Diary

The UN Human Wrongs Council

31 March, 2010

Nothing better illustrates Obama's opposition to American exceptionalism, or his belief in utopian internationalism than his devotion to the UN and its Human Rights Council. Early in his presidency, Obama agreed to US involvement in the Council, arguing rather naively that American influence would be far greater on the inside than out. Presumably 'American influence' would mean tackling the perverse culture of selectively demonising one country (Israel) while ignoring the world's most grievous abusers of human rights.

But this has scarcely proved to be the case as UN Watch's Anne Bayefsky points out in a scorching article in Commentary magazine. Instead the Human Rights Council has engaged in one of its favourite pastimes: attacking Israel. Five anti Israeli Resolutions have been passed in the last year alone, more than those passed on some of the gravest abusers of human rights: North Korea, Burma, Congo and Guinea.

As Bayefsky points out, this is because the Council 'is the personal playground of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They hold the balance of power by controlling the Asian and African regional groups, which together form a majority at the Council.'

She goes on: 'The other 187 states on the planet got a free pass from the Council, notwithstanding the pressing reality of Nigeria’s butchered Christians, Saudi Arabia’s gender apartheid, Egypt’s systematic torture, China’s iron fist, Sudan’s genocide, and Russia’s slain human-rights defenders. In fact, over the entire four-year history of the Council, more than half of all resolutions and decisions condemning any state have been directed at Israel alone.'

But in this session, the Council went further and set up a committee to monitor compliance with the Goldstone Report, itself the result of a diabolical, one sided investigation into the Gaza war. And this new body will be 'added to the existing collection of UN standing bodies already fixated on Israel-bashing, such as the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, and the UN Division for Palestinian Rights.' Even for an Israel bashing organisation, such an august collection of committees is quite some feat.

The Obama team argue that they can better influence the Council as members than outsiders. But the US has just one vote like any other member. Thus when America repeatedly voted against the Goldstone Resolution, they were defeated every time. And because of their desire to appease the Muslim world following the 'aberration' of George W. Bush, there was no US sponsored vote on the Iranian threat, despite the terrible and bloody crackdown on the Green movement last year.

None of this should be surprising. From his call to engage Iran's mullahs, to the infamous Cairo speech to the 'Muslim world,' and his sell out of allies in Israel, Europe and beyond, the 44th President has been gradually eroding American influence and credibility across the world in a vain attempt at apologising for the perceived sins of American unilateralism. It will take a heroic effort by the 45th President to win back this credibility.

top

A voice of reason in these times of hysteria

28 March, 2010

If you want to read a blog which offers sane, honest and intellectually rigorous commentary on the Middle East and Europe's attitudes towards Israel, read Robin Shepherd online. This former director of Chatham House understands so well the Western intelligensia's pathological attitude towards the Jewish state. In his latest diary entry, he takes apart Richard Ingrams, the journalist and co-founder of Private Eye. In 2003, Ingrams was responsible for this utterly delightful piece of bigotry:

“I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it."

Now that is interesting. Clearly for Ingrams, what matters in assessing what someone says about Israel is not the content of what is said but that person's social identity. In this view of the world, if you are a Jew you are not so much an individual as a representative of a cultural unit which destroys your objectivity and traps you in its own mindset. Clearly Ingrams has never met the fiercely anti Zionist Neturei Karta or the hordes of left-liberal Jews who frequently express contempt for right wing Israeli politicians.

Imagine if a more pro Israel minded person had written something along these lines:

“I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Palestinians to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Muslim or Arab name. If so, I tend not to read it."

That person would probably (and rightly) be accused of bigotry and narrow mindedness; not so when it comes to Jews, however. Of course, poor Mr. Ingrams ought to know that some non Jews have Jewish sounding surnames and some Jews have more Anglicized names - the chutzpah!

