Gary Monro’s blog

Push for more Tory women MPs will be based on merit

Where, if that Telegraph headline is going to make logical sense, then being ‘female’ is going to have to be considered a ‘merit’.

I’ve hardly started campaigning for the local elections yet and now I find my future ambition kicked in the crutch already. See what happens when you’re exposed as a Davis supporter?

Thanks Dave.

Well, those of us who supported David Davis and who hoped ardently for his victory will be feeling a bit hung-over after the Conservative Party’s leadership contest result.

We believe our man had the gravitas, the punch, the experience and the maturity of his years to be New Labour’s Grim Reaper whilst also believing that Mr Cameron lacked all these qualities - and that he may continue to lack them for the foreseeable future.

Criticism of Mr Cameron wasn’t necessarily personal. If the Conservative Party was looking for an image make-over - that ‘change’ we have been endlessly told we need - then David Cameron was a good choice. He’s young, he’s got a nice family, he won’t frighten the horses and has banged on so much about how we’ve got to change and be compassionate that, maybe, he’s convinced the electorate that that’s what we’ve actually done. Further, Mr Cameron isn’t a dope, isn’t an incompetent and he isn’t a fool.

Trouble is, in some areas we’re not sure what he actually is. More dangerously, for those of us who believe, for example, that a firm line must be taken on drug use and an uncompromising line be taken with our Lords and masters in the EU, Mr Cameron seems, so far, decidedly unsatisfactory.

So how should conservatives view Mr Cameron’s ascension to the Party’s leadership?

First of all - and most of all - we’ve got to accept the result of the leadership election and support the Party’s leader. Regardless of preference before the election, we’re now after the election and Mr Cameron isn’t the enemy, he’s an ally against the enemy. Labour is the enemy and it is that Party on whom we should train our guns. We must direct our fire ferociously against a government that represents nothing that is decent or good in England but which is, in fact, conducting a huge social trick on us, one designed to keep them in power and us in their power. We should consider anybody who opposes Labour to be a friend.

Second, there is room for optimism. I’m not talking about his maiden performance in the Commons the other day which, I understand (I haven’t actually seen it), was well-delivered and scored points on the government. The optimism I’m especially referring to is with regards to the cabinet appointments - Hague, David Davis and Liam Fox, particularly. The latter two will help keep the Party - and, hopefully, a future Conservative government - in line in case Mr Cameron has a Blair flush now and again. And they’ll give the Party necessary experience and gravity without appearing old and grouchy.

Another reason for optimism is that Mr Cameron takes over when the government’s tax-and-spend habits and all the rest of its lunatic mentality are coming home to roost. Further, Blair’s in trouble because Mr Cameron may well support parts of his education Bill while parts of his own party will vote against it. A Labour leader pushing through legislation only because the Opposition supports it is asking for trouble from his own party - and he’ll get it.

But, of course, just because things aren’t looking good for the government doesn’t mean they will look much better for the Conservative Party if the Conservative Party doesn’t (a) properly capitalise on the government’s numerous failings and (b) offer a concrete, precise and compelling vision for this country’s future.

Mr Cameron must now prove to those of us who currently feel he is too whimsical and vague in his pronouncements that he has solid ideas and a clear-cut philosophy on all areas of government. It is, after all, from these ideas that we would expect meaningful and effective policies to spring. The difficulty for members of the Conservative Party for too long has been that we just don’t know where we stand on anything that matters. At the moment we still don’t and, even if it’s too early for detailed policies, we must at least have a clear policy direction. The canvas is pretty blank and we must start filling it.

The friendly, internal fight is over. The real fight now begins. Our enemy is leftist Labour and our principles are the tried and tested, rooted-in-reality traditions and values of England and the English. Whatever else we might feel there seems to be a mood - and mood matters - of optimism, renewal and possibility in both the Party and in much of the press. If that’s what it takes to have our ideas listened to with anything approaching an open mind then it’s all for the good. Let’s use the opportunity to remove this government and install something a little more sane. Before it’s too late.

