Howard's Berlin Speech Fisked

The full text is taken from a Guardian report linked here.

The Conservative leader's speech entitled A New Deal for Europe to the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Berlin

Thursday February 12, 2004

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am enormously grateful for your warm words of welcome and for giving me this opportunity to speak to you here this evening.

The obsequious tone of the speech is immediately established. Why should a Leader of Britain's official government opposition party be 'enormously grateful' to set forward a position on Anglo/German relations in Berlin?

The Conservative Party and the German CDU in partnership with the CSU share many political values and I appreciate the strong relationship that continues to exist between our parties.

A popular misconception held by many Tories! They are extreme federalists

It is no accident that I should be giving this speech in Berlin, a city which encapsulates so much of Europe's recent history. There is no better place in which to set out a new vision for Europe's future.

My first visit to Berlin was in the summer of 1963. I was there on 26th June. I was one of the half million people who thronged in front of the Rathaus Schoneberg to hear President Kennedy give his famous address. The whole world remembers his words: 'Ich bin ein Berliner' - I am a Berliner; I am at one with the people of Berlin.

To all those who believe in democracy, in freedom, in hope for mankind, President Kennedy had a simple message: 'Lass'sie nach Berlin kommen'. Let them come to Berlin. It was an iconic moment, echoed almost a quarter of a century later when President Reagan stood in this city and called across the divide "General Secretary Gorbachev ... if you seek peace ... if you seek liberalisation: come here to this gate! Mr Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

Throughout those years, West Berlin was a beacon at the frontier of the battle for freedom. Those presidential visits were inspirational. They represented defiant idealism in the face of a brutal reality.

Today, the people of Berlin are one. The west's vision and determination unified a city, a country and a continent. So I come to Berlin once again - to the capital of a country which has been one of the great success stories of the post-war era - aware of history but looking to the future, aware of the battle for freedom that took place here, and determined that freedom should flourish in Europe.

I am here in a new century, in a city that is the gateway between the east and west of Europe, at the heart of this great continent. We are on the point of welcoming 10 nations as new members of the European Union. The entry of these countries, large and small, from Poland to Malta, which my party has always welcomed, will profoundly change the nature of the European Union. And the European Union has a profound responsibility. For if it stands for anything, it is for the healing of our continent.

The European Union has never concerned itself with anything other than trade and the pursuit of narrow national advantage at the expense of one's neighbours. It played absolutely no role in the re-unification of Europe and was mainly noted for its complete silence on the subject throughout that recent and clearly remembered period. Present policies pursued by both Germany and France have led to the destruction of the Growth and Stability Pact threatening the economic growth of the entire continent, and even the very future of its common currency for purely selfish domestic policy objectives of the two leading powers.

Different National Perspectives on the European Union

Britain and Germany are two great nations with their own histories and their own perspectives.

Germany has wanted to achieve closer and in some cases irreversible integration thanks to her specific experiences in two world wars. Konrad Adenauer, whom we honour in this foundation, understood that the European process could be of great service to Germany. As a result, he made this country strong in Europe, valued as a trading partner and trusted as an ally. I understand why his European policy, which helped to establish Germany's place in the community of nations, is admired in Germany today.

We in Britain came through the war with our national institutions strong. When we seek to preserve those institutions, we are defending a constitutional settlement that has survived great stresses and strains and which continues to work well and be understood by people in Britain.

Britain has always been a global trading nation. We have historic connections with our Commonwealth partners and with the United States. Look, for example, at where our international telephone calls go at Christmas and New Year: to North America, to the Caribbean, to the Indian subcontinent, to Australia and New Zealand.

This is not just a sentimental point. It is also a hard commercial truth. More of our trade is with non-EU members than is the case for any other member state. We have more overseas investments in non-European markets than any other member state. We are unique in the EU in having a global financial centre.

Given these clear facts, after thirty years of attempting to fuse with the continent, would it not have been more sensible to concede defeat and announce a policy that pursued the interests which he lists? Namely pursuing Britain's future with its historic and trusted global allies.

But Britain and Germany are not the only countries that approach European integration from a perspective shaped by their history. Every European country does. I do not always agree with your Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer. Nor, I suspect, do you. But he was recently quoted in one of our newspapers as saying: 'All the countries ... have different traditions, different political disputes at home, complicated parliaments, complicated majorities ... Language and history matter in Europe and we have to understand these different histories and difficulties'. He makes an important point.

The Eastern European accession countries have thrown off the yoke of Soviet domination. They, along with other new member states, have rediscovered their own national identities and the freedom to determine their own destiny. As a result they may well be wary of giving up too much of that hard-won independence.

Different histories, different institutions and different traditions.

To undermine these institutions and ways of life, whether they have developed uninterrupted over hundreds of years or only recently re-emerged, and which are seen as legitimate by their people, would be an act of folly. Most people in the nations of Europe do not feel the same affinity or identity with EU bodies that they do with their own national institutions. People who identify themselves as Europeans rather than as citizens of their own country still remain a very small minority in every member state of the European Union.

Most people simply do not feel European in the same sense that they might feel American or German - or British.

There is no European public opinion; no European national identity. In the absence of a European demos, we are left with unadorned kratos: the power of a system that commands respect through force of law, not public affection
A Competitive Europe

Yet the European Union has achieved a great deal. Together we have created a single market of 380 million people. People now have the right to work, study or retire in any other EU member state. We have also achieved some of the best environmental standards in the world. These are things of which we can all be proud.

But there are dangers too. The communications revolution means that individuals now have a global reach and a global outlook. International institutions, whether they are businesses or charities, have abandoned the head office culture. Today, they create multi-centred organisations with power devolved to local and national centres.

In this world, competition is fiercer than it has ever been before. The pace of change is faster than it's ever been before. Those who respond most quickly and effectively to these changes will win the prizes. So flexibility is at an enormous premium.

In this new environment we need a flexible Europe which puts global competitiveness at its heart. It would be idle to pretend that we have it. We now have to compete against China, India and the Asian economies. We cannot afford to be complacent.

When I was Employment Secretary in the early 1990s I had to negotiate over the Working Time Directive. I had a meeting with one of my European counterparts, and pointed out to him that this new regulation would harm our competitiveness. His reply was chilling. "If we all do it" - by which he meant the countries of the EU - "It won't make any difference".

I hope we have all moved on since then. The EU was designed to free up our markets so that we could compete globally. But the weight and burden of the directives and laws it has introduced has had almost exactly the opposite effect - damming the flood of enterprise that should be sweeping across our continent.

I was struck by the recent remarks of Gerrit Zalm, the Dutch Minister of Finance, who pointed out that "over 50% of the administrative burden on businesses in the Netherlands has a direct European origin. On a European scale these costs must be enormous. European legislation tends to be very detailed in its prescriptions and in its information demands. It also tends to grow rapidly. The decision makers involved, including the politicians in the parliament and the council, should realise the pressure they put on the economic potential".

These are fine words and I agree with them. But reform is simply not happening. The nation states of the European Union are still bedevilled by rules, regulation and red tape, which significantly impede our ability to compete. That is why our economies are not as dynamic as that of the United States. That is why productivity per person is almost 20% higher in the United States than it is in the European Union, and output per hour is 15% higher. That is why over the last decade employment in the United States grew almost twice as fast as in the European Union. If we had the same record as the United States in creating jobs, 28 million more people would be in work in the European Union today.

We must build a Europe that is flexible. There is huge scope for improvement. This means that we must be honest about the work that the European Union should and should not do. .

Given this clear and realistic recital of facts it is hard to comprehend how he reconciles the continuation of his speech, which it will be seen is totally at odds with these hard truths.

The Conservative Vision for Europe

Europe needs to go in a new direction. I say this as leader of a Party, the British Conservative party, that has been at the forefront of Britain's engagement with Europe. It was a Conservative government which first applied for membership in the early 1960s. It was a Conservative government which took us into the European Economic Community in 1973. It was a Labour government which threatened to withdraw from Europe and held a referendum on that issue in 1975. It was the Labour party which stood on a manifesto of withdrawal from the European community in 1983, a manifesto on which Tony Blair was first elected to Parliament. Three years later, in 1986, it was Margaret Thatcher who was one of the leading forces behind the Single European Act which established the single European market. Which is perhaps why the former European commissioner Jacques Delors was recently moved to remark that 'I have nothing to complain about with Mrs. Thatcher ... she is a figure who counts in Britain's and Europe's history'.

So let me, too, speak frankly. I am determined that Britain shall remain a positive and influential member of the European Union. But British policy towards the EU has often led to worse rather than better relations between States. Faced with a new EU initiative, our traditional response has often been to oppose it, to vote against it, to lose the vote, then sulkily to adopt it while blaming everyone else. You are understandably sick of constant British vetoes. And shall I tell you something? So am I.

As far as I have been able to determine there is not a single recorded incident of the use of the veto by Britain! This statement therefore beggars belief.

Many fears about the way in which the European Union is developing, on both sides of the Channel, stem from the fact that it is seen as a one-way street to closer integration to which all must subscribe. This is a perception which must be changed if Europe is to retain public confidence.

It is only a fear within the British Isles. Closer integration is the driving force and main poltical objective of the EU and has been for many years. If Howard does not yet realise that point he should not have any role in establishing British policy towards the EU, as after this speech most informed voters will surely rapidly appreciate?

Of course there are basic requirements which all member states must accept. Foremost among these are the four freedoms of the single market; free movement of goods, services, people and capital. But a single market does not require a single social or industrial policy, far less a common taxation policy. Allowing countries to pursue their own policies in these areas will encourage the spread of competitiveness across Europe. Forcing common standards upon them will mean that Europe as a whole falls further and further behind as each member state tries to put its own costs onto its neighbours.

Most people in Europe show no sign nor inclination to take on board these simple facts that appear immediately obvious to most native English speakers. Howard again shows he lacks any understanding of the present EU debate. It is fresh-creepingly embarassing to display such obvious naiveity. This crassness is then heightened in the following sections:

A Flexible Europe

A flexible approach raises the important question of how to decide which areas should be applied to every member state, and which should be optional. In my view, every member state should be allowed to administer for itself those policies which do not directly and significantly affect the domestic affairs of other member states. So, matters such tariffs and cross-border pollution could be left to Brussels. But in areas which serve their own national interest, individual member states would be able to decide whether to retain wholly national control or whether to co-operate with others. The nations of Europe should come together as a series of overlapping circles: different combinations of member states should be able to pool their responsibilities in different areas of their own choosing.

I first spoke about the need for Europe to adopt a more flexible approach a decade ago. For me this is not a new concept.

And nor is it the revolutionary approach that many commentators might consider it to be. Historically, there have always been moments when Europe has been prepared to be flexible. This, after all, has been the case with NATO since its inception, where France signed up for membership but refused to submit her armed forces to separate NATO command and control. It is the case with the Euro. It remains the case with the 1990 Schengen Agreement. It was the case with the Protocol on Social Policy, negotiated at Maastricht, the so-called Social Chapter.

