Whither now...?

I realise that it may be a little trite to blog about the fact that we now have a new Prime Minister - but I don't care.

One of the things that I did notice in the news was that Quentin Davis has left the conservatives to join the Brown camp, perhaps spurred on by the fact that Sean Woodward has finally been offered a cabinet position. This has recieved muted welcomes by the Labour camp, and comtrasts sharply to the rather blatant courting of a number of Liberal Democrat MPs by the Conservatives, which has rather failed in delivering any sort of success.

What I find hugely interesting is that a Conservative finds it easier to join Labour than a Liberal Democrat to join the Conservatives. Any why now? At the very least, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have a great deal in common. By-and-large they have the same objections to the current regime and come from a similar place. Whilst many people in general society have a rather tribalistic fear of the Tories, surely this does not extend to the halls of Westminster? And why has Gordon Brown become so attractive.

Since Brown became the only possible candidate for leader, Menzies has made several speeches with a lack of subtlety suggesting that Brown was someone 'with whom we can do business'. Likewise, Quentin Davis has decided to join the ranks of this veteral left-winger. Finally, Claire Short has hinted that she might like to take back the Labour whip (I'd refuse to give her it - she's more trouble than she's worth).

I am flabberghasted, and I think that this could mean some serious problems for the tories. This dour son of the manse has attracted more attention in the last few days than the fireworks of Cameron have throughout his reign. He clearly has a broad appeal, if such diverse figures as Claire Short and Quentin Davis are able to relate to him, and comes top in the polls in a number of desireable characteristics. Most of all, he is seen as strong, something very important to the British electorate - in the run up to the last election Tony Blair was behind in just about everything except 'person I would most like to be in charge during a national emergency' and stormed home. Finally, Tory policy was very much based on being the heir to Blair - particularly on things such as education. This was, perhaps, a little prematurely announced and Brown has squeezed them out of this by making a number of speeches in support of city academies which, if carried through, could prove to be a very successful move.

In the end, the Tory party problems are, I think, simple - they have no ideas. If they had ideas they couldn't release them now as they could be used and if they had ideas that were too right-wing for Brown's blood and so wouldn't be used, they would probably be unpalateable to the electorate anyway.

We appear to have developped a political consensus and, unfortunately, that appears to be Brown.

p.s. I'm sorry to see you leave Tony - for what it's worth, I think you did a pretty good job

Cameron and Rhetoric

When in opposition, it is very easy to become overly reliant on rhetoric. Naturally, when unable to influence the actual way in which the country is run, it is easy to relapse into the typical sit back and moan mentality and wait until the electorate becomes sufficiently disillusioned with the goverment and agree with you.

The problem with this is that it is very easy to get the rhetoric wrong. And then you look stupid. Nick Assinder has just pointed out that Cameron's "applying traditional values to new challenges" looks awfully similar to "traditional values in a modern setting" for someone who is most emphatically not the "heir to Blair". However, before Conservatives lose heart and begin to despair of getting anything different, let them take heart; it's nowhere near as bleak on that end of the spectrum as it is on the left.

Although currently (and, it has to be said, throughout the majority of our history), battle lines are largely drawn around a reasonably consensual centre, at least there is a reasonably coherent argument coming from the conservative right in order to counter the centrism that appears to be affecting the leadership.

This is nowhere near as prevalent on the left, who couldn't even get the number of votes needed to produce a credible candidate for the leadership (or, to be frank, the deputy leadership - the candidates may be trying to woo the grass-roots by talking left, but they all signed up to the New Labour project). Although Cameron can go so far with the New Labour project, the Conservative party are far less willing to sacrifice their ideals than the Labour party has been. Cameron is a popular leader, and the party uniting behind him would almost guarantee a victory at the next election, however, the grass roots are still fighting the good fight, using grammar schools as a good example in which ministers are prepared to resign their jobs over what is essentially a non-issue.

For those of you that despair of the right wing losing it's teeth, never fear. They are not, as yet, showing any signs of rolling over as easily as the labour left.

Barrosso vs the British Public

I'm not one for an anti-European rant usually, but I thought that I'd make an exception in this case. My problem is with a recently quoted remark from Barrosso saying of the constitution that leaders must "stand up to popularism" i.e endorse the idea of a constitution even though nobody wants it.

This is a rather interesting dichotomy in the politics of EU member states. By and large, politicians' interests are linked to those of their constituents as, should they fail to act in their interests they will, in theory, be booted out. However, should one 'stand up to popularism' and act against the interests of one's constituents in favour of the EU, then even if one is booted out, the option is available to transfer to a more highly paid job doing sweet FA. This somewhat makes a mockery of the democracy of any one state, and undermines the convergence of interests between citizens and those that represent them.

Many politicians make faith calls. This was recently demonstrated by Tony Blair in the war against Iraq, in which he said to the public 'if you don't like it, don't vote for me next time'. Politicians do this in the hope that posterity will (hopefully before the next general election) prove them right. Whilst I am not entirely comfortable with this, it is a completely different and less iniquitous thing than it's European incarnation 'if you don't like it, transefer me to a cushier job'.

I'm sure that many of us share the ideal of having a Europe that co-operates on many issues and meets to show solidarity where possible. However, many of us are uncomfortable about doing anything that looks like diminishing national sovereignty and european politicians should be aware of this. If provocative statements to ignore the will of the people are too forthcoming, then there will be less good-will on which Europe can unite, and Europe and all the individual states within it will be all the poorer.

Something Else Can Be Learned from the Private Sector

Ah, the wonders of the private sector, will they never cease. As Tony Blair gazes into his corporate crystal ball; farming out services such as schools and hospitals to inappropriate corporate services and donors and spending millions of tax-payers' pounds on corporate consultants - not to mention getting up-to-the-minute marketing consultants to design hazardous logos - let us hope that he takes a leaf out of BAE's book.

Following the fall-out from the Saudi arms deal - in which everything was done absolutely correctly, and there is absolutely no need for an enquiry so please stop trying to get one - BAE is setting up an independent ethical watchdog to monitor its dealings (as reported in today's independant). Whilst one may doubt the motives behind this, there is absolutely no doubt that having an independant committee to monitor the ethical implications of decisions is eminently sensible and aids the perception of transparency. Surely the government could have something akin to this to keep its wandering feet on the straight-and-narrow? Ah, I hear you say, but govenrnment has the attourney general. You're quite right - I almost forgot.

Britishness & All That

I think that Britain is a great idea. It's a lovely place full of sane, liberal people who don't, by-and-large, get too het up about what it means to be British and why foreigners are coming in and spoiling it, and it doesn't really care that much about it's culture.

If I could just qualify that last point, Britain has never self-consciously tried to change it's own culture; we simply evolve in the way that society wants to go. Unlike the social engineers of the Elysees palace who spend 25% of the tax burden on 'culture', we have always believed that people will like what they like and if that's watching sweaty people kicking a bag of air around whilst abusing eachother and the officials, then so be it.

This is why I am rather uncomfortable with the likes of 'British day' or whatever it is that they want to call it. I think one of the greatest symbols of British culture is that we do not have a British day and have never felt the need for one. In the end, we are a diverse bunch of people who will go around doing whatever it is that we like doing and vaguely occupying the same area as eachother. This changes marginally during the world cup and other footballing events, during which everyone gets whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, but at least it is directed at something; our footballing success - or lack of it (blame the philandering Swede ( a phrase that must look strange out of context)).

I think that one of the reasons that we are attractive to skilled migrants is that they need not feel out of place in a country full of patriotic rednecks. We are a very laid-back and accepting culture, and I think that that is how I would rather it stay.

This is my main objection to British day. Rather than celebrating British culture, I think that it would diminish it irrevocably, and that would be an incredibly sad thing.