Monday, 11 May 2009

Green blue sprouts' green shoots shoot Greens' shouts

This looks hopeful.

David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader, an analysis of Conservative parliamentary candidates suggests.

The Times - scarcely a cheerleader these days for any form of 'Right-wingery' - presents us with the tantalizing prospect of a Conservative government whose backbenchers believe in something actually like conservatism. After years of David Cameron's unnecessary 'de-toxing' of the image of 'Thatcherism,' (New Labour got elected claiming to offer Thatcherism without the Tories) it's seemed unlikely till now that any Conservative party administration would put any, let alone a great deal, of emphasis on:

preserving the nation-state

defence of the realm

defending the family

law and order

sound money

lower taxation

education that actually teaches

dealing with those harmful effects of globalization that actually exist such as the upcoming energy crisis.

And even though this doesn't look too hard a-starboard to me...

A Liberal Democrat election candidate Norsheen Bhatti has defected to the Conservatives, blaming Nick Clegg for abandoning his party's commitment to widen representation of ethnic minorities. It is also vindication for his strategy of "lovebombing" the Lib Dems, by which the Tories aim to attract Liberal support by agreeing with them on issues such as civil liberties and the environment. Ms Bhatti is now hoping to go on the Tory candidates' list and be selected for another seat. Conservative Chairman Eric Pickles said he was delighted to welcome her and claimed that both parties had much in common. "We are a broad church and are welcoming new people to the party all the time as we hold this tired and discredited government to account. "Liberal Democrats can achieve the changes they so desperately want through the Conservative Party. Like them we share similar values on civil liberties, the environment and quality of life issues." Up until a few weeks ago Miss Bhatti was heavily criticising the Conservatives. Her website still displays an attack on Sir Malcolm Rifkind for not voting on a parliamentary bill aimed at ending fuel poverty.

...there's still something potentially tasty to be gleaned from the following:

The analysis of Conservative candidates by the ConservativeHome website suggests that Mr Cameron should worry less about the odd eccentric and more about the general character of a new intake.
It finds that far from being a group of “Cameron clones” those most likely to be new Tory MPs are, in general, less concerned about climate change than terrorism, oppose green taxes and are hostile to gay adoptions. A majority oppose the party’s official policy of raising green taxes to reduce the taxation burden on families, according to a survey of 148 Tory candidates.
The survey, carried out in seats on a list of the 100 most-winnable constituencies and those already held, also finds that only 15 per cent believe climate change is a more important issue than terrorism. The survey suggests that an overwhelming majority of candidates in winnable seats – 83 per cent – support a significant expansion of nuclear power.

So that's: social conservatism on the family regarding gay adoptions; an awareness that one good way of people not dying is to avoid letting terrorists kill them; and a resistance to funny stuff with carbon taxes. Seems almost sane.
Not that gay adoption is all that big a deal in this neck of the woods because it doesn't happen very much and there are much worse fates for kids than growing up amongst throw-cushions and freshly-picked herbs: much, much worse. But it's the thought that counts.

Who knows what good seeds might germinate in David Cameron's head if a favourable reception to such attitudes comes out of focus groups and targeted polls?
Maybe a move on the real baby-harmers on the dole?

And there's more.

He will be less worried that 94 per cent of candidates believe that too much power has been transferred to the European Union. It is his own view and, as even Ken Clarke acknowledges, the “settled will” of the Conservative Party.
An almost uniformly Eurosceptic Conservative parliamentary party after the next election would, however, place additional pressure on Mr Cameron to deliver on his pledge to win power back from Brussels.

Of course, they can try to ignore the hell out of their backbenchers as all federasts do to all anti-EU folk, but David Cameron's likely to have it made patently clear to him by them that in a time of great economic stress - as provided by Labour's chainsaw massacre of the economy and the silence of those Tories whose mouths were stuffed with expense-account gold - that populist attitudes are the only peacetime morale-boosters and vote-winners available.They could start right now with a parliamentary purge of the Tories' Top Ten Greediest expense-account MPs. Then see Gordon Brown try to match it.
Marginal-constituency MPs are good at identifying such lifelines and they can't all be stupid enough to think that another drift to the centre would bring more votes over to the Conservatives than reclaiming some of the lost UKIP million or so votes.

Immigration controls and a prison or two could do wonders; as would flashy, legislatively simple, money-saving assaults on the Welfare State's breed-a-socialist-electorate scheme via child-related welfare benefits and low educational achievement for all.

Regular readers of this site in their drove will be aware that I'm a million miles from hopeful about David Cameron because I doubt his conservatism is of the die hard rather than the ditcher sort. If that...

But there are few things in Britain's political life you can rely on so confidently as Tory MPs' desire to be re-elected to Westminster.

It destroyed Edward Heath
and it toppled Mrs Thatcher.

Who knows: it might put a vertebra or two into call me Dave.


James Higham said...

Not that gay adoption is all that big a deal in this neck of the woods because it doesn't happen very much and there are much worse fates for kids than growing up amongst throw-cushions and freshly-picked herbs: much, much worse. But it's the thought that counts.

I'm sorry but gay adoption is totally effing wrong and should be strangled at birth.

North Northwester said...

I'm sorry but gay adoption is totally effing wrong and should be strangled at birth.

My point is that it should be way down the legislative list for social conservatives. It's not that I don't care about this, as my posts have shown.

See here

and here on the noticeboard site;

But compared to the Welfare State that spawned the mother and the other killers of Baby Peter, and the mother and other kidnapper of Shannon Matthews and the 'caring professionals' who let them,

and the public funding system that bred them and inspired them and brought their monstrous tribe into existence; the occasional girl growing up in Brighton is small potatoes politically.

It wouldn't be good for her - not as good as almost any heterosexual couple or single relative of hers - see how the social workers make war against family here;

...but not the same as beating and burning and raping her to death would be.

So I say that if anything like a conservative government is elected again with an agenda to save the family but with limited parliamentary time and limited support from the public, then it ought to go against the killers and the rapists and the sadists and their salaried cultural-Marxist apologists first, and leave the much rarer and less destructive interior designers and hairdressers till much later.

fewqwer said...


May I humbly suggest that you make it clear when you are quoting others' words!

North Northwester said...

Hi fewqwer, and welcome.

Glad to put the record straight - what didn't I attribute properly?


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner