top, are stacked with people who shouldn’t be there? How far would the people turn to such a conservative or libertarian alliance? Could such an alliance get the message out when the minor parties not only can’t get their message out now because the media is stacked against them but dirty tricks are being played, e.g. the ridiculous UKIP funding issue and the MEP passes?
We know what’s going on – it’s as plain as the noses on our faces but the cynics at the top know the general populace are being kept from it. How many of us could spend the time from our work and families to go on the street and publicize these things, before being moved on by the politicized constabulary?
So far, our only weapons are the blog and phone calls.
It wasn’t meant to be an attack James. I wanted you to bring out some points that you have missed, it is important after all that people understand what has gone on over the years.
Forgot to say that the core labour voters still believe in those original ideologies and were most disgusted when Blair came into power and changed what the labour party was all about. They faced the dilemma you are facing today with the Tory party.
James, you make the point (about the general populace yet to catch up) very well, their being the bulk of the electorate who react to news after cursory analysis. Busy people who take no interest in politics (headline readers) but who are otherwise intelligent also fit into that category.
A libertarian-conservative coalition would have to satisfy the public that its policies are deliverable. Simplicity of message is vital. If it is to succeed, it will need grassroots support, of the kind that Ron Paul enjoys, so we need a simple, unifying ideal from which all issues hang. Social networking tools (twitter, Facebook, etc) would be useful.
To engender that support, there are many tools and contentious issues (of the enemy’s making) we can use: potential mandatory swine flu vaccinations; ID cards/database state; immigration; grammar schools; small government (so the possibility for lower taxes); EU referendum, common law/inalienable rights.
Once voters (en masse) realise that most of the crud which affects our lives emanates from the EU and that it comes at a massive financial cost, all we need tell them is that we’ll pull out of the EU.
The great hurdle is listing all the ills that the EU imposes on us. Since Lib/Lab/Con aren’t offering them a way out of the EU, the coalition will seem attractive to them – particularly the English working classes.
Some of the most viral organisations have relied on the “cell” principle for propagating a process. People teach others the basics, teach them to teach, and get them to do the same. The spread then becomes exponential. If it is attractive enough at grassroots level, it should take on a momentum of its own, requiring a nudge here and there.
“In/Out EU referendum appears to be a simple, unifying message. Is it simple enough, though?
This is why we need the site and the Facebook identity for starters. I could start a blog but it would be hosted by me and that’s not right. We need an independent host who’d be willing to do it and that would involve a bit of money. I have someone in mind but need to speak with him and then see if we can’t get some of us to defray some of the costs. We don’t need any web design – there are some excellent two column or magazine type wordpress themes already – it just needs a few people to coordinate. From acorns …
Clearly, we’re all currently fragmented so we need not to compete but to list down other sites and links which further this agenda of the people – links are vital, as well as a forum, which the host I’m thinking of provides [the host is of like mind to us, by the way]. This setting up is not a major issue and can be done in days.
Such a site would need a name and here’s the first dilemma – what to call it. we all have thoughts on this. I like the word alliance rather than coalition because it suggests it is a grouping for a purpose. Now, we can’t call it conservative or libertarian or independent for fear of being as longwinded as a left wing group [The People's Front of Judaea].
The best one of all is one word, such as Labour or Bloghounds or ACORN but obviously we can’t use those.
What about something like Sovereignty or Heritage or whatever? I was thinking of Respect, a term which was hijacked for evil purposes. Freedom is too broad. Liberal can’t be used. I don’t mind Libertarian myself but not all people who are in this are necessarily libertarian in bent.
What about:
Grass
Roots
Alliance
For
Freedom and
Independence
Today
In our nation
or:
Alliance of
Concerned
Citizens over
EU intrusion,
Sovereignty of this nation and
Social freedoms
?
Just a few thoughts for you to think about:
Don’t use Facebook as your only method of advertising your ideas. Facebook are notorious for shutting down or freezing groups that get too large or suddenly they decide a group is not suitable for Facebook.
There are sites such as Elgg and Drupal that are also good for social networking. These might be a better option than using the blog format.
Respect probably isn’t the best word to use there is a leftie party of that name.
Thanks – shall look at that. I have a mock-up of a name at 16:18 today and have left a comment at the Telegraph.