The super soaraway Sun’s headline a few days ago - ‘Tell Tony he’s right’ - was accompanied by an horrific picture of bloodied London bomb victim, John Tulloch. Quite clearly, The Sun and Mr Tulloch knew what they wanted and they wanted ‘terror suspects’ to be subject to up to 90 days’ detention if the police could convince a judge the suspect was up to no good. And they wanted Mr Blair to know they wanted this too.

Except, it isn’t quite like that. It transpires that Mr Tulloch isn’t quite the victim that the government - and The Sun - might have hoped for. In fact, he’s nothing like what they might have hoped for.

From The Guardian:

The bloodied victim, John Tulloch, feels deep anger with Tony Blair and politicians for the role they played in stirring up the violence that came to London on July 7.

His views on The Sun aren’t flattering:

“This is using my image to push through draconian and utterly unnecessary terrorism legislation. Its incredibly ironic that the Sun’s rhetoric is as the voice of the people yet they don’t actually ask the people involved, the victims, what they think. If you want to use my image, the words coming out of my mouth would be, ‘Not in my name, Tony’. I haven’t read anything or seen anything in the past few months to convince me these laws are necessary.

I am totally offended by what the Sun has done. Rather than just depriving me of a voice, they have given me somebody else’s voice. Blair’s voice.”

Of course, The Sun has gone a step further and described anyone who doesn’t agree with 90-day internment as being a ‘traitor’. The Sun evidently does not even know what the word ‘traitor’ means. Yet isn’t voting for legislation that is arbitrary, would have done nothing to prevent the 7th July bombings, is unsupported by any concrete evidence that it’s even needed and, importantly, flies in the face of the traditional British liberty to be free from imprisonment unless actually convicted of something bordering on the treasonous? If the authorities arrest somebody and, 14 days later, still haven’t got enough of a case to even charge him (charge, remember - not convict), shouldn’t they perhaps have done a little more ground work before nicking him?

As the police chiefs run around doing Blair’s bidding (prior, as it happens, to a reorganisation of police forces that will see the unchosen ones lose their jobs - where ‘unchosen’ might just mean those who haven’t toed the party line) yet another London bombing victim refuses to play the game. Rachel North (a pseudonym) was on an underground carriage on 7th July when it blew up:

I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.

I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same. I cannot, and do not speak for all the victims, and nor can, and nor should Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.

I do not see why this ill-thought out macho posturing, which can only destabilise and divide us, by robbing men and women of the ancient and fundemental right of habeas corpus, and making sections of the community afraid, is going to defeat terror.

And I will not meekly accept claims that this is to be done in my name. This is panicking, this is fearful, this is not helpful. I expect better than this, and I deserve better than this. We all do.

I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?

I’m not of the opinion that because these people were direct victims of the bombings that their views are somehow more pertinent than anybody else’s - yours, mine or the government’s. They aren’t. But their support for draconian detention laws was taken for granted and it’s good to see them speak out. I look forward to a long Sun article describing accurately and fairly the views of those who do not support the 90 day rule.

Charles Kennedy was asked on The Politics Show whether he would consider co-operating with the Conservatives if they were led by David Cameron:

David is a blank canvas. I don’t know what he represents or what he wants to do with his party…. I don’t know what David Cameron’s agenda is.

An observation that will resonate with some members of the Conservative Party….

Not that this prevented the show’s presenter, Jon Sopel, from blurting out the BBC’s completely ubiased line on the Conservative Party’s leadership election. In an interview with David Cameron he said:

… because when you’re leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition you might have all sorts of other opportunities to go into alliances…

Is Jon Sopel simply biased or simply bad at his job? Either way, why do I have to pay this man’s wages?

I’ve asked the BBC that very question and will post their response when I receive it.

Prospective Conservative Party leader, David Davis, yet again demonstrates forward-thinking policy initiatives - and the mettle to make commitments on which we Party members can base our voting intentions.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will be barred from voting on English laws if Conservative leadership hopeful David Davis becomes prime minister.

“Only English MPs could vote, let’s say, on English education policies or English health policies,” he said.

The government has been criticised for relying on votes of Scottish MPs to get controversial English laws through.

It almost doesn’t matter whether we think this is a good idea (although I’m pretty warm to excluding from voting people who will not have to live with the consequences of their votes). What’s exciting is that the Conservative Party is finally churning out ideas that we can debate.

Any more of this and there’s a danger that we’ll find ourselves with a proper political party on our hands again.

After watching Davis versus Cameron on Question Time last week I concluded Davis is definitely the man to take on Blair/Brown in debate.

David Cameron isn’t helping me to think otherwise.

David Cameron was accused last night of avoiding further television duels with David Davis and a grilling with Jeremy Paxman.

In an interview to be broadcast tonight, Mr Davis will face the famously confrontational Paxman on BBC2’s Newsnight.

If David Cameron is seen to be running shy of television presenters then what hope do we have that he can tackle the real thing in Parliament?

The fact that he has finally agreed to a Sky interview - but not until November 24th - and has, in principle, agreed to a Paxman interview - but with no date agreed - points towards Mr Cameron waiting until party members have already voted for him before exposing himself to the slings and arrows of outrageous interviewers.

Party members like myself need to see him as fearless and confident because, if he wins, we’re going to be working hard for a party which he leads. For the ambitious - like myself - his performance can directly affect my success. I don’t know whether he’s deliberately avoiding tough situations but the suspicion should not even arise. If it’s true that he is then that’s a disaster. If it’s not then his team are handling his campaign badly by allowing such suggestions to arise. Mr Cameron should prove everybody wrong now and get on television at every opportunity and fight it out.

That, after all, will be an integral part of the job for which he is seeking election.

Following last night’s head to head between the two Conservative Party leadership contenders one can easily see that both men have their strong points, their unique attractions, their entitlements to even be in this race. The challenge for us observers is to map talents to circumstances in order to work out which of those talents will bring best results when brought to bear against this government over the next 3 or 4 years.

When all is said and done and we’ve debated each candidate’s policy hints, grand ideas, presentational similarities with Blair, previous recreational habits and so on the concern that most prominently features in my thinking is this:

At the next election New Labour’s main liability - Tony Blair - will be gone. Regardless of the state of the economy by then, Gordon Brown, who has a reputation of being a master of detail and a consummate politician will be fighting for his political inheritance in what will almost certainly be an uncertain world for Labour. Brown will be formidable and he may very well be erring on the desperate. Encounters between him and whoever leads the Conservative Party will, then, be bruising - if not brutal - ones. The stakes will be sky-high.

Whoever faces him will need to be foot-sure and able to not only attack the government for its deceits, its inefficiencies, the damage it is inflicting on our people and the lunacy of its ideological assumptions but will also have to be able to present a clearly and obviously different way forward to the British public. Whoever this person is he is going to be savagely attacked in the most uncompromising terms, will be subject to both personal vilification by the government and its agents in the media and will have his every policy idea derided at every opportunity.

Our Party’s leader will need to bring years of experience to bear in order to carry our message forward and will need the maturity borne of experience to survive all that will be thrown at him. He will need grit, determination but also a coolness under fire if he is to handle the slings and arrows, return a few and still be in command of his Party and, importantly, himself.

It is no criticism of David Cameron, nor is it to his shame, to conclude that he is not that man. The intangible extra, that additional ’something’ that enables a politician to shrug off the attacks and respond with something better, more apposite than that which he has just shrugged off and still have a smile on his face is something David Davis clearly has and David Cameron clearly doesn’t have yet.

Last night, David Davis explained, David Cameron pleaded. David Davis discussed, David Cameron implored. David Davis looked like he had it, David Cameron looked like he was still searching. And although both were evidently nervous at times, David Davis looked mostly relaxed and in control of himself. David Cameron at times started to edge towards over-emotion.