A New Deal for Europe

So the precedent is clearly established. And it can be developed. So far, everyone has had to move forward together, with individual countries negotiating specific opt-outs. This has caused tremendous tension. But since 1998, there has been a procedure within the Treaties which could be used to allow some member states to go ahead with further integration in a specific area, without involving every other member state. It is, as you know, called enhanced cooperation. It means that, instead of individual member states having fraught negotiations to opt-out of a new initiative, those that support it can simply decide to opt-in.

This would allow those countries who want to integrate further to do so. But others would not be compelled to join them. It suits the integrationists. It suits the non-integrationists. Let's use it.

It would enable us to strike a new deal on Europe. Those member states which wish to integrate more closely would be free to do so. It would not be necessary for them to drag Britain and quite possibly some other member states kicking and screaming in their wake. We would say to our partners: 'We don't want to stop you doing what you want to do, as long as you don't make us do what we don't want to do'. In that way we would be able to break free from the institutionalised tug of war which has so often characterised relations between the Member States of the European Union in the past.

It would no longer be necessary to impose on the European Union a rigid straitjacket of uniformity from Finland to Greece, from Portugal to Poland. We would be able to create a structure in which Europe's member states would have room to breathe.

I am not talking about a two-speed Europe. That implies that we are all agreed on the destination and differ only about the speed of the journey. I don't want to reach the destination that some of our partners may aspire to. But I don't want to block their aspirations.

My policy is simple. Live and let live. Flourish and let flourish. That is a modern and mature approach.

In my view it would create an imaginative structure for the European Union which could well be seen as a model by countries in other parts of the world which wish to co-operate more closely with each other without sacrificing their essential national sovereignty. That flexible approach, variable geometry, would ensure that we create a 'made to measure' Europe in which the institutional arrangements comfortably fit national interests, not an 'off the peg' Europe, ill-fitting and splitting at the seams.

Howard clearly has never read the 'Treaty of Nice' which is linked from here If he has he clearly has not grasped the implications of 'enhanced cooperation'.

Britain's Influence in Europe

There are some who say that this would mean a loss of influence on the part of those countries which choose not to integrate more closely. But influence is not an end in itself - it is a means to an end.

Britain, for example, does not need a seat at the table when decisions on the Euro are being made. And our economy has not been adversely affected by staying out. The decision to keep our own currency does not mean that we oppose the establishment of the Euro, or secretly hope for its failure. On the contrary, the euro-zone accounts for a significant amount of our trade: we depend on the prosperity of our European partners. So we wish them, and the Euro, well. But I thank M. Delors for acknowledging, in the same interview that I quoted earlier, 'Since we have not succeeded in maximising the economic advantages of the euro, one can understand the British...saying "things are just fine as they are. Staying out of the Euro has not stopped us prospering".'

For a long time, on both sides of the Channel, commentators expected that Britain would eventually have to join the single currency. They simply could not envisage a situation where the United Kingdom diverged permanently from the rest of the EU. But it is now widely accepted that the status quo is sustainable. Our absence does not seem to be causing any ill effects within the euro-zone. We see, in short, a major European policy from which Britain, along with Sweden and Denmark, has amicably stood aside. This is something which seems to cause some people anguish. I see it as a source of satisfaction all round.

Britain is the second largest economy in Europe. It is also the strongest military power in Europe. So we should not have any fears about our influence. Influence depends much more on what you can bring to the table than on any particular institutional structure.

National Powers

The kind of approach I am suggesting should also enable adjustments to be made to the acquis communautaire. Where it is clear that policies can be more effectively implemented on a national basis the European Union should be prepared to recognise this. Proposals to achieve national control in such circumstances should be treated on their merits and not automatically rejected as an affront to the European ideal.

In 1996, when I was Britain's Home Secretary, my country tabled a proposal to re-assert national control cover over civil defence and emergencies: that is, over how Governments respond to disasters like floods and fires. I could see no reason why we needed to have common policies on volcanic eruptions - something hardly likely to be relevant to Britain. It struck me as absurd that these matters should be dealt with by a European Secretariat funded by the European taxpayer. British negotiators were therefore instructed to press for the removal of the provisions relating to civil defence and emergencies from Title II of the Treaty.

But my fellow European interior ministers took a different view. Interestingly, none of them argued that there was some compelling European interest in how we should respond to burst dams. Rather, their concern seemed to be that any diminution of Brussels' role would be a betrayal of the European ideal.

There should be no need today to maintain that attitude. Just as it would be dogmatic to refuse to co-operate with our European neighbours in areas where we have clear common interests, so is it equally dogmatic to insist that the EU should administer policies which can perfectly well be left to national governments.

Specific Areas of Concern

Within this new framework, what would be my priorities for reform?

From a British perspective, the Common Fisheries Policy has been a failure: it has led simultaneously to the dwindling of fish stocks and the near-destruction of the British fishing industry. Its quota system encourages the dumping of dead catches over the side of boats. Its rules have turned good men into liars.

There is no reason why fishing grounds could not be administered at national level. Not only does this happen in the rest of the world, where many countries have pursued successful conservation policies; it has also happened within the EU itself, where large portions of European waters were never incorporated into the Common Fisheries Policy.

That which no one owns, no one will care for. The first step towards regenerating fisheries as a renewable resource is to establish the concept of ownership. That is why an incoming Conservative government will immediately negotiate to restore national control over British fishing grounds, out to 200 miles or the median line as allowed under maritime law, with sensible bilateral deals and recognition of the historic rights of other nations.

I am also keen to see individual member states take more control over their overseas aid budgets. Britain has one of the most effective overseas aid and development programmes, where almost all of the aid reaches the people it is intended to help and is used effectively. Very few people could make the same claims about the EU programme, despite Commissioner Patten's heroic efforts at reform. As someone who is genuinely concerned with the need to give British taxpayers value for money, and to alleviate global poverty, I see a compelling case for increasing national control over overseas aid and development.

What can Howard believe would induce the EU to give up something they stole through their deception and Heath's treachery many years ago? Something which they have knowingly and ruthlessly plundered with no concern for the future ever since. The only explanation for the profligate exploitation of Britain's Fishing Grounds is that the Continentals must have (apparently mistakenly?) realised years ago that stupid, blinkered and treacherous British governments could not continue to hold power indefinitely. Germans hearing Howard's speech might now perhaps wonder if killing off what is now a 'common resource' was such a good idea after all!

Other Areas of Reform

There are many other areas where reform is needed. I shall resist the temptation this evening to give you a long list of examples. But radical reform of the Common Agriculture Policy is especially urgent.

It is no exaggeration to say that this policy has been disastrous for many of the poorest countries in the world. It has led to the over-production of food in Europe and the dumping of cheap food in Third World countries, harming their indigenous industry. Enlargement has made the need for reform more urgent. Over 40 per cent of the EU's budget - 40 billion euros - is still spent supporting this policy, and that is likely to increase with the advent of the accession states, unless there is urgent reform.

The European Constitution

In short the European Union should stop trying to do everything and concentrate on doing fewer things more effectively. It should give the member states the chance to develop their own European approach that suits their national traditions, within the framework of the EU.

It is on this basis that British Conservatives oppose the proposed constitution. We disagree with many of its contents, of course, but we also oppose the idea of having an EU constitution. There is a world of difference between an association of nation states bound together by treaty, and a single entity, whether you call it a state or not, with its own legal personality, deriving its authority from its own constitution.

If this constitution were accepted in anything like the proposed form, the EU would gain many of the attributes and trappings of statehood: its own president, its own foreign minister, its own legal system. For the first time, the supremacy of EU law would derive not from Acts of national Parliaments but from a supra-national constitution. That is a profound and radical change.

It is quite dishonourable to pretend that this is all a tidying-up exercise. What is proposed is perhaps the biggest change in Britain's constitutional arrangements since the Seventeenth Century.

I do not believe it is right to make a change of such magnitude without specifically consulting the people on whose behalf we purport to govern. Parliament does not own our liberties. It is meant to safeguard them. It should not diminish those liberties without an explicit mandate from the British people.

So let me make it clear. I believe any proposal for a new constitution must be put to the British people in a referendum.

Europe and America

Our continent has always had close links with America. She has stood by us in two world wars and beyond. For all of us, she has been the difference between living a life of freedom or living a life under tyranny. It is a very long way from this city of Berlin to the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. But from the late 1940s onwards President Truman and his successors disregarded that distance. They declared that a threat to Berlin's security was a threat to America's security. They all gave steadfast support to Nato. They were all honorary Berliners.

It is vital that Europe and America continue to remain close. Germany's role in this is critical. Most of the greatest challenges the world faces can best be overcome by Europeans and Americans working together. But if each of those challenges becomes a cockpit for transatlantic rivalry, an opportunity for one to score points off the other, the outlook is very gloomy. The challenges will be much more difficult to resolve. We must not allow friction to become fracture. So we must manage our differences so that they do the least possible damage to a crucial relationship and we should draw back from initiatives that will risk exacerbating these difficulties.

For example, I have grave reservations about Europe's plans to undertake a new defence initiative which involves duplicating the planning and command structures of Nato. I strongly support greater co-operation between European countries on defence. But it should take place within the framework of Nato. Nato should remain the cornerstone of our defence. And Europe should not seek to create a defence structure as an alternative to Nato or as a counterweight to the United States.

After a year in which the death knell of the transatlantic relationship has been sounded on both sides of the Atlantic, I hope that both Britain and Germany will play their part in repairing and renewing the relationship. Undermining Nato is not the best way to achieve that.

A Europe for the 21st Century

It took more than a quarter of a century after Kennedy spoke for the Berlin Wall to come down. It was dismantled brick by brick by the people it had divided. Its fall united a city, a nation and a continent.

Now, some fifteen years later, ten new countries will be joining the EU, many of whom never expected to experience freedom in our time. Their accession to the Union is a matter for celebration.

Now we are in a new century. And I can do no better than to quote my predecessor Iain Duncan Smith. This is what he said in Prague last year. 'The Union's founders built a solid foundation. They built structures that served their time well. But some of those structures are no longer right for today's Europe or today's world. The children and grandchildren of those who shaped post-war Europe now want to stand on the shoulders of their forefathers to advance a vision of their own.'

We have today a unique opportunity. An opportunity to recast Europe in the image of the 21st century. To build a Europe that is truly free, one based on co-operation and not on coercion. One that serves each and every citizen in this great continent of ours, from whatever background and from whatever nation. I hope we can work together to make the most of that opportunity. History will not forgive us if we squander it.

For thirty years the British public have been forced to hear their leaders mouth this garbage, while doing nothing and achieving nothing, and returning home to spout more lies and half-truths about the real European agenda. Only their electorate seems more gullible and more stupid than they, appearing not to hear or see the truth and living the myth that the EU does not matter.

If there are any true Eurosceptics within the Conservative Party they have no choice now remaining but to leave. Let's see if even one MP or MEP has the courage to set an example.

Howard Goes Native in Euroland

After yesterday's amazing speech by Michael Howard, (available in full on Ironies) which implied that this country was not beholden or regulated in any way by the European Union; or indeed that such a potentially tyrannical non-democratic conglomeration did not actually even seem to exist in Michael Howard's strange view of Britain, it is hard to re-read this report from yesterday morning's Daily Telegraph and believe one is still in the real world. We quote just a sample:-

Howard to put the Tories back on European stage
By George Jones, Political Editor and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in
Brussels
(Filed: 09/02/2004)

Michael Howard is preparing to tone down the Eurosceptic approach of his predecessor Iain Duncan Smith and to demonstrate that the Tories have become players on the European stage again.

Michael Howard wants a more flexible EU In his first significant policy decision on Europe, Mr Howard has reversed Mr Duncan Smith's plan to withdraw from the dominant centre-Right alliance in the European Parliament.

The entire column is available by clicking here.

Worse, much worse is this report of his planned itinerary from an internet forum:-

* Howard is also going to visit the very federalist Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on 12/13 Feb.
* He is listed as visiting the 4 December Paris summit of the federalist EPP (Tory MEP Roger Helmer's January newsletter spelt out how venomous this group's platform is - "EU police force, income tax, constitution without a veto", etc.).
* H.G. Poettering, the EPP leader in the European Parliament welcomed Howard's election as Tory leader and responded warmly to his wish for "the virtues of mutual support and friendship" (7.11.03)
* Several 'Conservatives' in the European Parliament are federalists, and some like Richard Balfe MEP, have called for a single currency
* As recently as 2002, Howard told a foreign audience (of course):
"The creation of a political union in Europe - whether you call it a single European state or a United States of Europe or anything else - is a noble ambition and an entirely legitimate ambition"
(Check the Tory Party website, www.conservatives.com)
* He has allegedly been on the executive committee of the federalist European Movement according to one website.

See the post immediately below, where a link to the manifesto of the European Peoples's Party is available!

Letter to D. Hannan, Conservative MEP

The following was sent to my MEP this morning. Others may wish to ask similar questions after they have read the full EPP European Election Manifesto apparently acceptable to Michael Howard.

Quote
Dear Mr Hannan,

I am an overseas registered voter within the Mole Valley parliamentary constituency
who follows events within the EU closely.

I am concerned at the report that the new Conservative Party Leader has been
reported in yesterday's 'Sunday Telegraph' as planning for his and your party
to remain within the EPP group following this June's European Parliamentary
elections. I am sure you have seen this article, butit is nevertheless linked
for reference: 'Howard risks Tory backlash over European alliance'

My concern is aggravated by the manifesto published by that group, which
among many other statements I would have thought no true Conservative could
agree is this in lines 98 and 99:-

'THE EU SHOULD SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE ON ALL KEY FOREIGN AND SECURITY MATTERS.
THIS INCLUDES MAKING EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY IN CLOSE COOPERATION
WITH NATO'

The full manifesto in pdf format is linked for ease of reference:

EPP Manifesto in pdf

Are your party now proposing a national defence policy outside of NATO?
If not then this statement surely prevents you from honestly campaigning
under this manifesto!

Are you now planning to split from your party if it remains within the EPP
beyond the June election?

I will place this letter and any reply on my blogspot Teetering Tories.

Yours sincerely,
Unquote

Conservatives are running out of time

A quote from the Opinion piece by Alice Thomson in the Daily Telegraph

Howard still sounds too chilly, too lawyerly, like the hunter who shot Bambi's mother.

Poor Polls

The Independent reports as follows this morning:-

Tony Blair's loss of public trust after the war on Iraq and the Hutton report is underlined today by a poll for The Independent showing more than half of voters want him to resign.

The NOP poll, conducted this week, shows that 51 per cent want the Prime Minister to quit and 54 per cent believe he lied to the nation over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

It also shows the Tories are ahead of Labour in popularity. The Conservatives are on 36 per cent, with Labour on 35 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 24 per cent.

But when those polled were asked how they would vote if Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, was leader, Labour regained the lead. The Conservatives would be on 36 per cent, Labour 37 and the Liberal Democrats 22.

This dreadful showing for the Conservatives, at a time when the nations Prime Minister is performing so appalingly comes on top of last weeks poll result from YouGov which showed 76 per cent of those asked did not consider Michael Howard honest and fairminded.

After Hutton, the verdict: 51 per cent say Blair should go

Howard and Clarke on Radio 4's Today Programme

A report on the Howard interview may be read from Ironies which also has links and advice on how to listen to a replay of the programme. Clarke started by stating that he had not been on the programme recently as it was well known that he had previously held different positions than IDS.

Ken Clarke supports Howard on the acceptance of the Hutton Report! Clarke was asked if he was not close to the Liberal Democrats position over the Iraq war, he did not reply to that specific point. Clarke said he, Robin Cooke and the Lib Dems all wanted a proper inquiry as to when the decision to go to war was taken !

Conservative Response to Concerns over the Constitution

Multiple Choice Question: From the following list, select who drafted this Official Opposition Reply on the EU Constitution:-

1) Edward Heath?
2) Kenneth Clarke?
3) Both the above?

No prizes will be offered, all participants will be obligated to give up the British portion of their joint EU/British Citizenship whether or not they enter the competition! Here is the unbelievable Tory Party document:-

Quote
Michael Howard has asked me to thank you for your recent e-mail about the draft constitution of the European Union and to reply to it on his behalf. Careful note has been taken of your comments.

First of all, I would assure you that Mr Howard is deeply concerned about many aspects of this document.

The Conservative Party is opposed to an EU Constitution in principle. In form, it provides much of the framework for a federal European state.

In content, the draft Constitution will diminish Britain's sovereignty. The EU will be given large powers over asylum and immigration, with no national vetoes allowed, and for the first time it will be given the right to make directly binding laws on criminal procedure and, in some cases, the definition of crimes.

There will be a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will fundamentally change the application of EU law and could give the European Court of Justice practically law-making powers where the EU has some jurisdiction. It also raises serious concerns on the integrity of NATO, the independence of our foreign policy and of our economic management, among other matters.

All this seems to Mr Howard so serious that it fully justifies a referendum on the Constitution before it can be accepted by the British people. That is why, since December 2002, the Conservative Party has been leading calls for a referendum to be held on the draft EU Constitution before ratification.

It would also be, in our opinion, bad for Britain and bad for Europe. That is why, when a referendum is secured, Mr Howard will be at the forefront of those who wish to see this Constitution rejected.

Since the failure of the Brussels summit on 12/13 December the Constitution's agreement is, for now, postponed. We do not, however, believe that issue will go away. Pressure to agree a Constitution from its supporters is likely to rise again next year.

We will continue to oppose the Constitutional agenda. We are also aware that we now have a golden opportunity to change the European agenda. We will exploit this chance to move the debate onto new ground and argue that the right way forward for the European Union is as a partnership of nation states.

Thank you for writing on this important issue.

With best wishes

Ian P.....
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Unquote

Lessons in Opposition from the Lib Dems

Howard's leadership of the Conservatives has increasingly showed signs that he seems to have forgotten he is no longer Home Secretary. This extract from a report on the Lib Dems refusal to join the latest charade of an inquiry illustrates the point:-

Conservative leader Michael Howard said that questions about the use the Government made of the intelligence provided to it were “fairly and squarely within the remit of this inquiry”.

He said he was “very surprised” by the reasons given by the Liberal Democrats for boycotting the review.

“I am confident that these terms of reference cover the use made by the Government of the intelligence,” Mr Howard told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“Indeed, I was told that that was what the Prime Minister wanted them to do, amongst other things.”

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said it was “a matter of regret” that his party was unable to participate in the inquiry, but said its terms of reference were “unacceptable”.

He added: “My party has been asking for an independent inquiry into the controversial aspects of the build-up to our participation in the Iraq war for many months. I have frequently said that Lord Hutton’s remit was too narrow.

“The remit for this new inquiry is equally unacceptable.

“An inquiry which excludes politicians from scrutiny is unlikely to command public confidence.

“Politicians should always be willing to answer for their judgment and their competence to the public.

The lack of any real opposition from the Conservative Party is becoming truly worrisome. Read the full Scotsman report from here

The Daily Telegragh! Is it Now Promoting the EU Constitution?

Our concern over the increasing pro- EU federalist line and pathetic reporting of the Daily Telegraph on the dangers posed by the EU Constitution have been growing for some time. (See our 'Ironies' posts at the time of the IDS ouster).

We reproduce below, a contribution to an internet forum posted this last weekend which confirms our own suspicions. The DT article and editorial are linked at the foot of this post, while the internet posting follows:
Quote
The Telegraph seems to be in on the subtle plot to make us all lower our guard - did you see Saturday's big headline "Germany gives up dream of federal Europe" over an interview with Oskar Fischer.

We EU sceptics picked up Saturday's paper with great expectations on Saturday morning, thinking "Wow! at last Germany is giving up, they are admitting that it is all an unattainable dream, they are packing in the
idea of an EU united by a single constitution..."

But then we actually read the interview, and we find that Fischer says that the Constitution has "reached" [i.e. in the already agreed draft] an "excellent compromise" between Germany's "integrational" and Britain's "intergovernmental" "traditions"!! No mention of changing article 10.1 (supremacy of EU over national law) or any reference at all to any part of the actual text of the constitution itself, which we must remember of course is supposed to be binding once signed (whereas anything Fischer says in any interview to induce us to sign up to it will have no binding force at all).

The idea is to get Telegraph readers, ie Tory voters, to say "Well, if Germany has given up the idea of a superstate and if our Torygraph newspaper says this is genuine and OK, then why shouldn't we accept this new Treaty with them?

The Torygraph itself says in its editorial, "Every prime minister since Harold MacMillan has been prepared to sign up to policies which are not in Britain's immediate interest for the sake of influence in Europe. Tony Blair's readiness to accept the EU constitution is no different, in this regard, from John Major's support for the Maastricht Treaty, or Margaret Thatcher's for the Single European Act. The trouble is that this policy has never been explained to, or endorsed by, the electorate. Voters naturally feel frustrated. ..."

Note the cunning insertion here of Tony Blair's name into a line of three Conservative PM's including that of Thatcher, mostly admired by Tory Eu-sceptics (but leaving out that of the hated Heath). So the strong implication is that - however much we may dislike Blair's other policies, in this particular case he has got it right, and consequently, just as the Tories rightly supported Blair over the war in Iraq, so they can rightly support him over the EU constitution.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are being softened up in preparation for the unedifying spectacle of Howard voting WITH Blair to accept the Constitution... What other meaning can this interview and editorial possibly have?

