Who is the biggest threat to conservatism and to this country? This is the question that has been bouncing around in the old lady brain for some time. The answer: the Conservative party, not Labour. Not even a Corbyn Labour party, either.

When you vote for Labour, you know what you are getting. You are getting a Leftist, socialist party that wants to control you. It wants to nationalise utilities and drive up the national debt to help people. We know from other countries that this will not help people – it will destroy the economy, wreck employment and ultimately cause a lot of pain to a lot of people. When Labour say ‘for the many not the few’ what they mean is ‘the many ruled by the few’.

A Labour government would be grim, don’t get me wrong. But I wager that they won’t last long, they will split, and they will not get to do half the things they say they will do. They have already ditched the tuition fee promise and they are not even in power. In sum, they are not the long-term threat to this country.

This threat comes from the Conservative party. That’s right, I said it. I don’t like saying it and I didn’t like waking up in a cold sweat and realising that Peter Hitchens was right all along. I like hope as much as the next Christian conservative, but there is no point in being wilfully blind either.

Let’s face it, the Conservative party are neo-Statists and have done more damage to conservatism in this country than Labour ever could. The current leader of the party believes actual conservatism – small government, strong families and the free market – is nasty. She actually said this, yet we are all to go merrily along backing this wretched party no matter what, as we did in the last election – much to my regret.

This is the party that believes an energy gap is a good idea, and that continued government guarantee of tuition fees is sensible. The Tories are as ideologically wedded to the socialised health system that is the NHS as the Labour party is, all because they think they will look mean if they point out that in fact the Emperor has no clothes.

The Tories have interfered with the childcare market, causing the costs to rise year in, year out. They want more mothers in work, whether they want to be there or not. They lecture us on what to eat and drink; no detail of our life is beyond government note-taking. Now they have instructed GPs to ask what your sexuality is. This is Nanny turned Nurse Ratched.

The Conservatives love big government. There has been no reduction in quangos – they have quangos lobbying their own government, for goodness’ sake. They use the school system to try to solve every social problem: FGM, toothbrushing, sex education, pornography, drugs, healthy eating, on and on it goes. The national debt could hit £2trillion in the next ten years.

And that’s before we get to social conservatism. They have dumped that completely because it was much more important to be ‘modern’, whatever that means. Their proudest moment was to redefine marriage, and now they seek to redefine what it is to be a man or a woman. Nothing, it seems, is beyond their power. With the stroke of a pen, the Tories believe they can magically turn men into women and vice versa. They have even instructed the UN to ditch the term ‘pregnant woman’ and use ‘pregnant people’ instead. This is misogyny. This is the Tory party.

The last straw for me was the proposed ‘presumed consent’ organ donation scheme, more accurately described as the State organ appropriation scheme. This is small fry in the scheme of things but it sums up the whole rotten party. The concept that your body is yours, and remains yours and then under the control of your family after death, is so fundamental, so obvious, so visceral and so conservative that it should not need explaining.

Now Theresa May tells us that in fact your body belongs to the State, unless you have taken the time and trouble to tell the State otherwise. This is wrong in principle and in practice. I was on a radio show with a chap who was waiting for a kidney and he said that his surgeons told him there were not even the beds or doctors to take advantage of this scheme. So, the Conservatives are grabbing organs just, as usual, to look nice. See, neo-Statists.

What do you think of when you think of conservative values? I think of constitutional democracy, tough on crime, strong defence, low-tax, personal responsibility and strong families, reform not revolution.

Instead we have a huge fight over whether or not to make Parliament supreme again; there has been a significant increase in violent crime; defence and the Navy in particular have been run right down. The tax burden is the highest it has been since the 70s. Personal responsibility – everything is the government’s fault, and I won’t say anything more about the family – we document its destruction every day here. They fundamentally changed marriage and now they seek to destroy what is male and female. They are as socially radical as any Labour party.

Instead of free speech we are constantly lectured on hate crime and still live under the tyranny of political correctness. The Tories cannot even get this right.

We support conservatism by supporting conservative principles, not this neo-Statist socialist-light party. The Conservatives are destroying the fundamental values of conservatism so quickly that we will not have anything to conserve in a generation. They are the real threat. And the sooner we all realise this the better.


  1. Pity CW has been asking its readership to vote for Blu-Labour in the past. Time to turn our backs on this party and put the frighteners on the Politcal Class. I long ago accepted that should support for the Tory Party drop we will get someone like Jeremy Corbyn. But like ripping off a plaster it would be short pain worth it when a new party forms out of the ashes of the old Conservative Party.

    Instead voters have dithered so long, the centre shifted so far, that they happily voted for Nu-Labour v3.0 in the last election.

    • Liked your point before, that such as Soubry, Hammond, Crabb, Rudd etc have hijacked the Conservative party and recreated it in their own image.
      Nothingness plus Miliband-Lite.

      Major and “Bonfire of the Quangoes”,” Waiters Tips” Cameron stuffed the constituencies with wasters, like themselves.

      But I cannot see how the grass-roots can change the situation short term, except by threatening some kind of de-selection.

      Our MP Chris threw out a Lib-Dem, and increased his majority, by making no secret he was in favour of Brexit.
      But he is not Eton and Oxford, so he will be sidelined by the swamp inhabitants.

  2. I too will probably vote Corbyn next time around on the basis of ‘let all the poisons that live in the mud hatch out’. It is a very painful long term strategy to both get a Democratic Party that represents Conservative views to be formed as well as remove the scales from the supposedly intelligent University educated/media employed people, about how appalling Socialism really is. Look at what the Conservative party are doing to Brexit! It is the most important constitutional issue of many generations and the PM, most of the cabinet and the majority of the pcp are against not just the popular vote of the people, but bearing in mind the number who voted remain out of economic fear, the instinctive desire for autonomy of the vast majority of the nation, imho. We have a pretty stark choice ahead of us which will cause misery, pain and possibly bloodshed but that dystopian ‘future’ is already the present and it’s simply a choice of bringing the disaster upon us quicker or suffer a death by a thousand cuts. Not a happy scenario and, at 55, I am not even expecting to benefit personally from the results of this strategy but possibly my children and, as yet, unborn grandchildren, may understand what it is to be born free again. If not, then I am not even sure I would want any grandchildren.

    • ‘I too will probably vote Corbyn next time around on the basis of ‘let all the poisons that live in the mud hatch out’. I fully understand that point, but fear that five years of Corbyn and there will be nothing left, and it will take decades to recover, if we ever do. I was not a Cameron fan, but at least he was able, and made Corbyn look weak. Mrs May has achieved what I thought was impossible making him look a possible PM. Truly frightening.

      • Adam, whatever Corbyn would do will happen under the Conservatives but just take longer. You mention Cameron but he introduced Gay Marriage under the counter, now I would have died in a ditch to have equal rights and civil partnerships for gays but gay marriage struck at the very heart of what conservative social principles were all about. 7 years of so called conservatives have yielded policies both economic and social that are to the left of Michael Foot. I understand your concerns but please be under no illusion, there is no conservative option now and it will get worse until the State owns all we have and all we do and all we think.

  3. When I first saw the article picture with TM’s mouth gaping open, the words “landed fish” sprung to mind.

  4. The very fact that May is now leading the Conservatives proves that they are a mirage. Perhaps every generation needs to experience socialism to understand why it sounds good but is awful, so they can grow up and embrace the opposite. Corbyn is currently sabotaging Brexit to dislodge the Tories. If elected, he would either go through with Brexit, or repudiate it and be prevented by the EU from fulfilling his manifesto, without being able to blame the EU for it. Labour would pull itself apart. Could the Tories rebuild from nothing in five years?

  5. Thank you for calling out this sham, Laura.
    I realised about ten years ago that the Conservative party was as bad as Labour, their leader wanted to imitate Labour’s, for goodness sake!
    There are decent Conservative MPs but they are going to have to ignore the dreary and tired-out emotional blackmail of ‘loyalty’ and the whips.
    What is there to be loyal to? A pretence that is alienating more people every day.
    Time to have it out and have the row that is needed. And the more pubic, the better.

    • Yes, until members of the Tory club loudly and publicly criticise the Heaven Born Tory elite then they remain as Quislings and traitors selling our country to Islamic domination after EU’s demise.

    • The power is with the local party organisations. If they withdraw their help and support, there’s no Conservative Party. It’s about time they put their collective feet down and rejected CCHQ short-lists and kicked out loons like Soubry and the poison dwarf Bercow.

  6. Spot on, Laura. I know of a few people who voted Labour last election for this very reason. They don’t support socialism but saw JC as the least bad option. I voted for my Conservative MP as he is a backbencher and what I would call, a True Blue. I’m not sure I could have done the same if I lived in another constituency.

    • How can you be sure he is a True Blue Tory?
      Has he publicly criticised May’s dithering/treachery in offering to pay billions to Brussels, instead of walking away from the EU’s demands?
      If he’s a Tory then he’s against us.

      • PH does not describe himself as a Tory at all, in fact sees himself as a non-partisan observer and commentator of Britain’s continued suicide.

  7. “Peter HItchens was right all along.”

    Yes, he is a bit of a Cassandra figure. And the Tories are our Trojan horse.

  8. Superb article – could not agreed more! It is absolutely critical that those of us who cherish freedom come together against the “progressive” utopians who believe they can use the “guns of government” to recreate society in their own image! The sooner we wake up to the fact that progressivism is fundamentally a fascist, totalitarian ideology that has infiltrated both parties, the sooner we can devise a strategy to fight back against the would-be tyrants who currently inhabit the corridors of power.

    • They cannot teach the peasants the necessity of using body parts for medical purposes yet invent a Unipart for humans, system!

        • I think that is the real problem.
          and the bigger problem is that no Conservatives are suggesting anything.

          I think we all feel trapped by the MSM (BBC) message that Conservatism is intrinsically bad. It isn’t

  9. The ideological composition of the Parliamentary Conservative Party is made in the image of David Cameron, an ideological adherent to Blairism.

    In short, the majority of Tory MPs are effectively Blairites When it came time to appoint a new leader they, of course, chose a Blairite in the form of Mrs May.

    Disconnected and unaccountable to marginalised and disempowered Local Conservative Associations and other grass roots Tories, when the next leadership election arises the MPs will either fix it so there is no vote by the Membership by simply anointing another Blairite as leader or will present two Blairites for the Membership to choose between.

    The Conservative Party has effectively been the subject of a coup by Liberal Democrats, and the Membership are effectively in the position of the bird deceived by the cuckoo in to supporting its alien offspring.

    The Membership must take back control of the Party as a matter of extreme urgency. There were exciting reports during conference season of a “Campaign for Conservative Democracy” group formed to take back control; I hope it hasn’t fizzed out.

    It would think that only the threat of organised mass resignations by the Tory Membership would have the potency to force changes on the PCP, but desperate times require desperate measures.

  10. “They have even instructed the UN to ditch the term ‘pregnant woman’ and use ‘pregnant people’ instead.”

    But hold the front page: our steadfast Prime Minister has let it be known that using the term “pregnant women” is indeed “acceptable”.

    Whereas a conservative and/or upholder of biological fact might also instinctively describe the term as “correct” or “accurate” or “truthful” or even “bleedin’ obvious”, the PM’s official line is “acceptable” – as in “able to be tolerated or allowed”. At least for now.

  11. It’s becoming more obvious by the day our politicians are “bought”…as are most of our journalists…check out

    “Down the memory hole goes the truth”
    “The quiet revolution rolls forward.”

    Many people were amazed Maybe refused to back down on overseas aid…she is obeying her Masters…
    “The harmonisation of incomes and redistribution of wealth across the globe “ is one of the key objectives of UN Agenda 21…See


    Read their free ebook on UN Agenda 21…see how the “Big Society “courtesy of Cameron and Osborne is all part of the Marxist future planned for us all…

    The end of national Parliaments
    The end of western democracy
    The abolition of private property
    The abolition of private transport “ etc etc

    Even continuous surveillance of the population is listed as a key objective and we all know how keen May and Rudd are on that…

  12. Great article. ” …constitutional democracy, tough on crime, strong defence, low-tax,
    personal responsibility and strong families, reform not revolution….”, as an ex-Leftie these are the type of things I would now want to see in a truly conservative Conservative party, and, I would imagine, so would so many “average” Brits . The rush for the mushy middle ground won’t end well, are there enough true conservative left in the party to turn it around???

  13. Sometimes an article comes along which captures your thoughts perfectly, and this is one.

    Accurate and depressing all at the same time.

    I spoilt my ballot at the last election due to the absence of a conservative option. The situation has deteriorated further since then.

  14. This article was spot. Theresa May is a socialist, leading a socialist government that abhors their traditional core voters, while regularly adopting policies created by Marxists. No wonder they hate Farage so much and Rees Mogg is kept on the back benches.

    • Agree 100%

      Have a look at
      “Zombie towns Uk”


      Where there is plenty of food for thought…

  15. The biggest danger to the UK are the ‘Red Tories’. People who have gone through the leftist educational system but instead of wearing the red cloak of the liberals they are wearing Blue.
    However, underneath that cloak beats a red pulse.