David Cameron is an excellent politician and has said a few things that I want to hear a conservative say. But more than anything else if I close my eyes and imagine the Conservative Party leader, in the House of Commons, standing amidst a cheering, baying, fractious and belligerent gathering of our representatives, giving it out, shrugging it off and scoring major points against some of the most experienced, skilled and ruthless politicians in this country then the leader I imagine is not going to be David Cameron. That leader will be David Davis who has the necessary pugnaciousness, cool, intelligence, policy and presence to deliver KO after KO against this government.

For the time being I believe David Cameron will be out of his depth. He is a class politician in the making; Davis is a class politician already made. If the Conservative Party intends to win the next election it cannot afford to wait and see if Cameron grows into the job. The risk that he actually might not - while small - is still too great. It needs to go with the man who has already grown and is already fit for the purpose. It needs to go with a man who can take the war to the government and a clear alternative to the electorate. That man is David Davis. If Conservatives want to return to power then David Davis is the man to vote for.

Simon Heffer in today’s Daily Telegraph asks pertinent (or impertinent if you’re a David Cameron supporter) questions about Mr C’s various espousals in the Party’s current leadership campaign.

He lists some of Mr Cameron’s soundbites:

He [David Cameron] wrote that the party needed “fundamental change” if it were not to be seen to be “out of step with the modern world” and to “lack the association with aspiration and opportunity that is essential for political success”.

Mr Heffer also refers to Mr Cameron’s rant (it was in The Spectator a few weeks back) aimed at people just like Mr Heffer:

Apparently rather cross with me, he said the attitude I personify was “that the Conservative Party just needs to shout louder [sic] and hate the modern world even more” and that it “is not just part of the problem. It is the problem”.

Mr Heffer searched his previous columns for evidence that he fitted this description and found none. Actually, I could find plenty of what it is that Mr Cameron is actually referring to - although none of it would support Mr Cameron’s verdict on Mr Heffer’s motivations.

On the rare occasions on which I had actually written about the Tory party - and it has been a subject I have long avoided in order not to drive away readers - it was to argue that it should espouse a smaller state, lower taxes, more individual responsibility, national sovereignty, the rule of law and a humane but strong national identity.

Mr Heffer offers his own suggestion for what drove Mr Cameron to reach the conclusion he reached:

Because Mr Cameron has no principles of his own, he has to attack his imagined opponents for what he hopes are theirs. This is best done by caricature, parody and, not to put too fine a point on it, a display of downright howling ignorance.

Mr Heffer goes on to question what it is the Conservative Party means when it says it has ‘to move on’. Move on to what? Move on from what?

For all the talk about the Conservative Party needing a Clause 4 moment - that is, a moment such as Labour had when it ditched its ridiculous membership clause advocating the public ownership of the means of production - and so signalling to the rest of the country that it was indeed ‘New’ Labour - there is a problem of knowing which part of conservative belief has been discredited to the point that ditching it would be ‘a good thing’.

So Mr Cameron’s apparent decision to ape Tony Blair is strategically flawed because the theory behind it - such that it is - is missing one of the most essential ingredients of the Blairite ascendancy - namely, the dropping of something meaningful and substantial from the party ideology that would sufficiently demonstrate that we’ve ‘moved on’.

The point is: Tony Blair - and the Labour Party - really did move on. Dropping Clause 4 was very big news and all the country were in no doubt of it. The Party looked genuinely to have changed. It seems all we’d be doing if Mr Cameron wins the leadership election is copying the Blairite style of government that followed this. But that style has now been comprehensively discredited as, years on, the public now recognises that the big smile, blokey delivery and passionate speeches are ‘for the moment’ vacuities and that, when the glitter finally settles, NHS performance does not in any way reflect the awesome sums being spent on it, education is becoming a national embarrassment, family life is in freefall, our pension funds have been mugged and our streets are roamed by the obnoxious and sometimes dangerous offspring of parents living in Labour’s socially libertarian utopia.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: we only need 45% of the electorate to recognise that we offer something meaningfully different to the current regime for us to sweep the board at a general election. But we have painted ourselves into such a corner that we are now in a position where we have to actively convince people who have not voted for the Conservative Party for many years - if ever - that we’re even a possible alternative.