Combine this with Howard's manifest chumminess with the notorious EU-integrationist Ken Clarke (and not just over a pint in the bar reminiscing over their Cambridge days, but on the floor of the House, and with Clarke officially promoted back to the front bench), and the picture is complete.

The reality is that the Tory Party under Howard is about to complete the dastardly work begun by Heath, and supported throughout by Howe, Hurd, Heseltine and others ... (Author kept anonymous as contact details unavailable - ed.).
Unquote

Daily Telegraph Leading Article of 31st January 2004 is linked
from here, while the interview with the Green Party German Foreign Minister and apparent ex-Terrorist linked street fighter Joshcka Fischer is available from here with the accompanying descriptive article from here.

The Barclay Brothers are today reported to have increased their off for the Telegraph titles. We must seriously hope that if successful they make sweeping changes in the editorial departments as Britain is in serious danger of not just losing any remnants of broadcasting independence, but also the last broadsheet stalwarts opposed to the non-democratic advance of the EU superstate.

Howard's Other Mistake

My immediate reaction to Michael Howard's response to the Hutton Report in Parliament 'strongish', highlighted one major error, in that he stated Lord Hutton had not read the transcript of the in flight press briefing en route to Hong Kong.

Another then unremarked by myself, that he apparently accepted the conclusions of the report, now seems even more disastrous. This report, 'Howard's 'blunder' in accepting report will be exploited by Blair' from icWales, linked here seems likely to cause greater difficulties for the Tories in the long run.

Blair's lying is fully explored in a post today on our sister blog Ironies, which is linked from here.

Charles Moore on the Conservatives

An interesting analysis of a few of the Tory party's problems by Charle Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph may be read from this link. A few quotes follow:-

The assumption ...... is that there is something defective, even almost perverted, about being Conservative, or indeed conservative. You are therefore guilty of racism, homophobia, selfishness etc. until proved innocent.

It seems to me that the BBC today is the enemy of conservative culture in Britain.

We must find a way of abolishing or hugely reducing the (BBC) licence fee while reviving the core of public service broadcasting. How half-witted of Tory Britain to hand this chance to Tony Blair, instead of claiming it for itself.

Howard on Hutton

To this viewer Michael Howard gave a strongish performance in difficult circumstances in responding to the Prime Minister over the Hutton Report. One glaring error was in claiming that Lord Hutton had not read the transcript of the PM's aeroplane press conference in the Far East, whereas in following the statement carefully I felt sure his Lordship clearly stated that he HAD done so.

Another bad day for Britain and democracy, with more reputation's marred by Dr Kelly's death, in my view these being the methods by which so called 'independent enquiries' are:

1.)Established;
2.)made-up and
3.) provided with their remits.

A much more detailed study of the whole Hutton Report than I am prepared to apply would be necessary to still the many, many worrying questions that it leaves within me, which now also include the very impartiality of the senior law lord appointed by the prime minister to conduct this lengthy and expensive waste of time.

Where are the Tories at present on Europe

We found this explanation taken from a much circulated internet e-mail exchange today most illuminating:

'There is a difference between the view of Bill Cash (who under Michael Howard is no longer Shadow Attorney General and elected to go back to the backbenches, the better to oppose the EU) and the view of Michael Howard.

What that difference is exactly we do not know.

Michael says he will never leave the EU. But he is opposed to the constitution.

IDS had a clever phrase that the EU will leave us and we all understood. Michael has not said that.

Some Conservative MPs say that never leaving does not mean we do not renegotiate. The only policy, which the present leadership continues to put on the renegotiate list, is the CFP to which the Party is opposed has been for some years.

Overall the party is eurosceptic but that means different things to different people.'

As the Daily Telegraph today ups the value to each elected MEP to 300,000 pounds, and given the huge number of paid party hacks UKIP manages to employ with just three such MEPs, is there ever any real likelihood of the Conservatives or any other major Party sending MEPs to Brussels, ever again putting their country's interests first? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard article is linked here.

Tory Doubter?

If you hold doubts, like this writer, that the Tories under Michael Howard will do nothing to resist, let alone roll back the encroachments of the EU; then give some thought to the idea put out on the new blogspot linked below. If you would like to help or have different or further ideas drop us an e-mail over the next week or two.

CLICK HERE FOR A NEW IDEA

Howard Boost

A Populus poll for The Times shows that the Tories have recorded a rise in popularity from 33 to 35 per cent. This report from Sky News, linked here, ascribed the gain to Michael Howard!

Were Howard's 'Beliefs' pinched from John D Rockefeller Jnr?

The Guardian poses this fascinating question in an article on yesterday's extraordinary seld-advertisinf campaign launched yesterday in The Times.

Take the first example; the 1941 original was as follows:-

"I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"

Howards 2004 lead-off:-

"I believe it is natural for men and women to want health, wealth and happiness for their families and themselves."

The article then goes on top say that the Tories were AWARE OF THE SIMILARITIES:-

The Tories admitted last night the declaration had been influenced by Rockefeller. A spokesman said: "These are Michael Howard's own personal and distinct beliefs. But the specific layout chosen to present them in a striking way was partly influenced by the design of a commemorative plaque to John D Rockefeller Jnr."

Read the entire article from this link.

Howard Claims Beliefs!

According to a report from Sky News today's The Times carries a two page advertisement proclaiming the Conservative Party leader's beliefs. As can be read here here and the full unbelievable list here.

More convincing would have been an accompanying statement or list of actions or policies he has pursued to advance these causes he now claims to have held since entering politics. During the intervening years, many spent in the higher reaches of government, he seems to have done little to promote the principles he now proclaims.

Perhaps Conservative Central Office can supply details of actual accomplishments for each of Howard's newly stated aims!

Flatlining

Following on from yesterday's post I have now had time to research the YouGov poll results for the last six months of 2003:-

Date Client Lab Con

May 28-29 Daily Telegraph 37 36
June 19-20 Mail on Sunday 37 36
June 24-26 Daily Telegraph 35 37
July 22-24 Daily Telegraph 34 37
August 7-8 Mail on Sunday 34 38
August 26-28 Daily Telegraph 35 37
September 4-5 Mail on Sunday 36 37
September 23-25 Daily Telegraph 31 32
September 25-26 Sunday Times 30 33
Sept 31- Oct 2 Daily Telegraph 33 33
October 2-3 Mail on Sunday 34 33
October 10-11 Mail on Sunday 33 38
October 16-18 Mail on Sunday 34 34
October 30-31 Daily Telegraph 36 34
November 7-8 Mail on Sunday 36 34
November 13-14 Sunday Times 39 36
November 25-27 Daily Telegraph 36 38
December 5-6 Mail on Sunday 36 36

Labour have been up and down but the Tories are......Teetering?

YouGov and the "Telegraph"

A summary of a year's polling appears in today's Daily Telegraph titled Blair loses iron grip as Tories take heart

A close examination of the graph provided would indicate that they would be wrong to take heart from the results of their leadership change, which still appears to this observer to have been principally a victory for the euro-federalist wing of the party.

Visiting the home page of YouGov gives access to all the polls undertaken by these pollsters, and with the inclusion of those where the 'Telegraph' organisation was not involved an even less encouraging picture for the Tories is plainly evident. The page is linked from here

Christmas Comes Early as Tories Attack Blair on EU

Surprise, suprise! The new Conservative joint party Chairperson has launched an attack on the governement on the subject of the EU. This report from epolitix is confirmed by this in The Herald.

Can we trust them, though?

BUY THE SUN TODAY,BUY THE SUN TODAY BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY, BUY THE SUN TODAY.

The absolute MUST purchase today is The Sun Newspaper. It contains a free booklet with the title "EUROPE"S SECRET PLAN - SHACKLE BRITAIN"

View the booklet from this link:

A Big EU Lie

Donation's Dispute

The Sunday Telegraph reports an interesting disagreement developing regarding a donation of some two million pounds to the Conservative Party by Lord Ashcroft, who to Michael Howard's dismay, wishes to dispense the money directly to the formers own selected marginal constituencies . Read it from this link

Letwin quits Merchant Bank

The Daily Telegraph today reports that Oliver Letwin has decided to quit his highly paid Merchant Banking job. Read the article from here.

This blog believes the delay in reaching this obvious and necessary decision proves him unsuitable for any high shadow cabinet position. Combined with his other earlier gaffes, it would have seemed more appropriate to have resigned from politics - cleary lacking, as he does the tact required for such a career, and stuck to banking where none is required.

Letwin's Views

The new conservative shadow chancellor, Oliver Letwin, had some of his tax ideas outlined in the Daily Telegraph today in a piece by Toby Helm titled Tax cuts may take us years, say the Tories.

Letwin, previously notable for almost single-handedly scuppering William Hagues taxation strategy in the last general election and a recent incredibly insensitive remark about state education ( they used to teach manners which require sensitivity at Eton) , apparently considers the likliehood of his party actually winning the next election so remote that he has decided it wisest to continue his day job as Merchant Banker.

Given these considerations we have not actually read the Telegraph article, but placed it here as a reference source, should it sometime be necessary to establish if the Tories have indeed formulated a taxation strategy.

Who will replace Brown as Chancellor when Blair departs? Now there is a question likely to affect the bank balance!

Howard Confirms Total Capitulation to EU to Resume as Official Tory Party Policy

A report in Ananova on a BBC interview given by the latest interim Conservative Party Leader, one-time Home Secretary to John Major: Michael Howard, highlights these depressing facts:

"I want positive EU role for Britain", says Howard:

a Tory government would take a constructive approach to Britain's membership of the EU:

"We are not going to leave the European Union. I want the UK to remain an important and positive member of the EU," said Mr Howard.

The Tory leader was reluctant to speculate about the approach a Tory government would take to the Constitution if it was already in place.

AND ALL THIS the very day after his own Shadow Defence Secretary (see post immediately below) had stated on the reported defence agreement reached by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in Naples at the weekend:

“If this is indeed true, it is catastrophic news for Nato and a betrayal of Britain’s defence interests".

First Signs of Tory life since Howard's Putsch

Nicholas Soames, another name from the Tory Party Past is once again apparently Defence Spokesman and has come out of hibernation, at the weekend no less, to actually say something on the Government having sold out Britain's defences. According to this report from The Scotsman filed at teatime today headlined EU Defence Proposal 'Catastrophic':

Shadow defence secretary Nicholas Soames said: “If this is indeed true, it is catastrophic news for Nato and a betrayal of Britain’s defence interests.

“The Conservatives understand that there is a greater need for European co-operation and improvement of capability but only under the umbrella of Nato.”

The outline plan foresees a permanent EU military planning and command cell based at Nato’s military headquarters near the southern Belgian city of Mons.

From there, EU military planners would, with the alliance’s backing, draw on Nato assets – notably transport planes, satellite intelligence and the alliance’s communications network – for peacekeeping missions.

In addition, the Europeans would also beef up a long-term, strategic planning unit at the EU head office in Brussels, Belgium.

'Telegraph' Trumpets False Tory Triumph

Unsurprisingly for the paper that was in the vanguard of the despicable putsch that displaced IDS, this morning's Daily Telegraph (on the morning the crucial Foreign Ministers IGC meeting commences in Naples) leads with Banner Headlines on another false dawn for Michael Howard's leadership of the Conservatives.

As reported below on our post of 16th November, the first YouGov poll of Howard's reign was a disaster and this is hardly better in spite of the Torygraph's headline Tories back in lead with Howard

The actual poll results of 36 per cent for Labour, 38 per cent for the Conservatives and 19 per cent for the lib dems are really only significant for the smallest party. A look at the recent polls from YouGovs Polltracker shows little movement over the same results for recent months, the most recent of which we quote below:

Date Client Lab Con Lib Dem Other Lab lead

September 23-25 Daily Telegraph 31 32 30 7 -1
September 25-26 Sunday Times 30 33 30 7 -3
Sept 31- Oct 2 Daily Telegraph 33 33 28 6 0
October 2-3 Mail on Sunday 34 33 26 7 1
October 10-11 Mail on Sunday 33 38 22 7 -5
October 16-18 Mail on Sunday 34 34 25 7 0
October 30-31 Daily Telegraph 36 34 23 7 2
November 7-8 Mail on Sunday 36 34 24 6 2
November 13-14 Sunday Times 39 36 20 5 3

Today Nov 28 Daily Telegrapgh 36 38 19 - -2

IDS did better on October 10-11, hardly the effect the Tories could have been hoping for in spite of the column inches devoted to stating the contrary.

AND Where is the Conservative Party's outrage at what is now taking place in Naples? Hardly to be found in the Daily Telegraph; in its place we get supposed arch-eurosceptic John Redwood in their Opinion section railing against the plight of the motorist. Quite lamentable!

Frankenstein Tories

This was the opening of an article by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday recently. We would like to provide a link, but it is unavailable on line, so for copyright reasons must restrict ourselves to this sample:

A squalid putsch and a series of dirty deals will not save the Tory Party. Nothing will
save the Tory Party.

The efforts to do so are macabre and ugly, like the goings-on in Dr Frankenstein's
laboratory.

The pathetic relief and forced smiles of Tory MPs after the latest leadership
transplant have the look of desperation, as well they might.

I marvel at the blatant dishonesty of the whole thing. Is anyone really fooled?

Down Under the Right Way UP

In New Zealand they know how to read a poll. The headline for the same poll as that commented upon in the post below is Tories falter under new leader.

Britain's Labour Party has taken a poll lead since Michael Howard was installed as the new Conservative leader according to a new political survey of over 2,000 people.

The Tories were five points clear on 38% support last month despite a party conference dominated by speculation about Iain Duncan Smith's doomed leadership.

But now the party, under Michael Howard's leadership, has fallen back to 36%.

Labour is up six points to 39% - the party's highest rating since April - while the Liberal Democrats have dropped two to 20% support.

Just as we were saying.......

Polls

Reuters publishes a YouGov Poll Howard Shines in Polls.

While it reports the Tories rising by 4 per cent to 36 it nevertheless has them trailing Labour by three. Strange result for what might be considered as a honeymoon period for the new leader.

Looking at the results for this year (from the link below) the performance is even worse. Five YouGov polls between June and September had the Tories under IDS above the 36 per cent level now being trumpeted as a Howard triumph.

YouGov Voting Intention Poll Tracker shows the Tories again behind Labour as they have been since before the plot to topple IDS became clear. In the months before that the Tories were clearly in the lead, with seven polls on the run showing them ahead, the highest margin being by 5 points. A three point deficit is the worst since last April, and that during what should surely be a honeymoon period. Howard is nevertheless reported as popular with 80 per cent of Tory Party Members.

Adding this link to your Browser's Favourites will allow easy access to the latest opinion shifts:

YouGov - Understanding People

Selling Out

The Tories having apparently sold out their active resistance to further EU encroachments and any pretence of considering the desires or preferences of their members in the country at large are now set to dispose of another of their valuables, this time the long term lease on their Smith Square Offices for which they hope to obtain six million pounds. Read the article in the Telegraph's Tories seek £6m for Central Office Those using the link should note the photograph of the new party leader and perhaps ponder the party spokesman's statement about the building in terms of their new leader:

A party spokesman said the decision was not purely financial but the building was no longer deemed appropriate for a modern political party.

"It is a 1950s building with a Georgian facade and is not a suitable office environment for a party in the 21st century,"

Shadow Cabinet

The List in full from epolitix

Kenneth Clarke hails new broad-based Shadow Cabinet on BBC Radio Four 'PM' Programme

Party Leader : Michael Howard

Shadow Foreign Secretary, International Development and Defence: Michael Ancram

Shadow Chancellor: Oliver Letwin Background

Shadow Home Secretary" David Davis

Health and Education: Tim Yeo Background

Transport: Theresa May Theresa May Web Page

Work, Pensions and Policy Development: David Willetts Background

Local Government and Devolved Regions: David Curry Backgorund

Chief Whip David Maclean

Lords Leader : Lord Strathclyde

Joint Party Chairmen:

Maurice Saatchi and Liam Fox

There is to be a gimmicky panel of four wise men, one being Kenneth Clarke, another John Major and the last two leaders William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith. All but Major will be asked to speak from the front bench from time to time. This face saving formula is presumably designed to cover Howard's embarassment that no senior or particularly influential figures seem to have been attracted into the Shadow Cabinet.

More disgruntlement within the party was the probably predictable report from Andrew Marr on the six o'clock BBC Radio Four news.

Howard to Hurt more Feelings

According to the BBC's World at One programme, Howard is planning to reduce the Shadow Cabinet from 22 to 12. Guaranteed an extra ten disgruntled figures on the backbenches then.

Other rumours Letwin Shadow Chancellor plus Trade and Industry, Davies at the Home Office, Tim Yeo on all 'touchy feely' areas.

Steven Norris former Mayoral Candidate insisted on air that the party would be shifted to the centre.

Full details will be posted here when published.

Congress for Democracy's Rally

The following is part of an e-mail from Harold Green (Leader Reform-UK) reporting on the above rally.

Quote

IDS made a rousing speech in favour of a referendum on the EU Constitution with all the usual arguments against an EU constitution.

If Blair was to receive parliaments approval for ratification then he stated that" no Royal assent should be given."

He likened the ratification to a political party winning an election and then holding on to its seats forever.

IDS underlined his image as a man of the people by stating that " He was inspired by the qualities of the British people." He said that he "fears little but fears the might of a distant power and we need to breed a fierce appetite for the fight ahead.

A fight for the truth.

A fight for our sovereignty.

A fight that we must win"

He was then given a standing ovation with only a few sour faced UKIP and Lib/Dems remaining seated.

IDS spoke like a Prime Minister in waiting. It is inconceivable that his dismissal can be considered as anything but a Europhile plot! (Our emphasis - ed.)

The anti-EU campaigners from France spoke well despite the language Difficulties, notably Phillipe de Villiers who took the precaution of providing us with a complete English version of all that he had to say.

I shall make this available to all who want sight of it, should you ask.

On the subject of a French referendum on the EU Constitution he had this to say:- " Yet French federalists seem to be doing all they can to stop the people from having their say. They are terrified. It is true that, according to the polls, most French people favour the idea of a constitution, at least in the abstract (it's a fine word 'constitution' ; we must concede that). But that is because they don't know what is actually in it. Once they understand that what is being proposed is a superstate, they will surely turn against it.
And consider something else. Let us assume that such a referendum might realistically be held in the latter half of 2004. This would mean that it came just as the European Council was deciding whether or not to open accession talks with Turkey. Now an overwhelming majority of French people oppose Turkey's admission. If these two questions - the superstate and Turkish Membership - become conflated in the minds of my countrymen, it would be explosive for the federalists.'

Phillipe de Villiers finished by observing " how refreshing it was to pay the taxi fare from Heathrow airport in real money!"

Martin Howe Q.C.'s booklet 'A Constitution for Europe' is a 'must have'reference. It is a legal assessment of the draft treaty.

March & Rally There is to be a march and rally on 24th.April 2004 calling for a National Referendum on the European Constitution.

For more details, contact Diana Coad on peterdgtorg@aol.com

Unquote

Another Poll reports the Obvious

From this morning's Independent on Sunday:

If the polls are anything to go by, Mr Howard will need all the help he can muster. An ICM poll for 'The News of the World' showed the Conservatives slipping two points since replacing Iain Duncan Smith as leader with Mr Howard on Thursday. The survey puts the Tories at 31 per cent, trailing eight points behind Labour. The Liberal Democrats scored 22 per cent.

If translated into actual votes the figures would provide a third Labour landslide in an election with Tony Blair losing just two seats.

Earlier the article reports Francis Maude is to be brought back to the Shadow Cabinet, another backward step, watch for further poll slippage ahead!

Britain's Shamed Conservatives

The following is the e-mail I sent this morning to my Conservative Member of Parliament, copied to my Conservative MEP:

As a registered elector within your constituency I had to write to express my total disgust with the Conservative Party. As a one time party member in the ---- Branch, and with strong views on individual freedoms and responsibilities I should be, and was for many years a natural Conservative voter.

I am appalled at the actions of all sitting Conservative MPs excepting only Iain Duncan Smith and (with no admiration) Michael Howard, who one cannot blame for his new found but totally misplaced ambition.

The real shame for recent events must fall on the 163 unprincipled sheep who allowed the properly chosen party leader to be thrown out on his ear, while then sitting back and permitting a small secretive cabal to impose a failed, elderly, shop-soiled candidate to be installed without offering the party at large any opportunity of choice or say.

The Conservative Party has a long history, but clearly now exists only as a hindrance to the beliefs and principles it was once supposed to represent.

While under Duncan Smith I had been contemplating a return and even active support for the Tory party, (following a very brief and unhappy dalliance with what I discovered is the completely corrupt and rotten UK Independence Party), I must now divert my efforts to ensuring the Tories never rule again.

Did Portillo quit in disgust I wonder? If not then he and the rest of you certainly should. Shame on you all.

Patten's Poison Patronage

Chris Patten, possibly one of the most seriously flawed politicians of the present day Conservative Party has now joined other Eurofederalists in throwing his support behind the leadership of Howard.

Nothing could better illustrate the collapse of euroscepticism within the Conservative Party than such endorsement. Iain Duncan Smith aware of this reality has been forced to announce from the backbenches that he, possibly now almost alone among these spineless Tory MP's, will continue the fight against the EU and its dangerous proposed Constitution. Read it here from the Daily Telegraph

Portillo to Retire

According to this report Portillo has thankfully had enough Media bound and will seek a new career in the media following the next General Election.

He confirmed he was offered a place in Howard's Shadow Cabinet (as reportedly was Clarke).

One safe seat should be available for the next session then!

Howard on Europe

The following is an excerpt from an interview between the newly installed Tory Leader and the BBCs Chief Political Correspondent Andrew Marr:-

Marr: "Are you Michael Howard completely committed to Britain's membership of
the European Union?"

Howard: "Absolutely. Er, I always have been, I've made it absolutely clear. I think
there are all sorts of reasons why that's terribly important..."

Marr: "... [interrupts] even if we're bound in by a new constitution?"

Howard: "Well you see you keep coming back to this hypothetical question..."

Marr: "I do."

Howard: "And I'm not prepared to accept that hypothesis. But it's very important.
Europe could develop in a number of different ways in the future, and some of those
ways would be very difficult for us. That's why we've got to be in there, really making
our case - not only our case for Britain but our case for Europe, to show them that
there's, er, a different way, a way that will actually be much better for the rest of the
European Union as well as for us."

A recording of the section can be heard by clicking this link, but the original date and where transmitted is not at present known. Distressingly it sounds genuine!

Clarke rules out (Shadow) Cabinet Post

This report from The Guardian taken from an earlier BBC interview says:

Mr Clarke, interviewed on the BBC this morning, hinted he may be prepared to take another role in the party outside of the frontbench.

Asked if he would take a senior party job, he said: "I will be as supportive of my party as I can be and certainly supportive of Michael Howard and any suggestion he puts to me in which he wants me to support him, he will get my eager backing."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I would be delighted to be supportive. After 10 years of civil war which has made all of us extremely miserable and done a great deal of damage, we want to get back together."

He said he did not think he would be offered a shadow cabinet post and has already said he would not accept one.

He urged Mr Howard to lead the party from the centre as he has promised to do.

Mathew Tempest reports

Telegraph predicts Dramatic Shift of Fortunes!

Labour feud bursts into open as Tories hail 'King' Howard is the headline of this piece from which the following is a brief quote:

Tory MPs claimed his "coronation" signalled an end to bitter infighting that has engulfed the party since the removal of Margaret Thatcher and showed the Conservatives were now prepared to make a serious bid for power.

The board of the Conservative Party announced last night it had decided against holding a formal postal ballot of the membership to ratify Mr Howard's election by MPs after "overwhelming representations" from the party at large that it was not necessary.

The Independent' hints that there might be a role for Portillo on the Front Bench.

Meanwhile the Labour Party Tories confirm victory of the Right seem to have deliberately chosen to intially open their attack on Howard's 'extreme' right-wing credentials. It will be interesting if Howard should lose votes in that area from his courting of the centre, while failing to gain new support because of his past. Falling between two stools perhaps, we await the shadow cabinet announcements with interest, let alone the first policy pronouncements.

Knives out early

Sky News carries a report that "Howard can't do warm" from Amanda Platell, who was William Hague's media chief, Ms Platell said Mr Howard had failed the "GMTV sofa test".

"Too cold and too confident was the verdict," she said.

"You have to be able to do `warm' to work on morning TV, and even his most devout supporters would not claim this of Howard.

"Rumours that a blood transfusion was standing by, I understand, are purely malicious," she added.

Judging by the photograph selected to accompany the item, it appears that this part of the Murdoch Empire is not still aboard the Howard band-wagon. It will be interesting to see how other media elements now react.

Howards Speech MarkII

Herewith another version of the speech being put out from the BBC. Roehampton Speech

In another BBC Report John Major heads a list of those offering their congratulations:

Tory former prime minister John Major was one of the first to congratulate Michael Howard on his leadership success - describing him as "the best choice for the party".
Mr Major, prime minister between 1990 and 1997, said Mr Howard deserved "the support of all present Conservative voters and the millions of others now so disillusioned with Labour".

Other reactions can be found from the link.

Howard's Victory Speech

The full text of the speech delivered by Michael Howard in Putney, once constituency of David Mellor another noted figure of the Major era if I remember correctly, can be found in this link from the BBC Howard's speech in full

It opens:

'Who was it who said a week is a long time in politics?

This has been a bruising period for the party.

Some hard things have been said on all sides....'

Not least, indeed by this blogger. I will now watch developments and hope that my political instinct has been very badly wrong!

Howard Anointed

There are now only two sitting Tory MPs within the United Kingdom worthy of re-election: those being Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard.

The former not having been allowed to stand against Howard and the latter who can hardly be blamed for believing in himself in spite of all the evidence and logic arguing to the contrary.

The remaining 163 will have no excuse for what will now be seen to follow.

Opinion Polls

The Mori Poll commissioned by and published in The Independent yesterday is quoted in this article on Michael Portillo in today's Telegraph Portillo is tipped for return to front line by Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent.

It quotes: "A frontbencher from the Right said: "It would be a brilliant idea." Which, if true, provides proof positive, as if more were needed, of the total loss of any contact with the real world now on display from that section of the party.

As the Tory's House Journal has decided to include mention of the Mori Poll and provide a link it is worth another look at what your typical Tory MP will be reading this morning that most of us had fully absorbed yesterday:

There's no "bounce" yet evident in the public's voting intention for the Conservative Party after the Tory MPs' choice of Michael Howard as the Leader of the Party.

All the tables look disastrous for the Tories with them losing 3 points to the Liberal Democrats since Howard's appearance. The sole area where he seems to be an improvement over IDS in the public's eyes (naturally seized upon by the totally biased and probably complicit Telegraph) is in his readiness to be PM with 30 pct agreeing (vs 16 for IDS) and 48 disagreeing (67 for IDS)

Being ready to be PM in the publics eyes is one thing, getting to be PM is, of course quite another. In these increasingly presidential campaign style days of General Elections "Trust is generally considered a key.

On trustworthiness the true disaster of the Tories rush to crown Howard becomes clear. In June 2003 48 per cent of the public found IDS trustworthy against 36 who did not and 16 per cent who did not know.

Michael Howard, even before he has really started to get grilled about his past record, scores as follows:

Trustworthy.....41 per cent Not Trustworthy.....49 per cent Don't Know 10pct

The Tories are about to APPOINT as Leader a Candidate, who, before he even assumes office is distrusted by half the electorate.

Now is that LUNACY? If not, then it most certainly is Electoral Suicide! The question, of course, is WHY?

The 'Howard Paxman' Interview

By clicking this this link you will find, towards the end of the BBC page that then opens, a video link on which it is possible to watch the 13th May 1997 Jeremy Paxman, 'Newsnight' interview of Michael Howard, where the latter famously refused to answer a straightforward question 14 times.

The interview gives clear evidence why Conservative MPs then thought this man unsuitable to be leader of their party. He came bottom of the subsequent poll.

It also clearly explains why even to this day only half the people in the country would trust him.

What it does not explain, of course, is why there is not apparently one single Tory MP with enough respect for their party or country to have the courage to supply them with an alternative to this sure fire loser.

Howard "I'll Never Stand for Leadership"

These are quotes from a BBC News report in November 2002, linked here.

'I'll never stand for leadership'

"But I have no interest or desire in becoming leader of the Conservative Party, because we have an excellent leader in Iain Duncan Smith, whom I wholeheartedly support."

Is the shadow chancellor ruling himself out in a David Davis sense ("I will never stand against Iain"), or in a Michael Portillo way ("I never want the job")?

"I will never stand again for the leadership of the Conservative Party," Mr Howard unhesitatingly replies.

So he rules himself out completely, whatever the circumstances? "That's right."

No wonder half the country do not trust him!

These are some of the directorships he has pledged to give up if annointed:-

Eschmann Holdings Limited (medical supplies manufacturer Chairman George Kennedy), the Imprint Group (specialist printer Chairman George Kennedy) Finex plc (PR company), Crime Reduction International Limited and is a member of the Advisory Council of Gas and Oil company Consort Resources Limited (chaired by ex Tory Minister Lord Moynihan)

Did Howard mislead Parliament?

Private Eye seems to think he might have done so according to these reports from December 1994 and February 1995 which can be read in full from this link:-

Howard or this quotation gives the feel:-

In an answer to the Leyton MP Harry Cohen (dated 19 January this year) Howard declares that “the Home Office did not make any staff redundant; subsequent redundancies by Sema Group are a matter for the company”. Sema Group made it clear, he continues, that the number of staff required would be dependent on an “operational review.”

Howard’s use of the word subsequent is odd. For Sema had already completed their review in September last year, and knew exactly how many staff it wanted to keep. So did ED5, and so did everyone else, it seems, except the Home Secretary himself.

Howard is also coy about the size of the ‘transitionary payment’ (from the taxpayer) covering the redundancies. He can’t wouldn’t reveal its size he says because “the precise details are commercial in confidence.”

The Home Office still insists that the deal works out cheaper in the long run. But embarrassingly, the newowners Sema Group have already sub-contracted some of the work to a third party, helping themselves to a profit.

New Statesman, April 1995:

The Home Secretary Michael Howard has been accused of misleading parliament over the £50m privatisation of a Home Office computer department.

The Spineless Bottom Feeders of the Conservative Party

In just under two days time, it seems that the British electorate will be presented with proof positive, that there is no living organism so far down the evolutionary scale, to compare in political terms with a British Conservative MP. Even in the deepest mud of the darkest, smelliest and most stagnant of ponds could there then lurk a lowlier equivalent?

Old Etonian Oliver Letwin, one of the earliest Tory MPs to make a deal with putative leader Howard and now famous for his recent crass remark about state schools and his own children was asked over the weekend:-

Some of Mr Clarke's friends made clear to Mr Howard's team that they wanted assurances for their support. David Curry, who could help sway up to 14 votes in Nick's Diner, a Clarke-ite dining club, said he wanted an assurance that there would be no attempt to pull Britain out f the new EU constitution if it was signed by Tony Blair; This of course is THE crucial question. I, and I expect most Tory supporters (and millions of non-Tories too) in the country, want to know just that:

Will Howard pledge to "pull Britain out of the new EU constitution if it is signed by Tony Blair"?

To which Letwin replied,MH is totally committed to a referendum

Further clarification was then sought by this internet debater, particularly as to whether Howard would grant a referendum on gaining power after Blair might have already signed the country up for the new constitution. Straight reply came there none, only this final exchange:

Questioner: Dear Oliver,
If you don't know yet, can't you find out? And if not today, then when?

Letwin wrote: When the dust has settled, and we have all had time to sit down and talk and think.

One of the Conservative Party's leading eurosceptics for many years was receiving copies of this e-mailed exchange and the last response to Letwin contained a question for him:-

Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:49:36 +0100
Subject: Re: What IS Howard's position on the EU???
Oliver
Oh, so you mean after the leadership election? That will be too late.