  16. This article should be sent to all Tory MP’s and Councils. It is the crux of why the party has been infiltrated and is on the path to failure. Many I know have ceased donating and have torn up their membership cards. People will vote Labour to see the Country torn apart, it is the only way many see the opportunity to stop this. Crash and rebuild. History will not be kind to May, Rudd, Hammond etc.

  17. A key problem is that they are all bloody liars and we are damn fools if we vote for these charlatans. They talk about Conservative values, but those values twist according to the latest headline or group feedback analysis carried out by the BBC.

    • Don’t think they talk about Conservative values anymore either. Can someone point me to a list of Conservative values on the party’s website?

      • They wheel them out at awkward moments to offer a weird solution for some nonsense, but they bend like a leaf in the wind. Then they are packed away until the next crisis. I seriously miss Thatcher.

  18. “We support conservatism by supporting conservative principles, not this neo-Statist socialist-light party. The Conservatives are destroying the fundamental values of conservatism so quickly that we will not have anything to conserve in a generation. They are the real threat. And the sooner we all realise this the better.”

    Congratulations on the belated recognition but some of us worked this out years back.

    Not for nothing, did UKIP come out of the ashes of Black Wednesday to rewrite this country’s history. And it did. Or to be more precise Nige’ did.

  19. I repeatedly post the same sentiments on Guido Fawkes so it’s good to see others aggree although few on here can bring themselves to admit it; May & Corbyn? They’re both big-state, authoritarian-type figures. Neither truly believes in free markets, personal liberty, small government or sound money.

    However, Laura Perrins falls short in her analysis; a “different” kind of Conservatism won’t change a sodding thing. It is the “Deep State” who are in control and arrange things to their own
    benefit. It matters not who the government is or what doctrines they hold.

    Where Perrins fails to go is, is so far afraid to go, it is the institution of government that needs replacing. It is obsolete.

    She is not yet ready to consider the alternatives. She will, in time.

    • Such a truer word has not been said. Many sensible people outside the civil service and some within have been saying for years that the civil service runs this country and has been created by the Blair years to work towards socialism in all its big state and evil forms.

      When you get women in government positions who never look to motherhood and family as the crux of society you are on the downward spiral. But what is even more morally corrupt is the break up of a country that is fundamentally conservative, just to appease a few globalists in the cities.

      • Of course the Civil Serive is “Deep State” but they make up but one component.

        Here in Britain the author John le Carré describes the Deep State as “… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall and Westminster.” I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government here and in the EU and US and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United Kingdom without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.

        This is another government concealed behind the one that is visible in parliament. It is a hybrid entity of public and private institutions, in this country and in the European Union and with heavy influences from America ruling the country according to consistent patterns one year to the next, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we (think) we choose. This phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; it is not a man in a cave stroking a white cat; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed the “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the banking crisis, BREXIT are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

        It was during the BREXIT campaign that many of the elements of the Deep State became visible; the entire media, the entire establishment, every big organisation in the world, all the money, from the banks, from the government, from the EU, from the corporations, the NHS, the newspapers, the social media networking sites, the MPs, the foreign Presidents and Prime Ministers, the military, the intelligence services, the police, the charities, the stars, celebrities and virtue signallers, the universities and the crooked academics – almost the entire financial, political, media, military/industrial, intelligence agency, cultural, academic are all elements of this hybrid state, the Deep State.

        Projects such as Hinkley “B” and HS2 are classic Deep State projects;

        The National Health Service is classic Deep State.

        The 4 step process in joining the “deep state”

        #1 almost all people want some measure of wealth, status and or power
        #2 they want to get it with the least effort
        #3 the easiest way to get wealth is to steal it – which is why so many turn to government, the only institution who can legally steal.
        #4 Over time, more and more groups find ways to use the power of the state for their own ends and government, not productive activity becomes the source of their wealth, power and status.

  20. And the party don’t understand why the membership is the lowest it has ever been. I agree entirely with everything in the article. Add to all that the UK should have invoked Article 50 days after the referendum as promised by Cameron, or at least days after Mrs May became PM and told the EU we were going to leave immediately and accept WTO trade rules unless they agreed to a free trade agreement with no further payments. Mrs May has accepted being barred from EU meetings despite still paying full EU membership fees. It should be made clear even now that no payment will be made for a trade agreement, none.

    • It’s worse than nit understanding – they don’t care. They think that elections can be won with computers and clever people in London and a shed load of cash.

      Even in these technologycentric days you still need people to make contact with voters on the ground. Labour for all its faults understand this and have armies of people to canvas and get their vote out. One reason why they came so close to victory and the Conservatives came so close to defeat.

      I fear it will take an actual defeat before the Conservative Party faces up to its many faults.

      • “They think that elections can be won with computers and clever people in London and a shed load of cash.”
        Sadly, that is true. And Corbyn’s claimed popularity with the young has been won primarily by the internet based ‘twitterati’. When pro-Corby stuff is re broadcast constantly by media ‘stars ‘ with 12million plus followers each, it sticks. And no, I regret I do not know what the answer is…

        • Corbyn offered to cancel the cost of going to university, to be paid for by the middle aged in years to come – the very same people!

          It reminds me of the joke about a new cleaner at a hotel who was told to clean all the lifts. Eventually he returned, exhausted. First he had cleaned all the lifts on the Ground Floor. Then he cleaned all the lifts in the First Floor. Then he cleaned all the lifts on the Second floor. ….

  21. The Conservative party is obsessed with being “around the centre” but that just means giving ground to ideological Marxists. Thatcher understood she had the bring the centre towards her.

  22. I blame Cameron and his close knit entourage for what the Tory Party has become. I sussed that pasty faced git the moment he was elected leader.

    • Absolutely. The wrong David was elected and look what happened since: no majority in 2010 inflicted the b*stard coalition with the Lim Dims. An unexpected win in 2015 was more to do with Miliband and Sturgeon stalking power than Cameron’s appeal and of course the monumental clusterfcck that was 2017.
      Basically useless for a decade when they should’ve been delivering 100 seat majorities. Oh and let’s not forget their absurd obsession ‘renewables’ and ‘tackling climate change’. I mean ffs!

    • Its ‘what should we do’ not ‘what can we do’. Can suggests any course of action is likely better than the current one – that we just try and see based on pragmatism/whim-should, is practical, logical and rational action, based on reality

        • It isn’t pedantry. I’m asking you to think. Stop looking for someone to come up with a plan when the only plan should be your own.

          The philosophy must change if we are to move forward, but that philosophy can’t be dragged off a shelf like a ready meal. A philosophy is available right now – Objectivism- but not to the slavish, not for the cult follower or fashionista.

          To answer the three questions : where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? Is not some cursory introspection, but an ongoing, consistent, voluntary conscious introspection on every level of thought and emotion. Never should any argument, definition or concept be cloudy, conflicted, floating or indeterminate; when ever possible chase it down.

          Come up with your own ‘what should you do’ by knowing the answer to the first two questions fully to axiomatic ends.

    • By being brainwashed that further education was indeed higher education. This is the biggest lie of all that enabled the socialists to indoctrinate against the family and society

  23. Then we must look to a better party. We must encourage the true conservatives in the Conservative Party to create a new party whom the country will follow. If they speak to their constituents and explain what they wish to do I am sure those constituents will follow. They can then field candidates in strongly conservative areas that do not like the road this present government is on.

    We have written enough on the sad state of the Conservative party and we have not supported UKIP strongly enough. We have allowed MPs and the media to create a hate bubble around Nigel Farage and his party. Maybe we should ask the true conservatives to switch to UKiP as it would save time and money in organising a new party. If people like John Redwood, JRM and indeed Boris were to switch as indeed Sebastian Kurtz effectively changed his party in Austria we just may get somewhere. But like die hard labour supporters, the conservative MPs would be too scared to do something ‘irrational’ to create stability and rationality for the country as a whole.

    • Dead right. If you go with this article, which I do, there are two choices: get properly behind UKIP and make it into a feasible party; or emigrate.

      • This should have happened years ago .How a lot of these people can remain in the same party defies any common sense, or is it now called common purpose?
        How broad does the church have to be?
        As for UKIP, there would still need to be a cull of members.
        I think it is now time for a new patriotic party to be formed
        Come on Aaron Banks, your country needs you.

  24. What I find insidious is the current direction of the police. I want my police to police not wear high heels or paint their nails. The monitoring of internet traffic in case one of us says anything ‘unfriendly’ is deeply disturbing.

    This is all driven by their political master namely the so called conservatives.

  25. On the upside, though, there was a manifesto commitment to bringing back fox hunting. What a vote winner that was!

  26. Cameron was the prime cause of this disaster, although May has always been an enabler and her disgusting “nasty party” speech was delivered before anyone had heard of Cameron. I have always felt that Cameron had a sense of entitlement, that he was somehow destined to be PM, even if it meant doing daft stunts with huskies and hoodies to get there. Since he had no actual political philosophy, he just stole the other lot’s stuff, pandered to the Beebyanka and the Grauniad, kowtowed to Brussels and piled on “social justice” claptrap, while ignoring, or wilfully exacerbating, the structural problems.

    May was his little helper in all this and, in that sense only, his ideal successor: cluelessly ambitious, interested in power for its own sake. I was amused by the “unflattering” description of her leaked after her meeting with Juncker; unflattering, yes, but accurate. Intellectually, as well as aesthetically, where she really belongs is in a photo, circa 1970, making a guest appearance alongside Dolores Ibárruri on Lenin’s tomb.

  27. “When Labour say ‘for the many not the few’ what they mean is ‘the many ruled by the few’.”
    Very important point, possibly better-rendered: “By and for the few, IN THE NAME OF the many.”

  28. “The last straw for me was the proposed ‘presumed consent’ organ donation scheme.” However, when GDPR become law on 25/3/18 consent will have to be set out in simple terms. Inactivity will no longer be allowed to constitute consent. There will have to be some form of clear affirmative action, i.e. a positive opt-in – consent will no longer be allowed to be inferred from silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity. Once we have exited the EU it would in theory be possible for the Government to override this basic principle for specific situations, such as organ donation, but it is hard to see a Commons majority for this.

  29. The one solution to this house of horrors is for May to go now and for Johnson to replace her but there is no political will to do this since the political enemies in the Conservative party will block the plan and all the rest are terrified of losing their seats.

    Corbyn will prevail.

    There will be a run on the pound, a run on the banks followed by exchange controls, massive tax increases and investment income surcharges , hyperinflation, panic in the streets with brutal repression, a state of emergency, and banning of further elections.

    I am not given to hysteria and have been voting Tory for sixty years.

    I am getting out to save what I have for my children.

    • There must be more to it than that, though. If the MPs were afraid of losing their seats, they’d look at the map of the UK showing the referendum result and toe a solid Brexit line. So it can’t be that they’re afraid of. What else might it be?

      • It is money. It is always money.
        Large salary, defined benefit pension and lots of expenses and kudos and respect.

        Pompous arrogance mixed with a fear of loss.

      • Conceivably some of them think that Brexit is a bad idea, and that the harder it is the worse it will be for the country?

        • That may well be the case but should they have the sense to see that they lost the referendum and they are powerless to reverse the process and moves they make will be counterproductive to the interests of the country?

          Or is it just arrogance?

        • I don’t care what they think. I help to pay their wages to fulfil our brief, which we had determined by national referendum was to leave the EU. The PM at the time promised that the Government would carry out our wishes, whatever the outcome.

        • Before Brexit I’d have considered that cranky conspiracy theory, but after seeing what’s crawled out of the woodwork and how things have lined up, I’m forced to agree.

      • Having their paedophilia exposed? Certainly in the case of Heath and the EU. Acceptance of bribes in the form of guaranteed future jobs? Threats from the media to ruin them? At the more fanciful end, real threats to life and limb from shadowy interests (Soros?)?

    • It won’t make any difference if Corbyn gets in, his policies are limited by the corpocracy anyway. It’s not like Labour in the old days which was predicated on a vast nationalised war state. All the banks have to do is to choke off the money to the treasury and pull the banks out of London. Even now we can see that Corbyn has had to reel in his aspirations and make compromises-he even wears a tie and suit, just as Cameron told him he would.

      Hyperinflation or currency failure will be the result of idiotic monetary policies by the central banks and ridiculous spending by successive expanding Governments coupled with cronyism.

  30. Despite the fact that I am a long-term carrier of a donor card (and still carry one, since the decision should be mine, and mine alone), our delightful Welsh Assembly forced me to register as a non-donor for exactly the reasons you lay out above. Any decent, properly-functioning, responsible state should easily be able to persuade its citizens to carry such a card. If they can simply assume ownership of your deceased carcass, who knows what other rights and responsibilities ordinarily belonging to the individual they might soon be assigning to themselves? The state is literally taking a liberty.

    • The Conservative Party is now a social democratic party on the German model. The replacement for Cameron in Witney is indistinguishable from May in his political stance – very much like New Labour.

  31. I hated reading this article, because it’s right.

    The last straw for me was Justine Greening’s stupid ‘choose your own gender’ policy. I will have real difficulty voting for them next time. The temptation will be to not vote, or vote Monster Raving Loony.

    But if we do that Laura, Corbyn will get in! Then we’ll really get to find out what big state is all about.

    What a choice!

      • It’s not the system it’s the voting habits of the past (and in some cases, the voters themselves who made the choice of voting for a party because of they weren’t rather than what they stood for).