Presenting clearly explained conservative policies will not please 100% of the electorate but it doesn’t have to. The gamble isn’t in being true to conservative ideas; the gamble - as has been demonstrated over the last three - count them! - elections is in continuing to eschew them. The electorate will not vote for a Conservative Party that is little more than a new New Labour. They will vote either for the original one or for something quite different. Only David Davis seems capable of providing us with something quite different. He, then, is the key to the Conservative Party’s success.

From the BBC:

David Davis has outlined his plans for referendums on returning powers he says have been lost to the European Union.

He suggested a referendum to demand full-scale return of power from Europe to Britain.

This would be followed by a second referendum after talks with the European Union, so voters could judge if he had delivered the goods.

He added that the “people of Europe all have different expectations of Europe and we can’t have a one-size-fits-all model anymore”.

Other proposals put forward by Mr Davis include a new British Bill of Rights with priority over European human rights laws.

The BBC report is careful not to allow Davis too much leeway and is peppered with warnings from Ken Clarke who was booted out of the contest in the very first round.

David Cameron, in the meantime, will ‘reduce’ the amount of legislation coming from Europe. Whoopee. I for one just cannot wait…

David Cameron:

“The Conservative Party has to understand why it has lost three elections in a row and what Blair has achieved over the last eight years. We can’t turn the clock back to 1997 and pretend it has all been a bad dream.”

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the Conservative Party’s biggest problem. When one of its leadership contenders believes that Blair has achieved things - positive things - over the last 8 years and that those years haven’t been a bad dream one can only wonder then how badly he actually wants to beat this man.

Let’s get one thing straight. All that stuff about the public not wanting to see politicians slagging each other off? Garbage. The public loves it. What the public recognise though - and they definitely don’t like it - is opportunistic name-calling that isn’t backed up by meaningful alternatives, sound policy and a compelling vision. Cameron cannot effectively lead the Conservative Party if he is in thrall to Tony Blair. If Blair has an 8 year record of achievement then what, exactly, does Mr Cameron want to change? You don’t want to mess with success so surely you’re left tinkering at the edges?

To wake the British people from their complacency - apathy, to be more accurate - the Party’s leader must attack government failure at all levels and make people aware of just how truly awful Labour is. The Conservative Party is not there to be a better version of Labour, it’s there to be a clean break from Labour.

No true patriot can look at what Blair has done to the country we love and then talk about what Blair has achieved. Blair’s achievements, if you want to call them that, amount to the ruination of a nation:

deplorable - and worsening - education standards

diminishing economic efficiency

a racially divided and alienated society

endemic sexual disease

industrial scale abortion

ever-deepening welfare dependency

chronic yobbish behaviour

escalating alcohol-related crime

widespread casual, drug use

surrender to the unions over the public sector pensions crisis

the steady flow of British sovereignty to an unelected and foreign parliament

a business environment groaning under the weight of government taxes, regulation and social engineering legislation

total ignorance of the pensions and health timebomb ticking beneath the feet of all our people

the relegation of England to a third-rate region in the nation it founded

And so on and so forth.

New Labour’s record in the UK is an opposition’s dream. There is just so much wrong now - and much of it is directly attributable to Labour policy - that Conservative MPs should be able to wax eloquently for half an hour or so just listing it. To hear a Party leadership hopeful actually praising Blair for the lives he’s ruined and the society he’s degrading fills one with despair.

“There are some in the party who believe that the pendulum will swing back,” he says. “But the Conservative Party has no right to office. It exists because it has principles and ideas and policies that attract people.”

Ain’t that so, Mr Cameron. But these are conservative principles - not social democrat. And here, as a gentle reminder, are some of those principles:

British laws created by a British parliament only

On the whole people run their lives better than governments. Governments only involve themselves in those areas that communities definitely can’t manage themselves

the promotion of enterprise in business, society and family is achieved by government not interfering

the tight control of our own borders and the restriction - or cessation - of immigration that does not directly serve the free-born Briton or the society s/he lives in

a clear recognition of right and wrong behaviour with the former praised and the latter punished

government is a servant which rules with our consent

we only lock up people who have committed crimes

government officials must identify themselves to us, not us to them

family is crucial, its breakdown a national disaster

our history is our birthright; it’s what binds us. We are not ashamed of ourselves.

We are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.

Cameron - and David Davis for that matter - need to quickly prove that they understand this. Davis, I think, does - but he needs now to work hard to demonstrate he does and translate his understanding into policy. Cameron I’ve doubted and it becomes clearer by the day that, unless he produces something dramatic, we are facing an imitation Blair.

And as we’ve all said before, why would the public vote for Labour-lite when they can have the Real Thing?

…which is looking likely, who would we need in his shadow cabinet?

For those of us concerned that he may not take the right line on drugs and Europe who will we need in the Foreign Office, Home Office etc to help promote conservative principles and help get the country off its back?

Supposing Mr Cameron does indeed win, whom will he choose to be his Chancellor?

Who will give the Conservative Party the heavyweight punch that will be needed to send Labour back into the oblivion in which it belongs?

Who will bring experience, debating finesse and some much-needed attack skills to the Party so that we can jolt our people out of their complacency and show then what’s really happening to their country?

Will David Davis or Liam Fox be offered positions? Will they accept them?

Government isn’t just one man. Granted, the man at the top is its most prominent feature. But a liberal spreading of political talent is a good thing and can give the Party an overall flavour that is conservative and electable. Whoever wins, his choices of shadow cabinet will be vitally important.

Ken Clarke has been knocked out of the Conservative Party leadership race.

Phew.

Conservative Party leadership contender David Davis has taken a few jabs at David Cameron.

He has warned Conservatives not to take chances with a leader who is inexperienced - which possibly describes 39-year old Mr Cameron quite well.

And, while Mr Cameron faces uncomfortable questions about his student days, Mr Davis has backed a police crackdown on middle-class drug users (so we working class types can puff to our hearts’ content, then?)

Furthermore, reflecting perhaps that Cameron has been described in the past as ‘Tory Blair’ Mr Davis promised to be “the antidote to Brown, not the heir to Blair”.

I would advise Mr Davis - and I’m sure he reads my blog - to be very careful. Too much of anything that even whiffs of bad-mouthing will turn people away from him. There is an unwritten rule that leadership hopefuls concentrate on promoting themselves rather than doing down their opponents.

Some Conservatives will take a very dim view of anyone who breaks with this tradition…

How do we feel about David Cameron ousting Ken Clarke for second place (behind David Davis) in the Conservative Party leadership contest?

My personal preference is Davis and Liam Fox in the final - a result that will have me celebrating for a week (scheduling the hangover into my diary even now). But Davis and Cameron means it’s not Davis and Clarke.

Although it’s a pity that one speech in a Party conference can have so much bearing on a leadership outcome - particularly when it seems that it was presentation skills wot won it rather than content - the silver lining must surely be that we hopefully won’t be electing our own version of Tony Blair.

But what if Cameron won…?

I asked last week whether conservative MPs might vote tactically to squeeze out Ken Clarke and make the final two-horse race one between Liam Fox and David Davis.

The papers today suggest some Davis support has flowed to Fox in light of their respective conference speeches. Some has flowed to Cameron also.

I wonder if this turn events could itself deliver the ultimate in conservative dream tickets?

The Conservative Party leadership contest isn’t just about choosing a conservative leader - it’s about whether conservatism itself is the Conservative Party’s preferred ideology. The current contest’s declared runners include at least one - a frontrunner, no less - who is not recognisable as a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

A central problem for the Party - and one for which I can come up with no immediate solution - is that although the party’s name contains the word ‘Conservative’ there is, in fact, no compulsion on anyone to actually be a ‘conservative’. Whether there should be compulsion is, of course, a different matter. But wouldn’t it be useful if the Party’s rules stated that one must be at least aligned to a set of broadly defined beliefs? I wonder if it’s unreasonable for the Party to have an identity, an ongoing manifesto that describes the basic principles for which the organisation stands?