But Ingrams has now outdone himself with a piece of truly eye watering ignorance in the Independent. This is what he writes:

'The expulsion of a Mossad man from London following the affair over the forged passports used by a gang of Israeli assassins in Dubai is welcome, if only to remind us that regardless of this single expulsion Mossad operates openly out of London with the full approval of the British Government.

This is surprising considering the kind of things that Mossad gets up to – forging passports, assassinating the political opponents of the Israeli government, kidnapping those like the nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu (who spent 12 years in solitary confinement for daring to tell the world about his country's nuclear weapons) – behaving in other words like state–licensed gangsters. Surprising, too, is the way politicians are happy to describe themselves, even when engaged in expulsions, as friends of Israel. The Prime Minister himself comes into this category, as his friend Sir Martin Gilbert recently reminded us.

What this amounts to is that these people are proud to be friends of a country that operates a system of apartheid in territory which it has illegally occupied and colonised, that subjects the people who live in that territory to intolerable restrictions, that thinks nothing of killing large numbers of them, including women and children, to punish them for daring to launch rockets and that continually lies about its actions as it does about the criminal activities of Mossad.

If in the days of apartheid you had proclaimed yourself a friend of South Africa you would have been regarded as some kind of right-wing racist. Yet no special odium nowadays attaches to those friends of Israel from Gordon Brown downwards. It is all rather puzzling.'

The sickening apartheid analogy is no longer confined to hard left groups. It is instead becoming a mainstream criticism of the Jewish state and amounts to a form of intentional demonisation. Shepherd delivers a withering rebuke to Ingrams:

'This is the writing of a fanatic. It is also symptomatic of the group hysteria over Israel which has now sunk its claws into mainstream British society. No other country is talked about and written about in such terms. Apart from the substance, also notice the style. The sheer intensity of the feelings that motivate the writer is stark. Those feelings can be summed up in a single word: hatred.'

Indeed. Do read Shepherd's blog regularly.

top

With fair-weather friends like these, does Israel need enemies?

24 March, 2010

So these are the depths to which UK-Israeli relations have now sunk. The government's decision to expel a senior Israeli diplomat in response to the cloning of British passports is a hysterical overreaction, But, and this is a point missed by some, it is by no means an unpredictable overreaction.

Given this government's past form in regard to the Jewish state, it is barely surprising that it would have created such a drastic rupture in relations.

Indeed the most surreal element in this saga is the notion that Israel somehow betrayed its British 'ally' by the alleged misuse of passports. In recent years, this country has been no genuine ally of the Israelis, indeed no more so than Obama's Arabist administration.

Take just a few recent examples. We now know that there will be no change in the universal jurisdiction law to prevent visiting Israeli politicians from facing arrest. The government's promises to this effect were meaningless. Any Israeli politicians or generals associated with the recent Gaza conflict could still find themselves under arrest moments after landing at Heathrow.

This is the same government that failed to denounce the Goldstone report at the UN, indeed failed to even abstain properly.

Its ministers turned on Israel during the Gaza war of 2009 when it was engaged in self defence. Some have gone further and considered a dialogue with the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, as if these groups could ever become respectable interlocutors in the peace process. With such shabby and misguided behaviour from Brown's government, it is barely surprising that 'passport-gate' would erupt into this latest spat.

David Miliband called it an 'outrage' that British passports were cloned by Israel. There was certainly an issue for the British passport holders who felt understandable anxiety for their security. They had not been consulted about the operation after all.

But neither this government nor the EU should have been too vocal in their condemnation. The forging of passports, rightly or wrongly, is part and parcel of the murky intelligence business and is something that goes on around the world. Indeed it is hard to envisage how some intelligence operations could get off the ground without it. Mossad (if they killed Al-Mabhouh) are not unique in this respect and they should not be singled out for special treatment.

Still, Mr. Brown’s government sees things differently. It is his ministers who have betrayed an ally repeatedly (see above), not the other way round. London and Jerusalem should have the strongest diplomatic ties but relations have now been drastically weakened at a time of grave international uncertainty. Brown and Miliband should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

top

The Obama doctrine: alienate your friends and reward your enemies

19 March, 2010

It has not been a good week for the Obama administration. Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton had a collective hissy fit over Israel's announcement of the imminent building of 1600 houses in Jerusalem, something that has left observers perplexed. Why is it that the administration reserves its harshest invective for one of its closest allies rather than for the corrupt Palestinian Authority?

Why is it that so much attention is devoted to settlements, a clearly peripheral matter, when issues of much greater significance (such as the PA’s continual glorification of terrorism, the incitement in the West Bank) are largely ignored?

Obama’s inverted priorities and his refusal to identify the real causes of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse appear to have given a green light to Palestinian extremists. Hence in the last few days, there has been an upsurge of rioting in Jerusalem, the pretext for which is the addition of a synagogue on a list of Jewish heritage sites.

Add to this toxic mix the comments made by Biden and others to the effect that Israel’s purported intransigence is harming American military interests around the world. Such is the level of hostile rhetoric that Abe Foxman, the indefatigable chairman of the Anti Defamation League, has called on the Israeli government to counter it. This is not being called a crisis for nothing.

Amid this diplomatic hysteria, it is barely surprising that Obama is blocking any attempt to stop the region’s greatest threat, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In today’s Jerusalem Post, Michael Rosen asks why the US government is acting as a stumbling block to a bill that would impose enormous diplomatic pressure on Iran to end its nuclear programme. The bill in question, called the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, would ‘bolster the White House’s power to sanction any company assisting Iran in importing or refining petroleum.’ As Rosen points out:

‘Despite its vast natural gas and oil reserves, the Tehran regime imports up to 40 percent of its gasoline. Severe sanctions such as these can be expected to bring the Iranian economy to a screeching halt.’

Both Democrats and Republicans have signed up to this bill; it recently passed with a thundering 412-12 majority. But as Rosen writes:

‘All that remained for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, to make the bill a law was to “reconcile” the slightly different language in the separate Senate and House versions into a single piece of legislation. But instead, Reid and Pelosi have bottled up the measure and refused to allow a blending of the bills. Why? Because the Obama administration asked them to.’

The President’s team are convinced that new UN resolutions can soften the mullahs’ hearts and reverse the apparently inevitable march to an Iranian bomb. But the big stumbling block is China which will likely veto any such resolution because of its strong economic interests in Iran. So what is Obama’s team doing about this dangerous Sino-Iranian axis? The answer is nothing.

More precisely, they are seeking to reward China by labelling them as a ‘co-operating country’ and ‘and carving out a gigantic exception for Chinese companies doing business with Tehran.’ Quite why China deserves this largesse is difficult to fathom. But it seems that Washington has turned its back on stopping the Iranian bomb. Containment will be the order of the day when the mullahs finally announce that the most prized of all WMDs is in their grasp. Worse, they have rewarded autocratic China which is the chief diplomatic stumbling block to eventual Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

Rosen gets the overall point brilliantly:

‘Obama and his foreign policy advisers have consistently shown themselves to be more solicitous of America’s enemies than its allies, more willing to provoke our friends than to challenge our foes. And so far, this approach has succeeded only in emboldening opponents of the United States while alienating its trusted partners.’

Indeed so. By alienating his friends and rewarding his enemies, America’s 44th President has shown himself to be a liability to the free world, rather than its most stalwart defender. What an unmitigated disaster.

top

Catherine Ashton lays down the law to Hamas

18 March, 2010

An extreme Islamist group in the Gaza strip, Ansar-al-Sunna has today claimed responsibility for a rocket attack at a Southern Israeli kibbutz which killed one person, a Thai worker. The attack appears to coincide with the arrival of Catherine Ashton, the EU's new (and unelected) foreign policy and security supremo.

So it is nice to hear her offer a unique brand of vociferous, heart stopping condemnation to match this atrocity. Here is what she had to say: ''I condemn any kind of violence, we have got to find a peaceful solution to the issues and problems.''

Wow! I am quite sure that Hamas terrorists will be quaking in their boots at hearing that. There was no mention of the fact that this was 'Palestinian' violence' and nothing to indicate that, far from being just an act of violence, this was actually yet another act in the long standing genocidal war waged against the Jewish state from Gaza. Quite tragic really.

How tragic.

top

The children of Gaza documentary

16 March, 2010

Last night I watched Channel 4's documentary, Children of Gaza, which followed a number of Palestinian children whose lives were turned upside down by the recent Gaza war. Some of the stories of human loss and suffering, of lives torn apart by the deaths of parents and brothers, of houses destroyed, of businesses ruined, were incredibly poignant. One would have to feel less than human not to sympathise with these young children and their grieving relatives.

That said, this documentary was no neutral affair – it was manifestly (and appallingly) agenda driven. No context for Operation Cast Lead was offered, beyond the statement that ‘Israel claimed that its operation was designed to stop Hamas rocket fire.' Worded in this way, one is led to believe that the Israelis actually had no good reason at all for their ‘punitive’ action. With no Israeli spokesman interviewed, one is left with an utterly one sided and distorted picture of why the war happened in the first place.

Despite the undoubted tragedy for many Palestinian children, one simple fact must be stated over and over again: Had Hamas not launched an incessant barrage of rockets on southern Israeli cities for years, causing tens of thousands of Israelis to run to their bomb shelters every day, Operation Cast Lead would never have happened. Israel left Gaza in 2005 with no intention of returning; events forced their hand.

The children interviewed make statements such as ‘Did we do anything to hurt them?’ and ‘My father wasn’t a terrorist.’ Are we really supposed to believe that these youngsters were not primed by terrorist masterminds intent on maximizing PR? It stretches credulity to think otherwise. If Hamas terrorists know anything, it is how well these stories of suffering innocents play out on British television screens.

This documentary is lopsided in one other fundamental respect. It accepts that the civilian deaths were Israel's fault when we know from the vast amount of evidence collected that Hamas were using Palestinian children as human shields in order to blacken Israel’s reputation.

Indeed, Israel has just released a 500 page report produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism information centre showing how Hamas used these tactics throughout the war. Improvised explosive devices were placed inside homes, command centres were set up near Palestinian (and UN) hospitals and mosques and rockets were fired from schools. The video evidence (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171009) is quite compelling, though not for Channel 4 apparently. With Israel taking extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties, a point made repeatedly by Colonel Richard Kemp in recent months, the documentary’s political agenda is very distinctly pro Hamas.

The worst part of this film is its attempt to sanitise Palestinian society. You see children in Palestinian schools being told not to hate other Jewish children but to, in effect, adopt the moral high ground. The notion that an education system run by blood thirsty anti semites like Hamas could be trying to instill such liberal sensibilities is utterly risible. If schools and mosques in the ‘moderate’ West Bank glory in the killing and subjugation of Jews, how much more likely is it that such deranged blood lust exists in Gaza?

At the end some children are shown expressing their desire for ‘martyrdom’ while they are befriended by members of Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Again, the clear implication is that these future ‘suicide bombers’ will be motivated ‘understandably’ by revenge in a classic ‘cycle of violence.’ But this is the Hamas agenda to delegitimise the Jewish state. The reality is that from the earliest age, Palestinians are taught the ultimate value of jihadist warfare against the 'infidels,' a blinding form of hatred which may be exacerbated by war but is not created by it. Though Hamas’ aspiration to destroy the Jewish state is stated, this is largely a footnote to the documentary.

Yes, Cast Lead was a tragedy for innocent Palestinians, indeed all wars are tragedies for the non combatants who suffer because of them. But this should not cause us to lose sight of basic facts such as why the war was necessary in the first place. By removing any context and implicitly adopting the Hamas narrative, the makers of Children of Gaza do a disservice to truth and justice for both sides.

top

Mc Qualifications and Labour's fixation with dumbing down

12 March, 2010

Elitism is a dirty word for New Labour. The idea that some kids are brighter than others and therefore deserve the rigour and academic excellence that would be denied them in mainstream education, is anathema to this government.

That is why Ed Balls, perhaps the most pernicious education secretary in living memory, is so desperate to destroy the existing public examinations system. He wants to ditch the current system, where you have separate academic and vocational qualifications, and replace them with an overreaching ‘one size fits all’ diploma. The idea is to get rid of a ‘two tier’ system of qualifications and reward students ‘equally,’ thus ensuring that the ‘self esteem’ of those who work on vocational courses will not be threatened.

Needless to say, most teachers can readily see through this hogwash. The merging of academic and practical qualifications devalues the former because academic subjects involve, by definition, a rather different (and more demanding) set of skills and competences. Vocational qualifications are of course important but they are not testing the same skills or length of commitment.

Schools routinely adopt vocational B Tech qualifications because these are often counted as the equivalent of several GCSEs. Using this sleight of hand, schools more readily meet government GCSE targets, inflating their own figures and bumping up their position on government league tables. It is a crafty form of deception practised on the public which I have witnessed at first hand in state schools.

Not surprisingly therefore, yesterday’s report about Mcqualifications will come as little surprise to many teachers. This is what it involves:

‘Under plans, every pupil who completes a two-week placement will have the chance to gain a Level 2 BTEC in Work Skills. It will be equivalent to a GCSE graded B or C. The new qualification – billed as the first of its kind in the UK – will be accredited by Edexcel, one of Britain’s biggest exam boards. During the placement, teenagers will prepare food, serve customers on the tills, learn how to work in a team and improve their communication skills. They will also be supervised by a staff “buddy” and given a mock interview. Around 20 per cent of the course will be completed at school – after the placement – when pupils are expected to show completed workbooks to teachers and take part in a group discussion.’

As Prof Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, put it:

“This is really devaluing the qualifications currency,” he said. “If someone can get the equivalent of a GCSE in work experience, how are people going to judge pupils who get an A in physics? They are going to say, ‘that’s almost the same as two weeks at McDonald's’.”

He is of course right. But devaluing qualifications, examinations, teaching and knowledge is the hallmark of decades of mismanagement and perverse ideological fixation, the results of which are here for all to see.

top

The Goldstone hate fest continues...

9 March, 2010

The UN sponsored hate fest against Israel (aka the Goldstone report) has spawned a number of intense debates over the legitimacy of Israel's actions in 2009. One of these was held at the London School of Economics featuring some members of the 'fact finding' team (Colonel Desmond Travers and Professor Christine Chinkin). For a full report read here.

Strikingly, the LSE abandoned the opportunity for a proper debate by refusing to invite an Israeli debater who actually supported the operation. The Israeli speaker on show was Ami Ayalon, a former Labour MK and former head of the Domestic security service who disagreed with Operation Cast Lead.

Much has been made about the presence of Professor Christine Chinkin, one of the investigating team who had already publicly condemned Israel before she was selected. This is a clear breach of the protocols governing UN investigations. But less has been said about retired Colonel Desmond Travers. As you can see at the website Middle East Monitor (http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf), the Colonel was highly evasive when he was asked to comment on his outrageous and bigoted assertion that 'Britain's foreign policy interests in the Middle East seem to be influenced strongly by Jewish lobbyists.'

Worse, his entire methodology has been taken apart in a masterful article from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. Here is a sample of what they say:

A Fundamental Bias against the Israel Defense Forces: While Travers assumes the worst of intentions on the part of the Israel Defense Forces, he praises Hamas for their cooperation with the Mission. When he was asked about Hamas intimidation that affected the Mission's inquiries, he replied that that there was "none whatsoever." Yet the Goldstone Report itself noted in Paragraph 440 that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of Palestinian armed groups because of a "fear of reprisals." He rejects the notion that Hamas shielded its forces in the civilian population and does not accept the idea that Israel faced asymmetric warfare.

False Information Reported About Weapons Systems: Travers comes up with a story that the IDF had unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) that could obtain a "thermal signature" on a Gaza house and detect that there were large numbers of people inside. Incredibly, he then suggests that with this information that certain houses were "packed with people," the Israeli military would then deliberately order a missile strike on these populated homes. The primary technical problem with his theory is that Israel does not have UAV's that can see though houses and pick up a thermal signature.

4. Lack of Professionalism in Conducting Thorough Investigations: Travers relies on his own prejudices when he looks into the question of whether Gazan Mosques had been militarized by Hamas and turned into weapons depots. In an interview with Harpers, published on October 29, 2009, Travers makes a sweeping generalization: "We found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions." He then dismissed those who suggested that was the case by saying: "Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion." How many mosques did Travers investigate? He admits that the Mission only checked two mosques.

These are damning methodological flaws and biases which highlight the twisted nature of Travers' thinking. The man had the temerity to dismiss other military voices, such as those of Tim Collins and Richard Kemp, whose testimony has revealed the lousy conclusions reached by the one sided Goldstone report. Quite appalling.

top

Wilders is less wild than you might imagine

6 March, 2010

'Islamophobia on tour' screamed a headline in yesterday's Independent, describing yesterday's visit to London of the maverick Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. It was a typical reaction from the bien pensant classes who instinctively recoil when anyone dares to question the Islamic faith. It is also the kind of reaction that the blond haired polemicist, famous for his short film Fitna, might have come to expect in Britain. The last time he came here, courtesy of an invitation from UKIP, he was prevented from entering the country.

Now one does not have to agree with everything that Wilders says. His call to ban the Koran is rather unrealistic while his view of Islam as 'fascistic' lacks a certain nuance and balance. Perhaps in his desire to (rightly) blacken Islamic radicalism, he has somewhat overstepped the mark. Nonetheless, he is reportedly on the verge of electoral success in Holland and it is not hard to see why.

His rise to fame coincides with an increase in Holland's Muslim population, elements of which have become increasingly radicalised and vocal in their demands for sharia law. The recent murder of Theo Van Gogh has reminded the Dutch that tolerating the fundamentally intolerant comes at a heavy price.

When you combine Islamist radicalism with rampant multiculturalism and political correctness, you have a politically toxic mix which can only play into the hands of far right and populist parties. These parties are making calls for restricted Muslim immigration, a ban on headscarves and minarets and the assertion of the nation's core Judaeo-Christian values. If some of these ideas seem unworkable or downright unfair, they must nonetheless be viewed in the context of Dutch fears of an identity crisis brought about by unrestricted immigration and an aloof political elite.

Wilders has exploited this crisis very skilfully. Were he to become Holland's next leader, it will send a devastating signal to our own political elite.

top

Andrew Roberts tells it like it is

03 March, 2010

Do read Andrew Roberts' incisive, penetrating and scorching indictment of the intelligentsia's double standards on Israel in today's FT. In a concise article in the otherwise increasingly anti Israeli FT, Roberts lambasts those who single out Israel for opprobrium because it dares to defend itself and not surrender to its enemies. Here is a sample of what he says about the killing of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh:

'All that the Dubai operation will do is remind the world that the security services of states at war – and Israel’s struggle with Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah certainly constitutes that – occasionally employ targeted assassination as one of the weapons in their armoury, and that this in no way weakens their legitimacy.'

He was responding to 2 recent articles that had condemned Israel's “checkpoints, barbed wire and separation walls” which were purportedly “turning Israel from a democracy into an apartheid state." But as Roberts points out so skilfully:

"There is simply no parallel between apartheid South Africa – where the white minority wielded power over the black majority – and the occupied territories, taken by Israel only after it was invaded by its neighbours. To make such a link is not only inaccurate, but offensive."

