Sadly, Steyn's pretty much on the Mark (as usual) with this current analysis of the Conservatives... Slightly EFL
According to The Sunday Telegraph, "Howard Tells Bush: I Don't Care If You Won't See Me". Presumably he didn't actually "tell" Bush, since his lack of access to the guy is what this thing's all about. "Face time" they used to call it in Bill Clinton's day. So Bush is probably unaware that Howard doesn't care if he won't see him. By next Sunday we might be seeing headlines such as: "Furious Howard Slams Reeling Bush: I Don't Care If You Don't Know That I Don't Care If You Won't See Me".
We are, as has been noted, two nations separated by a common language. Take - to pluck at random - the word "conservative". In America, "conservative" has certain common meanings: devotees of small government, gun nuts, fiscal hawks, anti-abortion groups, the religious Right. Bush is a problematic figure for several of these constituencies, but all of them are numerous and indispensable to the election prospects of the President, senators, governors, congressmen and state legislators. Now turn to Britain. What does "conservative" mean? There's no religious Right or pro-life groups, not much social conservatism at all, and, if there was, the Tory leadership would recoil from it lest they offend shortlisted gay candidates with safe seats. There are no gun nuts, because the party has a rather unpleasant authoritarian bent and has traditionally eschewed the Englishman's-home-is-his-castle stuff in favour of a knee-jerk deference to the monumentally useless British constabulary. (Howard's time as Home Secretary makes an instructive study in this regard.) As for fiscal conservatism and small government, the Tories are against "waste" and in favour of "choice", but so's everybody else, at least rhetorically.
So what does "conservative" mean in British English? If you look it up in the OED, does it say "obs."? Last-known citation, by Toby Helm in The Daily Telegraph, August 7, 2004: "Senior members of Michael Howard's frontbench team believe the Conservative Party will have to consider changing its name as part of a fundamental `rebranding'." Whoa, not so fast. Despite the great gaping nullity of the party this past decade, there was still one thing it stood for: like the Republicans, the Tories were the party that took foreign policy and national security seriously. That's what Howard threw away when he chose to repudiate his own Iraq-war vote, accuse Blair of "dereliction of duty" and demand his resignation.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog ||
08/31/2004 5:41:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am sure the thing that got the "Bush people" was Howards flip on the WOT. Bush may not be able to help Blair in the U.K. but he will stand by him in his own Bush kind of way. Bush has tremendous respect for Tony Blair based on Blairs principled I am doing what right damm the consequences support in the WOT.
#2
Looks like the Tories are doomed unless they get rid of Howard - too many people remember him for the wrong reasons (Poll Tax - 1980's / physical resemblance to a vampire). The quandry being can they survive the loss of credibility a further change in leader would impose?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/31/2004 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I had high hopes for Howard. Still got some hope he call pull them back from the brink, if only he can get some advisors with more long-sightedness (and a few more old fashioned traditional Tory principles). But I'm almost coming to think the British right should undergo some form of meiosis - have the authoritarian old guard divided from the more libertarian newbies who actually have the new (and better) ideas. Of course, that process would probably see the left dominate electorally for another few Parliaments.
#4
I think Howard is making a play for the Muslim vote. Will it work? Perhaps sufficiently to win a few seats.
I think Tories have this superiority complex vis-a-vis Americans they really need to resolve. Calling something a disaster (Iraq and Afghanistan) doesn't make it so. Remember the annihilation of 5,000 troops and camp followers on the open field in Afghanistan a century ago? Now that was a disaster. Isandlwana, where 1,300 troops died on a single day on the open field against spear-armed warriors? Now that was a disaster. Losing a thousand men, against guerrillas hiding among civilians, in the course of a year is not a disaster.
#7
Steyn is "spot on" as they would say in the UK. Over hill and dale, the Tories are a sorry excuse for their former selves under Maggie and even John Minor Major. Even Portillo would have handled the WoT and Iraq differently plus he had a better idea on domestic issues such as crime, transportation, etc. But, Howard, I would think that the Tories could rescue some advantage by taking on such domestic issues as University fees, rail transport, country side issues like hunting, etc. NOt?
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
08/31/2004 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think Howard is making a play for the Muslim vote.
In a word: no. Howard hasn't a hope of winning in the Muslim-dominated seats - it's Labour or the Lib Dems for most Muslims, and no prizes for guessing who's been getting the lion's share of them since the Iraq war. Howard's Jewish to boot, so that pretty much rules out any chances he might have with Muslim voters. He's just been shamefully and misguidedly opportunist in attacking Blair over Iraq, where he's been going for the rival politician's jugular rather than pursuing votes.
#9
Bulldog: In a word: no. Howard hasn't a hope of winning in the Muslim-dominated seats - it's Labour or the Lib Dems for most Muslims, and no prizes for guessing who's been getting the lion's share of them since the Iraq war.
What about the possibility that he's hoping to divide the Muslim vote, so the Tory candidate can win? Just as Nader is helping to divide the liberal vote?
#10
I really don't think his intention's to influence Muslim voters specifically, at all. They're an insignificant constituency (about three percent of the electorate), tend to block vote for other parties and usually are found in seats where the Conservatives trail both Labour and the Lib Dems.. The number of such voters he could hope to influence is way too small to base his foreign policy on. If he's being populist, it's a general appeal to anti-war types and the uncertain. I think he thinks he can take the habitual Tory voter for granted, so he believes he hasn't got anything to lose. He could be wrong about that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