        Having a different voting system is not going to change the central idealolgy of a party. Theresa May is not suddenly going to turn conservative because we have more boxes to tick.

  32. Just stating what we have known for years Laura . they wanted us ruled by the EU and they still want that . Sharia May is an appeaser and very close to being a traitor as well . She has no backbone and no convictions . The direct opposite of Margaret Thatcher .
    The Tory Party exists to preserve itself only . The Party should split between those who care about Britain and those that simply want their pay, perks and pension . Why is JR Mogg still a member of this awful not what it says on the tin Party ?
    We need a PR voting system so that we have a chance to neuter these dinosaur parties that are no longer fit for purpose . This should be the scream from all sections of our sick society .

  33. In an ideal world, the Conservative party, the Church of England and the BBC would be pulled up by Advertising Standards Agency and Trading Standards for their misuse of: Conservative, England and British.

  34. Except Laura, you are unwittingly supporting that which the Conservative party has become by supporting the root values of Conservatism-which are tradition, faith and Christian family values. I note that you say Conservatism supports ‘free markets’ but not ‘capitalism’. This use of the term ‘free markets’ is the same as the term ‘liberal’-it has evolved to mean something new, because it was never defined accurately in the first place and was incapable of being so defined.

    Capitalism is antithetic to Conservatism. The two cannot and could never co-exist except as slave and master. Conservatism can never present an argument for full fat laissez faire capitalism because such a concept is not compatible with faith in any respect until Christian altruism has intruded. Ms May is the natural result of such a philosophy. Instead of Corbyn’s hard left ruling junta, we have Mays corporate ruling junta.

    Peter Hitchins wants to take us back to a more genteel, kinder time and he believes that this is represented by strong Christian moral orthodoxy. There is something to be said for a dogmatic Christian moral framework over today’s liberalism in some respects, but to pretend that this is possible, or even desirable today is ridiculous. Christianity Conservatism is a philosophic dead end that devolved into corporatism supporting a failed ‘mixed economy’. It is no more succesful than communism. It was as great a failure, it just took a different, more circuitous route than communism to reach the same point.

    • As much as I appreciate your support of “free-markets”, I cannot disagree more strongly with your above analysis. Your conclusion that “Christian Conservatism is a philosophic dead-end” and “no more successful than communism” is so obviously absurd. The West is built on Christian values, atheism is an unfortunate afterthought to Western civilization. The failed Soviet Union was built on atheism and its logical consequences.

      You cannot analyse Christian Conservatism because you misunderstand Christianity and conservatism. Your understanding of Christianity is distorted by your atheism and your understanding of conservatism is distorted by your anarcho-capitalist leanings, which present a caricatured version of conservatism as welfare/warfare statism and cronyism.

      What you define as conservatism is nothing but a bastardized distant cousin, devoid of a Christian moral compass and a correct understanding of human nature.

      • The problem with all this is that the idea of a deity is absurd and most people realise this now.

        All peaceful civilisation is built on the concept of `do unto others’ which does not need religion to support it since it is logical way of running a society.

        All religions think they are right and the probability is, that they are actually all wrong.

        • The problem with your analysis is that the enemies of Western civilization have been working to undermine it for far longer than you imagine. If you were educated here you have probably been subjected to a lifetime of secular propaganda about Christianity which has poisoned your mind. Just the fact that your whole comment is based on a false dichotomy between “religion” vs “reason” should alert you to this truth. The issue is not “religion” which you have been conditioned to think means “belief despite the evidence” vs “rationalism” which you have been conditioned to believe is atheism, but all worldviews (including your own), their presuppositions, the evidence for them and their logical consequences for society.

          • Nope. It is simply because religion depends upon the existence of a mythical being and I, like most people these days, am of the opinion that this idea is simply silly.

            `The issue is not “religion” which you have been conditioned to think means “belief despite the evidence” vs “rationalism” which you have been conditioned to believe is atheism, but all worldviews (including your own)’

            What an overpoweringly arrogant person you are.

            You are the one who has been `conditioned’ – not me. I don’t need myths to lean on, but you do. That is your problem and not mine. You are ranting simply because very few people hold irrational beliefs. And thank goodness for that in my view.

          • I’m not ranting at all and I am sorry you mistake a passion for truth with arrogance. I am attempting to argue against atheism and for Christianity and you are attacking me for it! Your last comment is not an argument, it’s just one long question begging epithet with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure! I agree with you…believing in a “mythical” being is “simply silly”! The issue we are contesting is whether God is actually just a “myth”!

          • Just because a non-western religion is wrong, it doesn’t mean that the western religion is right. And the ‘non-western religion’ can be fought against by secular people.

      • It is not built on Christian values. The West was a fortunate recipient of happenstance in the guise of the Greek philosophy movement and the establishment of Aristotlian reason/logic that happened to be brought to the West by Christian scholars who re-discovered it in Islamic libraries.

        Try pointing to any Christian value outside of reason/logic which can be pointed to as something upon which the Western civilisation is seated. Was it burning at the stake for heresy ? Ducking chairs for witches ? Was it the attempt to gag the scientific discoveries which would one day lead to the industrial revolution ? Was it the churches greed for riches and wealth and its theft of lands and property ?

        Socialism isn’t atheistic, it just isn’t deist. It’s an outgrowth of the same mysticism as the religions. We have been through this already. Socialism swaps a deity for the prolitariat/state but the mysticism remains.

        As I said before, I’m not an-cap in the slightest. Indeed this comment shows up Christian Conservatism for what it really is – it detests capitalism unless it’s serving some noble, altruistic purpose, which can be the poor or the Christian church, in no particular order. Mans work to the glory of God.

        Human nature is that of the rational animal. Man can either reason or perish, that is his choice. Religion is faith and faith is the choice of the Intrincisist irrational. Just as socialism is the faith of the subjectivist irrational. Neither prayer, nor whim has ever produced anything useful to mans survival and never will it do so.

        I understand Christianity on a broader philosophic level which you refute from dogma, but can offer no argument except the usual ad hominem ‘ that I don’t understand’.

        The fruit of the tree is the sorry state of Conservatism as a political ideology. Just as we can judge the failure of socialism, then we can do so just as easily with Christian Conservatism. Here we are, just look, this is the inevitable path of Christian ideology. It can provide and has provided no argument for the preservation of Western civilisation which is why it is in decline. You cannot blame the socialists for that which you failed to fight for.

        • No, you’re wrong there.

          Socialism is scientific, it is based on empirical research and social science, starting with the evidence-based theories of Engels.

          Scientific socialism is the future, and will replace the irrational blind faith in free markets which is the hallmark of kapitalism.

          • No, it isn’t scientific. It’s irrational rubbish just like any other mystic religion.

            “Blind faith in free markets” to do what exactly ?

            All this pseudo scientific socialism has addled your noodle. The argument for capitalism is not one of the “common good” or “increased wealth for all” but that it is the only moral system which places freedom and individualism before state, church, God, leader, Government, or society.

            It was the freedom of a tiny amount of capitalism which made the West more wealthy and technologically powerful than the Muslims and 70 years of soviet socialism. In terms of empirical data and historical precedent, the results are very much ‘in’. Socialism has been an adjective failure everywhere it has been attempted. Not only did people become comparatively much poorer than their western counter parts ( East vs West Germany being a perfect quantifiable example), but it resulted in millions upon millions of savage deaths, incarceration and slavery in an attempt to prevent disent for the ‘good of all’.

        • I think your atheism, rather than the facts, is leading you to deny the importance of Judeo-Christian values to Western society. I will agree with you that the Greeks and Romans also play a large part in our heritage. Your second paragraph about witches etc. is a perfect example of my original claim that your atheism poisons your understanding of Christianity. “Nasty woman” answered your 3rd paragraph! Apologies for believing you to be an “an-cap”! What are you then politically, if you don’t mind me asking (other than a supporter of A.J. Nock)?

          The heart of my objection to your first comment was with your claim about Christian Conservatism “detesting capitalism”. Leaving aside the potential differences between “capitalism” and free-markets, “thou shalt not steal” is fundamental to Christianity and is the defining pronouncement of private property rights – straight from the mouth of the Christian God. I would like to see your belief system, whatever it actually is, champion the rights of private property (and thus free-markets) with such authority! Regarding your “man is a rational animal” paragraph, I think your worldview falters on the neglect of man also being an “emotional animal”, that often allows his emotions to rule over his ability to reason.

          Also, please do not take my questioning of your understanding of Christianity as an “ad hominem” attack. I am not attacking you personally, I am claiming that your atheism and the resultant half-truths and distortions about Christianity, makes it impossible for you to “understand Christianity on a broader philosophic level”.

          • I liked one of Nocks essays. I’m a capitalist politically.

            You need to point out these values and explain how those particularly values lead to science, freedom, individualism, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. It should be obvious that faith cannot lead to science. The Father of reason and logic was Aristotle and it was Aristoles writings-as opposed to Plato- that lead to the ideology of capitalism. Aristotle had nothing to do with Christianity, but Christianity did adopt Aristotle. Without Aristotle Christianity would have fared no better than Islam.

            Thou shalt not steal” is dogma. ‘Property rights’ are also dogma, sans an argument to support them. The problem is not one of the commandment being good, or evil, but that there is no rational argument to support the argument. ‘God said’ is not an argument. Why should men not steal ? The Church certainly did, it also murdered and bore false witness. Indeed at one time or another it has completely ignored its own rules and continues to do so.

            I need only point you to Objectivism and the works of Ayn Rand for a fuller explanation of the argument from reason for capitalism as the only moral system. It doesn’t require the word of God from some mystical realm, but the efficacy of mans mind and the faculty of his senses to know existent reality as an absolute.

            Well you said it. Religion IS emotionalism, it isn’t the truth of the senses, but of a FEELING that something is so. The hard thing to do is to avoid all forms of mysticism which include that of socialism. We are capable of being right, of using reason to gain knowledge from the evidence of our senses- the only evidence we can get. We are better rejecting emotion as a tool of cognition, but to realise it’s vital importance to us as the culmination of our decisions and actions.

            To keep saying that I don’t understand Christianity, or any religion on the broader level is wrong. I perfectly understand it. I know it wants its cake and eat it and it will find all kinds of ways of justifying itself – it has that in common with the socialists that declare socialism is ‘scientific’ which is to say it is logical/rational, exactly what Christians will claim regarding the workings of their religion. Just as Christians declare ‘from the mouth of God ‘ and socialists ‘ from the empiric works of Hegel’.

            I have no truck with Christianity, nor with those who wish to engage in socialistic mysticism. They are welcome to worship whatever, or who ever they like under a capitalist system, but not to have their ideologies dictating what others should think. Capitalism is the freedom to think, to be, as an individual and to let others be. It puts no group, no man and no deity above anyone else as the ultimate arbiter. It means that each mans destiny is in his own hands and he is free to mess up as long as his mess does not impact other men.

          • Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position for me, I appreciate it. Let me also say that I am sure that you and I would live just fine together in society, since you clearly respect private property rights, personal responsibility and individual liberty, as do I. Where we disagree philosophically is that I believe that your atheism cannot justify any of these moral values that you hold dear, forcing your whole belief system into the realms of irrationality. You claim that you understand Christianity and religion in general, but everything you write testifies to the contrary. In fact, I would say that you have made a religion out of Objectivism, with Ayn Rand as your “prophet”.

            Your 1st paragraph says I must show how Christian values “lead to science, freedom, individualism, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution” but the empirical evidence shows Christianity did lead to these things. It was the Christian West that gave rise to all these things you mention, not atheism. The burden of proof is on you to show how atheism can give rise to these things. In this vein, I would also be interested in hearing how a bundle of chemical reactions, randomly brought together over billions of years, with no purpose, meaning or inherent value can do science, logic and morality in the first place. I claim that if that is all we are, as atheism must ultimately suggest, we cannot.

            Your paragraph about “property rights” and “dogma” seems completely backwards to me. You say “God said is no argument” and thus “why should anyone not steal”. I think “God said” is the foundational argument for morality since without God why SHOULD anyone do anything? The relevant arguments here are about whether God does indeed exist and if so why should we do what He says. If those arguments fail then we are left with your worldview, a worldview that cannot justify objective meaning, purpose, value and thus morality at all. In response to this logically unbridgeable chasm between a godless universe and morality you offer your saviour, Ayn Rand. The problem is that Randian dogma cannot cross Hume’s is-ought gap either. The logic that you claim as foundational to atheism will not allow you morality in a godless universe.

            Your final comments about religion being “emotionalism” again just highlights what I said right at the beginning, your atheism has clouded your understanding of religion. According to your definition of religion I would say that Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is based on facts, reason and logic. The truth of these facts may lead to emotion, but emotion is secondary to facts.

          • Absolutely we would get along just fine.

            Your argument is one I know very well, indeed my wife’s family were Catholic and would ‘grill’ the atheist of an evening on his morals 🙂 You are saying that Rand is my ‘religion’ as an argument for supporting your own faith. The morals I speak of do not come from atheistic dogma but from axiomatic absolutes. In other words you can correctly call it an philosophy based on reason as mans only absolute, with his life as the standard and production as his noblest activity. This cannot be called faith because faith is the product of the unprovable and unproven; you can point to the axioms (existence, consciousness, identity) as being a faith if you wish, but then all arguments, including those from faith will rely on them. Ethics, for an objectivist, are a necessity to deal with reality as it is -it is not because God tells us not to steal, but because we realise that theft is not sustainable in regard to a mans continued survival. What’s more we feel bad when we take that which we haven’t earned-no one need tell us that, because our emotions signal it and if we introspect those emotions we will notice that the thought causes it.

            Man must do something if he chooses to survive. His choice, if he were on alone on a desert Island, could not contradict a set of necessary ethics. One cannot steal what one hasn’t produced, one cannot murder anyone but oneself. The same therefore must apply equally well with man as a group-X is X if such a moral value is necessary when a man is alone, it does not change just because he lives in a group. My guarantee to the right to life and property is another mans right to his life and property. Wether you believe in a deity, or not, the reality is that some men choose to act ethically and some men choose not to.

            My ‘saviour’ isn’t Ayn Rand, my saviour is my own mind and the competence of that mind to think and act rationally. Ethics are a choice of principles by which I will gain the values I choose to sustain my life and the gaining/keeping of those values by those principles is happiness. If I go against those ethics I court loss, or unhappiness.

            There are no facts in faith. Facts are proven truth in reality. Proof is the direct evidence of our senses. X is X, a thing is what it is and not what it isn’t. You cannot prove there is a God -I’m not asking you to prove this to me, it is entirely unnecessary-but you must prove it to you, or, decide that you do not require proof and hence take it on faith. We can go all around the doors here, but no person of faith requires proof, so talking reason and logic ( logic being the art of non contradictory identification) is pointless.

  35. Mr. Hitchens is also correct when he says that people need to stop voting tribally and only vote for a party if they truly believe in what it actually stands for, as demonstrated by what it does in office, rather than by what they THINK it stands for, or what a particular party CLAIMS to stand for (which is usually different from the actual reality).

    The Brexit vote finally revealed that the politicians don’t represent the people that vote for them. 75% of MPs want to be in the EU while 52% of the people don’t. About 95% or more of Labour MPs elected in 2015 wanted to stay in the EU, yet 40% of Labour voters in 2015 voted out in the referendum.

    If the turn-out in elections got down to 35% or less, the parties and the system would lose their legitimacy, to the point where they wouldn’t be able to carry on in their present form. It would force the creation of political parties that actually represent what people think, and represent the real division in the country, which is between being an independent nation, or being part of a larger supra-national EU.

    • People voted in the Brexit referendum because they thought it was one of the few occasions when their vote would make a difference.

      That they thought this really does show up our ‘democracy’ for the sham it really is,

  36. You got there in the end, Laura. I had that “Hitchens” moment in 2010 when I gave that idiot Cameron the benefit of the doubt and immediately began to regret it. I haven’t voted Tory since, and have no intention of doing so. May is even worse than Cameron. Not content with branding the conservative philosophy as “nasty” when she should have been arguing the strong, humane case for it, she has recently used her new-found power as PM to label the whole country (one of the most tolerant countries on earth) as nasty – racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, you name it. Tory policies are now every bit as damaging and lunatic as Labour’s.

    • I had a conversation about Brown’s pension grab with Cameron at a constituency reception and he looked over my shoulder the whole time.

      I was invited to the receptions in the constituency to introduce him and it was obvious immediately that he was a German style social democrat or pretended to be.

      The chairman noticed it too and alluded this to me in guarded terms at the local petrol station and again at the checkout in Countrywide.Chipping Norton.

      • Likewise, once bitten twice shy,as the saying goes.
        Since UKIP were sabotaged I am looking for another party to support.
        Anne Marie, Tommy Robinson and such seem to be the only people with a realistic viewpoint about how this country will look in a few years time.
        This nation has lost the plot. Please wake up everyone, but I feel it too late.

        • Our negotiators have finally realised that, as Nigel, and UKIP, told them, you cannot negotiate with the EU.
          Hard Brexit then talk to the Brussels morons.
          It took a phone call from Berlin to stop the Canadians flying home in disgust.

          • Varoufakis was always aware he would not get a satisfactory deal for a sick Greece.
            But he did not have the guts to push for default.
            He preferred penury and the confiscation of bank accounts.
            May has not got the guts to push for WTO, and will therefore end up as a supplicant like Greece.

          • I hope (perhaps irrationally) you are wrong, but I fear you will be proved right.

            Where Varoufakis scores is in his account of the EU’s tactics. “How the Brussels establishment will do everything to frustrate and outmanoeuvre the British prime minister, using tactics ranging from truth reversal to ‘the Penelope ruse”.
            “Truth reversal”, eh?

          • Varoufakis is repeating the obvious.

            Any businessman who has dealt with bigoted, civil servants, without being in the Inner Circle, or having some kind of bribe, or inducement, would say the same.

    • Except that without Camerons change, the Conservatives were finished. The party only half managed to grab power in coalition by acting like an alternative Blairite party in the wake of the Brownian fiscal meltdown -an unpopular leader who had, as Chancellor, blown up the economy having ousted another failing leader in a ugly public spat.

      A full fat Tory party with Christian fundamentals would be as appealing to the general population as a vicar in a brothel. Just let the Tories try and resurrect heart on sleeve Christianity in modern Britain and watch the population dive for cover. It isn’t for nothing that Cameron and Blair don’t do religion.

      • The Conservative Party doesn’t have to be about any particular religion or their values; it has to be about traditional British values though like support for the forces of law and order (which came under sustained attack as soon as May became Home Secretary and have continued unabated), support for defence capability (which has been savaged under Cameron and looks set to suffer more under May), encouragement for enterprise and reward for hard work not sloth and indolence, and lower not higher taxes. It also has to be about personal liberties and reducing not growing the interference of the state in daily lives. It also has to respect democracy and the insane calls from those like Soubry, Morgan, Heseltine and others to reverse a democratic vote do nothing to inspire confidence that they understand that.

        • It can’t achieve any of that Malcolm. Philosophy underpins any political system. It has to have one even if it’s a mixed up mess of conflicting, inconsistent ideology.

          One would need to know what ‘British values’ were ? In fact, one would need to know what is particular and good about ‘western civilisation’ and to date I see little evidence that anyone understands why Western civilisation should survive, nor the reason it exists.

          We have to know what law and order/defence is actually protecting. It’s no good just having the concepts disconnected from a grounding philosophy. A law that doesn’t know what it’s protecting, or an army that doesn’t know what it is defending is all but useless.

          As Rand said, man must answer three questions: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do? If man fails to ask these questions, or cannot answer them, his life becomes a series of guesses and wishes with no foundation. A people who live by guesses and wishes stand a greater chance of failure than those that have built up their knowledge on a solid platform of reason in order to plan their future activities.