Indeed. Israel is singled out for delegitimisation and demonisation by the 'right thinking classes' in a manner which is both bigoted and iniquitous and which has no parallel in the modern world. Roberts' article is a model of simplicity and clear thinking. Do read it all.

top

Why the wheels are falling off the Conservative bus

1 March, 2010

Having acquired an imperious lead in the opinion polls, Team Cameron now finds its fortunes flagging. Recent polls suggest that the Conservatives enjoy no more than a 6 point lead with others suggesting the lead has fallen to two points. The very real possibility of a hung Parliament now confronts both major parties with the most pessimistic of Tories fearing an imminent electoral defeat.

The wheels appear to have come off the Conservative bus and the reasons should be obvious to all. Instead of galvanising the nation with a core political message, the Tories have opted for safety first. Cameron has flailed about in all directions, offering liberal sound bites to re-assure the modernising wing of the party while offering a sop to the traditionalists. The result has been an uneasy mix that points in no overall direction.

Thus in recent months, Cameron has pledged to cut the deficit, restrict public sector growth and make a significant cut in the size of the state. Yet he has simultaneously declared his support for the NHS and pledged to double the budget for international aid. This is a confusing message which makes no sense in such troubled times.

The Tories also made much of their support for marriage, only for them to declare that tax breaks for married couples was an aspiration rather than a concrete policy. But even this Conservative aspiration was diluted when the Tories proposed offering the same incentives for gay couples and went further by suggesting that those same couples could marry in church. What kind of conservatism is this?

The strategy is designed to alleviate the government’s claim that the Tories are out to destroy public services and that they are an ungenerous and heartless bunch of toffs. But the end result is that Cameron’s Tories merely parrot Labour’s own vacuous slogans, creating the impression that they are slick opportunists rather than principled opponents. Worse, Cameron’s flirtation with spin has cast him as the ‘heir to Blair’ which has been a tactical disaster. The resulting impression, namely that the opposition lack any coherent policies, is incredibly damaging.

All along, Team Cameron has needed some big ideas backed up by coherent policy proposals. This has required more than cheap slogans and convincing sound bites, much as these are vital in any election. Strangely enough, Cameron has articulated an ideological framework that seems both English and Conservative and which represents a philosophical challenge to the current government.

He has talked about social responsibility, localism and individual empowerment, all of which require massive public sector retrenchment, cuts in spending and greater freedom for the consumer. These messages have been progressively undermined, however, by the desire to move onto the much hallowed but mythical ‘centre’ ground of modernising politics, defined by social liberalism, high levels of public spending, welfarism and non judgementalism in lifestyle choice.

Yet this is exactly what we have had for the last 13 years under the infamous leaders of New Labour. If the public want another 5 years of this, why opt for the ‘Blue pretenders’ when they can have the real deal under Gordon Brown? Better the devil you know, as they say. So in a nutshell, this is what Cameron’s wishy washy modern conservatism really risks – the humiliation of failing to defeat one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in living memory.

top

March Entries

• The UN Human Wrongs Council
• A voice of reason in these times of hysteria
• With fair-weather friends like these, does Israel need enemies?
• The Obama doctrine: alienate your friends and reward your enemies
• Catherine Ashton lays down the law to Hamas
• The children of Gaza documentary
• Mc Qualifications and Labour's fixation with dumbing down
• The Goldstone hate fest continues...
• Wilders is less wild than you might imagine
• Andrew Roberts tells it like it is
• Why the wheels are falling off the Conservative bus

Archive

• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• August 2007
• September 2007
• October 2007
• November 2007
• December 2007
• January 2008
• February 2008
• March 2008
• April 2008
• May 2008
• June 2008
• July 2008
• August 2008
• September 2008
• October 2008
• November 2008
• December 2008
• January 2009
• February 2009
• March 2009
• April 2009
• May 2009
• June 2009
• July 2009
• August 2009
• September 2009
• October 2009
• November 2009
• December 2009
• January 2010
• February 2010
• March 2010
• April 2010
• May 2010
• June 2010
• July 2010
• August 2010
• September 2010

Related links

• Richard Millett's Blog
• oyvagoy
• Robin Shepherd Online