In my view, if Howard DID give the assurance sought by David Curry, namely that he would not attempt - by referendum or any other means - to pull Britain out of the EU constitution once Blair has shoehorned us into it, then he should not be leader.

At present the membership is heading towards a voting paper where the only name on it will be Howard's (a bit reminiscent of the old Soviet-style East European elections...). I have read that there are a couple more days in which another contender could put his name down.

If Howard DID say YES to Curry, there jolly well ought to be another contender, don't you agree?

Why don't you ask him today?

Mr Redwood, don't you agree it would be disastrous if the Conservative Party were to be led on the basis of an (unrevealed) assurance given to Clarke that if Blair shoehorns the country into the EU constitution, the new leader will NOT attempt to pull us out?

I am sure that if this is the case, then when the membership finds out the Party will be destroyed by their outrage. I am told that some are already angry enough about the defenestration of IDS, and some are talking about de-selecting sitting MPs.
Signed T.

PS You will see that once again I have had to copy in the other recipients of my earlier message. I would be much obliged if you could hit the "Reply All" button when replying.

If any reply to that query has been sent we have yet to see it. We will, of course, post it here as soon as one might be received.

There is talk of deselection. The first targets that come to mind are those well known fans of our country's absorbtion into the EU such as Ken Clarke, Ian Taylor, etc. And who could argue that they should not have been so discarded long, long ago?

But worse are appearing as a result of this present crisis. The likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood and David Heathcote-Amory. Presumed stalwarts of the country's independence and always at the forefront of the supposed continuing fight against the EU.

At 11 o'clock this evening it will be 36 hours since the above question was put and left unanswered. Time enough for the truth to sink in to the slowest of minds and a rush of other candidates to have surged forward. But NONE have appeared!

Michael Howard, is so determined to get his hands onto the position of party leader and treat with the Eurofederalists that he is not willing to unequivocally state that he would remove us from the oppressive and totally unacceptable EU Constitution presently being negotiated within the IGC.

Michael Howard is so powerfully backed by the forces of Conservatism that the true craven natures of ordinary elected Conservative MPs is now fully exposed to the public view!

In the face of this treachery, where the individual freedoms, common law rights and unique democratic institutions of this country are planned to be destoyed, there is not one elected Conservative MP apparently prepared to step forward and offer himself to lead the party and save his nation.

The depth of the betrayal of the people of our country, if it continues through Thursday noon is so enormous it can barely be fully comprehended.

The one honourable exception to all the above, is Iain Duncan Smith, who under the party's election rules is not permitted to stand as a candidate!

Time is running out for Toryism!

An Essential Question for the next Leader

The following sentence is taken directly from the Conservative Manifesto for the last General Election:

We will not ratify the Nice Treaty but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto.


Apart from the policy on the EU Constitution, the next leader's attitude to the Nice Treaty could be more critical if the Constitution fails to be ratified. This appears increasingly likely with growing negotiating differences, the ever more obvious problems surrounding the euro and the dreadful state of the economies that the single currency is slowly but surely destroying.

The Nice Treaty provides a blueprint for an enlarged but unworkable EU. What would the Tories policy be towards this and all the earlier Treaties if the Constitution is not ratified leaving them all in place?

The Tory's Michael Foot

Out from the shadows to seize control Gaby Hinsliff and Kamal Ahmed have put together a well researched report in The Observer on the events in the Conservative Party from which we quote three paragraphs as a sample below:-

Like most fairytales, the incredible rebirth of Michael Howard - disgraced as Home Secretary over the sacking of prison chief Derek Lewis, humiliated in the 1997 leadership contest when he trailed in third of three right-wingers, dismissed as a has-been when he stepped down from William Hague's Shadow Cabinet two years later, only to rise magically from the ashes last week - is a little too good to be true.

'Michael has had the great advantage of being all things to all men,' says a senior Tory figure who served close to him in government. 'He's never been a proper right-winger, in fact: he is politically androgynous. He has pulled together the Portillo group, his own rather small group and a penumbra of others who have nowhere else to go.'

Howard's past statements on everything from the poll tax to rising unemployment and gay rights will be flung back at him over the dispatch box, week after week. 'What we need to demonstrate is Howard is an old right-winger pretending to be something different,' said one senior adviser to the Prime Minister.

The Tory's Michael Foot Re-visited

As was to be expected from The Sunday Telegragh which was in the vanguard of the media working towards the overthrow of Iain Duncan Smith it now goes overboard in pushing Michael Howard's candidature. Howard tells party activists: Don't risk our new unity
is the headline of an article by Colin Brown and Francis Elliott where the elderly Howard is pictured looking every inch the drawn and failed politician he should by now have been.

Elsewhere in an interview by Dominic Lawson we are asked to believe that there was no deal with David Davies, no deal with Ken Clarke and that the whole thing had come as a complete surprise. Before setting aside the paper as the piece of blatant propaganda it has clearly become, interesting to note that Bruce Anderson seems to have arrived as a columnist from The Spectator via The Sun. Another sign of shifting priorities?

Is a record like this an electoral advantage?

From Scotlands Daily Record watch for similar turning up elsewhere:-

20 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MICHAEL HOWARD Oct 31 2003

MICHAEL Howard is probably best known for his ``hang 'em and flog 'em'' rants during his time as the most unpopular Home Secretary in living memory.

He was a right-wing rottweiler for Thatcher and Major and is the last remnant of the Tory glory years. But there are many things readers may have forgotten, or never known, about the likely next leader of the Conservative Party.

1. Howard is the son of Jewish immigrants. His father came from Romania, his mother from Russia and he was born in south Wales. 2. His looks and Transylvanian ancestry earned his Dracula tag. Anne Widdecombe said he had ``something of the night'' about him. 3. He is a sports fanatic who supports Liverpool.

4. His wife, Sandra, 63, was a model and a Vogue cover girl. 5. Howard was the smirking face behind Thatcher's hated Poll Tax and tested it out on Scots.

6. He was also responsible for the Section 28 law, discriminating against homosexuals.

7. He voted for David Alton's Bill to reduce access to abortion.

8. Howard fought against the national minimum wage, claiming it would cost two million jobs.

9. As Environment Secretary, helet power generators keep their pollution levels secret.

10. As Employment Secretary, Howard opposed EU plans for a maximum 48-hour working week. 11. He refused to recognise an EC directive allowing mums to get guaranteed maternity leave.

12. He wanted to place police authorities under Home Office control instead of representatives chosen by local people.

13. His police reform plans were branded ``unacceptable'' by Tory grandee Sir Willie Whitelaw.

14. His answer to crime was simply to lock more people up, stating: ``An increase in the number of criminals in prison leads to a large fall in crime.'' 15. As Home Secretary, the Appeal Court slammed his ``abuse of power''.

16. He was found to be acting illegally by the European Court of Human Rights seven times.

17. He cut access to health care and education for asylum seekers. 18. Howard manages the Tory parliamentary football side.

19. Less than a year ago, he claimed: ``I will never stand again for the leadership of the party.''

20. A recent ICM poll found that 26 per cent of people are less likely to vote Tory with him as leader.

Further Coverage

Our main posts on the Conservative Party's apparent urge to self-destruct can be found on Ironies by clicking HERE

Howard's EU Compromise with Clarke

According to the BBC's 'World at One' Programme the sell out by Howard on the EU takes the following form:-

Howard will not allow "his own Euroscepticism to lead him to be intolerant of the views of others."
Clarke stated that he believed that Howard will end the obsession with Europe. His advice is to get back to the centre ground.

Following the Clarke interview it was announced that John Redwood has also now ruled himself out. The Tories are now therefore finished as an anti-EU alternative for all British voters.

Sir Albert McQuarrie also on the programme added to his letter quoted below that some calling to account was required, preferably by a deselection of the 90 MPs who voted against IDS.

A Conservative Board spokesman was also trying to manufacture some form of pretence that in the event of no ballot the voluntary members would be given the chance to indicate their support. A completely ludicrous situation.

The BBC radio also reports that Ladbrokes was paying out on bets placed on Howard winning. A very unusual decision.

Lacklustre Launch by Haggard Howard

Unbelievably it appears that the Tories are set to make their leadership favourite an individual who appears even worse on television than the previous three such office holders. Not only that he plans to lead 'from the centre' and stated that he was heading straight over to see Ken Clarke when his Press Conference in the old County Hall was finished. A fitting statement by this Majorly-Marred Candidate. Any chance of Heseltine making a come-back too?

Conservative Leadership

Michael Howard as portrayed in the press this morning would be telegenically incapable of winning an election. I was recently at an anti-EU rally in Bath where John Redwood appeared fighting fit and ready to take the real battle forward.

All Eurorealists are urged to make John Redwood know of their strong support for his candidature.

His e-mail address is redwoodj@parliament.uk

Craven Conservatives

This summary of the Conservative Party seems appropriate as the confidence vote on the leadership of IDS reaches the midway point and speculation from BBC Political Correspondent Andrew Marr is broadcast that he has 70 of the 83 needed already in the bag. Can anyone, however, believe a word any Tory MP says?

The article can be read in full by clicking the title The Undisciplined Losers of the British Conservative Party from The Washington Dispatch. Some quotes:-

the sad collection of otherwise unemployable misfits who comprise the Parliamentary Conservative Party have been engaged in one of their bouts of serial plotting against their leadership. Mostly men, these men are men of neither calibre nor character, who by their self-centredness and egocentricity will probably bring to an end one of the greatest political movements in the English-speaking world, all through vengefulness and pique.

Michael Heseltine, a man who would have crawled naked over broken glass for the Premiership

If a man of limited ability and experience who does not acknowledge his limitations has a high opinion of himself because of how he speaks, who he’s related to, what school he went to and where he comes from, you have a pen picture of a sizable number of Conservative MP’s.

The Parliamentary Conservative Party is not fit to form a government. They don’t have the slightest realisation that their behaviour appals the British public, who are at their most politically disengaged since the Second World War

They act like losers, and when a loser, a little guy like me, calls you a loser, you’re in deep trouble.

The whole article is worth the read. It is written by Martin Kelly who I have not come across before I don't believe, strong and perceptive stuff.

IDS Confidence Vote to go ahead.

The required 25 letters have been received by Sir Michael Spicer and the Confidence Vote on the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith of the British Conservative Party will now proceed. He now needs to keep his nerve!
Tory rebels force leadership vote

Supporting IDS

We suggest those wishing to retain a Eurosceptic at the head of the Conservative Party should quickly and instantaneously show their support for IDS by signing the Petition for a Referendum on the EU Constitution at Conservative Central Office, where the numbers signing-up will be immediately seen.

This can be completed in a moment by clicking on this link Support IDS by signing the Conservative Petition from here.

IDS "The Worst Ever" - Maggie T.

But despite the mounting pressure, he promised to fight to stay in his job and made it clear that he has no intention of clearing the path for a successor.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, Mr Duncan Smith said the party was being held to ransom by a "small number of malcontents".

The above is taken from a report by Sky News.

According to a report in The Sunday Telegraph by Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor titled 'Duncan Smith tells allies: I will quit if MPs call vote' which can be read from this link.

Iain Duncan Smith will not contest a confidence vote and will step down as Conservative Party leader if dissident MPs trigger a leadership ballot, he has told his aides.

Senior Tory officials say that Mr Duncan Smith, who only recently promised to fight any challenge to his leadership, is now willing to stand down if 25 MPs, the number required to force a ballot, submit letters demanding a vote.

Anyway one looks at it complete confusion exists within the main opposition party. And this at a time when our Prime Minister is selling out his country's constitution, defence and democracy!

Support Website for IDS

Conservative supporters of IDS have launched http://www.backids.com

It is not very professional and seems not to mention the EU. Link from here. Even more worrying.

Major on Democracy

John Major the former failed British Prime Minister has somewhat cheekily written an article for the Daily Telegraph this morning under the startling title:
The deep malaise undermining our parliamentary democracy

The piece, or pamphlet perhaps would be a fairer description, disappoints following the seemingly all-encompassing title. Read it from the link if you will. I would be surprised if any find much more than the usual party political attack with little evidence of the deep thought and consideration that the country's growing and deepening problems really deserve. But that's my view and what surprises me about arriving at such a conclusion is that once again I have allowed myself to be disappointed by Major! I have sworn, several times, to never again give him the chance!

Tory Turmoil (continued)

Still nothing of substance or policy. On the leadership problems The Scotsman seems to have the best summary.

Plots

No point discussing policy, the implications of Blair's latest refusal to consider a referendum on the Constitution, the future role of the Queen, the planned huge cuts in equipment defence spending or the myriad other problems of concern to the Nation.

No, this blog is devoted to the Tories so we can only mention Betsy, IDS and link to these reports:-

Plot to ditch IDS by time of Queen's Speech from The Independent on Sunday and this just one of several similar to be found in the Sunday telegraph titled 'I am being smeared by Central Office, says Tory at heart of 'Betsygate' affair'

Leader of Lemmings!

Once again, while the nation's defence and sovereignty are the topic for discussion from The Sun to the FT the Telegraph continues with its obsession with the Leadership of the Tory Party Duncan Smith loses backing of the 'men in grey suits'

I ask you?

IDS in his own defence

The Spectator this week gives IDS his opportunity to defend himself against recent attacks. 'My fight is for the British People'

The final paragraph highlights the fatal flaw, namely that he has been persuaded against his own gut instincts to forget where the real battle for Britain and its people now really lies and where it should be being fought! :-

It is time, and past time, that the Conservative party pulled itself together and remembered the purpose of its existence. We are not here to occupy power for its own sake, or even for the glory of our party. We are here for the simple purpose I set out in my Blackpool speech. The Conservative party under my leadership stands for and fights for the people of Britain, who are themselves, in their everyday lives, battling against this government. It is a government which does not understand them, which loads them with unfair burdens, which will never reform our public services adequately, which has no respect for our national independence, and which, in denying every one of these charges, lies about its record, its intentions and its very nature. That is our enemy. Let us fight it.

Neil Herron says it better in his comment on the YouGov poll on a referendum as covered in the Daily Telegraph for the Referendum04 Campaign:-

Neil Herron, Campaign Director for Referendum04 said:
" Tony Blair is being backed into an impossible position. For his party, which made no reference to the Constitution in its manifesto, it will become increasingly difficult at constituency level for his MP's to agree with his stance.

"Referendum04's support is coming from MPs and voters from all parties as the YouGov poll confirms, and as their voice becomes louder along with that of the man in the street, the demand - and it is a demand, not a request - will become impossible for the Prime Minister to refuse.

"The issue, as can be seen from the poll results, has grasped the public's attention as very few are not interested in the issue, and they are determined that their voice will be heard.

"Blair is out of touch with the younger generation. This constitution was drawn up by a group of predominantly elderly political hacks, including the corrupt and disgraced Giscard d'Estaing, who had no democratic mandate whatsoever. Yet Blair is planning to impose this constitution on the young without their consent.

"Calls to Referendum04's campaign office, Tel. 0871 700 2004 offering financial, moral and practical support show that the fuse is well and truly lit. People will be queueing this week end to sign the petition and get involved.

"Should Blair continue to ignore the elephant in the room he may well be trampled in the stampede."

That's the message IDS should by now be putting across!

Plot to oust IDS

The Daily Telegraph, which since the announcement that it is soon to have a new editor, has seemed bent on ensuring Britain is left without a moderate opposition party to the right of New Labour, this morning has this article in much prominence 'Defiant IDS hits out at plotters':-

Iain Duncan Smith last night accused "malevolent forces" in the Tory party of trying to destroy his leadership with a financial smear campaign directed against him and his wife Betsy.

I wonder if Central Office have yet twigged that among those "malevolent forces" seem to be some working within its one time 'House Journal'?

Impartiality

We have apparently been so intent on remaining neutral on the question of the Tory Party that the intention of this blog is not immediately clear to the casual surfer. For the avoidance of doubt we re-post our opening statement herewith:-

This blog, created by those responsible for UKIP Uncovered and Ironies, will explore in detail the critical question for Eurorealists of whether or not the Tories, under the leadership of IDS, can be trusted to disregard the strong euro-federalist instincts of many within their party, and restore sovereignty to the Westminster Parliament and its democratic accountability to the people of the United Kingdom.

The Full Text of the IDS Prague speech from The Daily Telegraph 11th July 2003

Michael Ancram's Speech

The following post, far and away the best review of the above speech I have seen, was posted on an internet discussion forum overnight :-

Quote
Telling comments from Mr. Ancram's speech:

"We want to make the European Union work." It's doing a smashing job already working Britain over.

So Mr.(Michael) Ancram is not into Britain's full and final exit from the EU, but rather a continuance of trying to shape it into something it can't be, wasn't designed to be, has no point of reference to be.

"We want to build a European Union..." s'already built.

The European Union is the offspring of the United Nations as an instrument to establish a central world government. In-house EU squabbling and jockeying of involved nations (like Britain, who if it wants to survive needs to get out) are like dry leaves rustling about in the wind - the WIND is the determining force.

"A European Union within which the national aspiration of all its members, new and old, are not suffocated but supported." Stop. Britain is being suffocated now. And, thwarted, compromised, destabilized, fractionalized, by a self-aggrandizing cadre of politicians who see great careers for themselves making Britain part of one Centralized Structure where accountability to a constituency isn't necessary.

Even when the 'good guys' manage to negotiate some 'concession' from Brussels, the mandates keep coming. And still, there are those who refuse to acknowledge that decency and reason will not win the day for Britain when dealing with a totalitarian agenda.

"We want a new Europe of democracies, ready to serve the ideals of a new generation, working together in a spirit of new enterprise."

Lauding the merits of an idealistic 'association' of sovereign nations collaborating for the betterment of all is the stuff of fairytales, and nothing to do with the intent of the European Union. Sorry, but Mr. Ancram has his head in the clouds. It wouldn't come as a surprise to learn that he's 'affiliated' in an honorary capacity or otherwise with the United Nations.

"We must follow Sweden's example and carry forward the torch of freedom and
democracy." Carry it forth in Britain first: untie all the knots EU mandates and stiltifying regulations devestating everything from the fisheries industry to being inundated with immigrants to what vitamins people are allowed, the list is endless.

"We can play a vital role in the modern world." You were till the traitors took over. You will when Blair & co. aren't in charge & the boys from Brussels are escorted to the Channel and invited to start swimming east.
Unquote

The Verdict

The Daily Telegraph makes a timid step towards redeeming itself fot its totally unfair coverage of yesterday in its Leading Article, while columnist Alice Thomson kicks off with some words of praise for the Tory leader before resorting to cattiness.

The Independent predictably enough continues with its theme of a split Tory leader's tirade against Blair fails to stave off revolt a headline that seems to bear absolutely no connection with either the truth or any facts they can find to quote. The paper also apparently gives space to Portillo to claim that the Conference was the Tories worst ever, which seems a very sweeping statement , unhappily for the wannabe leader the link to the article does not work so we cannot find how he justifies such a sweeping claim.

I have not been able to learn the views of The Times due to their all subscription policy while the only article that might seem remotely connected to the IDS speech in the FT is also annoyingly available by subsription only but billed as follows: Britain's leaders should stand up for Europe. Our political leaders may be forced by pressure from Eurosceptics to pursue policies that are not in Britain's interests, writes Anand Menon of the University of Birmingham. Sounds like your typical FT piece, no wonder their circulation figures are reported to be in a nose dive.

Press still talks of Splits

Iain Duncan Smith warned his growing band of Tory critics today that he will not be driven out of his job without a fight that would divide the party and damage its chances of winning power.

First paragraph of an article under these headlines "Back me or I split the party, Duncan Smith warns Tories"Get on board or get out of the way" Tory leader tells critics By Andrew Grice and Paul Waugh in today's Independent

Some quotes at the end of the piece:-

Marion Rix, who chairs the Norfolk South West constituency party, was rebuked by a senior Tory official after criticising Mr Duncan Smith.

She said: "At the end of the day, we are in the game of winning elections. The reality is that - at the moment - we don't look like we are going anywhere fast."

Mark Hudson, chairman of Sevenoaks Tories, who voted for Mr Duncan Smith in the 2001 leadership election, said: "The question is whether he can lead us to victory at the next election. Time is running out for him to demonstrate that."

Jonathan Marland, Tory candidate for Somerton and Frome at the last general election, said: "The mood of the conference is such that there is time for a new leader. You sense it as you walk through the corridors here. It is the subject on everyone's lips."

But Karen Lumley, who will fight Redditch in the next election, won a standing ovation at the conference when she told the leader's critics: "You think you are just undermining Iain Duncan Smith. But let me tell you, you are undermining me and undermining everyone in this conference hall."

Iain Duncan Smith's Full Speech to the Tory Party, Blackpool Winter Garden, October 9th 2003

'We will fight for a fair deal for everyone'

The Daily Telegraph certainly seemed determined to dish any chances IDS might have ot ousting Blair by this article as its lead story on the Tory Conference note especially the unflattering choice of accompanying picture.

Meantime this was the papers Leading Article on the morning of the conference speech of the Leader of the Conservative Party....and they used to call the paper 'The Torygraph'
The crunch

Latest Plot Story from the FT

Just released is this latest conspiracy tale from the Conservative Conference. Who would know our democracy is in the process of being sold down the River, the Tiber not the Thames.

Tory plotters plan secret revolt meeting

A party split from top to toe

The Spectator's Leading Article this week opens with the following by Peter Hitchens:-

No power on earth can sustain an idea whose time has gone. Can we all please stop pretending that the Conservative party is worth saving or keeping, or that it can ever win another election?