In this way, the leadership contest transcends basic philosophy because the basic philosophy of the Party formed one of the entry conditions to the Party in the first place. If you don’t agree with the broad philosophy of the Party don’t join.

Then, instead of having a leadership contest that determines whether or not the Party is conservative we would have a leadership contest between people who were certainly conservatives and we, the members simply have to choose whose particular brand of conservatism - and whose presentation, ideas and so on - best suits.

The timeless ideals of the Conservative Party live on regardless.

The Conservative Party voting system is quite simple. MPs vote for their preferred candidate and the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Repeat until there are just two candidates left. At that point, all Party members vote for their preferred candidate, the winner becoming party leader.

Is it possible for the Conservative Party’s conservative wing (supporters of David Davis and Liam Fox, for example) to vote tactically so that Ken Clarke does not make it to the final two?

Maybe the excess Davis vote can ensure that Fox is never the last-placed candidate by voting for him. When we get to, say, three remaining candidates could that knock Mr Clarke out?

Could they arrange it so that the final battle is between Mr Fox and Mr Davis?

The Conservatives are brimming with confidence:

The Conservatives could form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats if there is a hung parliament after the next election, the Tory chairman Francis Maude, has said.

Sorry, Mr Maude, but I didn’t join the Conservative Party so I could team up with a mixture of frustrated socialists and frustrated libertarians. Frankly, I’d rather be decimated in the polls than form such a coalition.

Lascivious just lost his place on my christmas list after making a modicum of sense regarding the upside of a Clarke victory in the Conservative Party leadership race.

In a nutshell, Clarke gets Labour out of office and then we build a case for a truly conservative party - and a truly conservative leader.

Unless of course, we can persuade our Ken to truly see the light.

Most of us on the political right accept - to differing degrees - that economic liberalisation is ‘a good thing’ and that, especially, it’s a very good antidote to despots and tyrants.

The logic goes that economies tend only to flourish within free and open societies where the freedom of ideas - and speech - are primary sources of the ideas and enterprise that lead to successful capitalism. For a government to enjoy the fruits of free trade it needs to liberate its people so that they can provide those fruits.

The International Herald Tribune explains why this might not necessarily be the case.

Political freedom requires some supporting freedoms:

To effectively pursue political power, citizens have to engage in “strategic coordination”: activities such as disseminating information, recruiting and organizing party members, selecting leaders, raising funds and holding meetings and demonstrations.

Economic progress requires some supporting freedom also:

“Standard public goods” include public transportation, primary and secondary education, and public health; all of which contribute to economic growth and pose relatively little threat to the regime.

The more sophisticated regimes have managed to provide the latter but not the former, so enjoying improved economic performance while flat-lining in the personal freedom stakes. This has happened…

… in China, Russia and other states where authoritarian regimes loosened the economic reins. Economic growth arrived but liberal democracy is still nowhere is sight. The reason is simple but disturbing: A new and more sophisticated breed of autocrat has discovered a strategy that permits them to enjoy the benefits of economic growth while postponing - often for decades - the emergence of authentic competitive democracy.

We need to recognise that promoting economic growth is not nearly as effective a way to promote democracy as was once believed. It may that donor organisations need to tie civil liberty strings to their loans. Until a country has a free press, the right to organise itself politically and freedom of speech it is not free in any meaningful sense of the word.

Malcolm Rifkind says the Conservative Party is deeply defective.

What’s defective about it?

I offer these clips from Sunday Telegraph interview by means of clues:

“The choice is whether we continue down the cul-de-sac of the last eight years or whether we choose an alternative conservative tradition.”

… criticised the party’s concentration on “classic Right-wing Conservative issues” such as immigration, asylum, Europe, crime and tax.

“We need to be asking who will be acceptable to the public as an alternative to Gordon Brown.”

This is the wrong thinking that has led to the Conservative Party’s last three election defeats. It is the abandonment of strong, instinctive English conservatism in favour of prostration at the feet of the focus groups.

And these are all quotes from one Malcolm Rifkind.