      • Cameron should never have allied with the Lib-Dems.
        But he was a Lib-Dem himself, and his wife a Champagne Socialist.

        • Inevitable that this is where Conservatism would wind up. It’s as plain as knowing the result of burning sticks; the result will be socialism, but presided over by a group of corporate cronies to which the Government has essential handed over power. Fascists and socialists are the same breed, only distinguished by some notional economic variance. One has a group called a Government in direct ownership of the means of production; the other has the Government in symbiosis with private ownership.

          “…looked from man to pig and pig to man, but he could no longer tell the difference” That’s the difference between Corbyn and May.

      • The Tories tacked left just at the time the general public tacked back right. They should have stuck to their principles. Remember, they only managed a coalition in 2010, no outright victory, and under May and her undemocratic socialists managed to chuck away a working majority.

        Oppositions don’t win elections; governments lose them. It was a case of waiting for the public to tire sufficiently of Labour, which happened in 2010.

        • No one knows what their principles are. I’ve offered up my interpretation : Faith, Christian family values and tradition. However, no one agrees with me on this forum although they are unable to offer an alternative.

          If it were small Government then why have the Conservatives always increased the size and scope of the state at every opportunity; if it were low taxes then why has it not repealed taxation; if it were free markets then why do we have a highly state regulated mixed economy.

          Right and left are just types of authoritarianism which differ by degree. The public will always either vote itself a portion of someone else’s production, or it will appoint someone else a portion of someone else’s production and call it virtuous.

          The western democratic system is a bankrupt failure on both economic and moral fronts. A change of Government won’t alter things significantly and we all know that to be true. Things might seem a little better, or a whole lot worse, but nothing much changes.

  37. Yes, of course.

    And I’m afraid it goes back a lot further than that. My married man’s couple’s tax allowance dwindled to nought in, if I remember correctly, 1992.

  38. Sadly, the emergence of momentum and the socialist left in modern UK politics has meant that those in the Conservative party who were rather well disposed to the politics of Blair and Miliband have seen the opportunity to move the party into this “centre ground”. Those of us who found the whole New Labour experience deeply depressing are now faced with the reality of choice shifting to one between neo-marxist economic disaster under Mr. Corbyn or the neo-statist “Green tree” Conservatism of Mr. Cameron and, now, Mrs. May.
    One of the reasons that Brexit captured the imagination of so much of the general public is because the ideas implied by it – the restoration of sovereignty and the making of laws, control of external borders, fiscal control and global free trade reflected the true nature of a Conservative government that many felt that they would be represented by and could vote for. The fact that not only did Mrs. May seemingly fail to recognise that in her Election campaign but that we do not see any of these elements being reflected by the politics of either major party goes to the heart of the political crisis in the UK. It means that, despite these being the political outcomes implied by Brexit, neither major party is making any attempt at representing them as policy and it is left to those who supported those ambitions during the referendum in 2016 to fight to maintain them on the Brexit Agenda.

  39. We are told by hectoring politicians that the country is suffering from a plague of ‘obesity’.

    If people want to eat themselves into an early grave, I fail to see what business that is of the government. Likewise smoking. It’s not as if there is any shortage of information about health issues available without the control – freak politicians giving us their ha’ penny worth. Women’s magazines and other outlets are full of it.

    The problem of state control then moves on to the NHS, which, we are told, is under strain because of personal lifestyles such as the ‘obesity epidemic’. We get medics refusing to give surgery to ‘obese ’ patients.

    Of course, this not the only issue where the NHS / State tells people what they may or may not have. It tells people they may not have certain drugs because they are too expensive in a cost / benefit basis.

    Considerations of benefit extend to age. Older people aren’t worth the expense of some drugs, says the NHS / State, so they can just go away and die.

    Granted the State can help. But the all enveloping State we have now has turned by far the majority of us into dependent serfs with zero control over important aspects of our lives.

    The State even tells us how to bring up our own children, for goodness sake. I mean, just look at the kind of people who dictate this sort of thing to us.

  40. I honestly think that if there was a bona fide, serious right-wing alternative to vote for, the zombie corpse that is the modern conservative party would fall apart. Good, because as it stands, many of us have no-one to vote for. Mr Hitchens is indeed correct, when are you going to interview him?

  41. Correct. And it’s now on all of us to destroy the Conservative Party’s zombie corpse in order to free up the space on the right for a genuinely patriotic centre-right party to form. Nothing should now get in the way of that, even if it means allowing the Corbyn Götterdämmerung to happen.

    • Isn’t that what effectively happened in Canada a couple of decades ago? The right was resurgent, but now they have an idiot leftist leader again, and open borders with lots of our Mohammedan ‘friends’ going in. I fear the only answer is, as I noted above, a military coup and the horrors that go with it.

  42. We live in extraordinary political times. The Labour Party has been taken over by the most radical form of extreme-left ideology in its history and in a politically moderate country like the UK shouldn’t be electable but apparently is. I thought we had seen the end of Marxism as a force with the demise of Militant.

    What is the response of the Conservative Party to this unwelcome phenomenon? Not to offer a sensible, moderate right-of-centre alternative but to allow its Parliamentary Party to be dominated by soft-left liberal wets who seem intent on chasing Labour onto the moderate-left ground that it has vacated. That is not only out of sync with the grass roots membership but is also politically naive; why should those traditional (and previously loyal) Conservative voters follow them to the left? Those voters who want a right-of-centre government will either look elsewhere or not bother to vote. Many of those who supported moderate Labour will never vote Tory, they would rather cut off their hands so tribal are they, so will either vote for the new, ultra-left Labour or also abstain. Either way it spells a Corbyn disaster for the country. There are, of course, “proper” Conservatives in the Parliamentary Party but they are consigned to the backbenches and apparently not considered fit company for the holders of cabinet positions and policy makers who look down their noses at them.

    I thought that Brexit would allow those of us for so long disenfranchised by those committed to dragging us further into the European federal mire without bothering to seek our consent, to influence the direction of the nation through the ballot box once again, but it would seem that instead of being able to regain our voices we are to be offered the choice between left, more left and far left. To whom then should we turn? Unless some saner heads exert some influence very soon we will be witnessing the death, not just of a once proud party, but possibly of consensual and peaceful politics in the country, and who knows where that will lead?

    • Sadly it is already much too late.

      It’s all over I’m afraid.

      I am not a defeatist person but I am practical and realistic.

  43. And there’s more.

    This morning the Tories (yes the Tories – I had to make sure that I got that right) are proposing to legislate to ensure that those who get themselves into financial difficulty enjoy a six week interest payment holiday on their; credit card bills, hire purchase, car loans etc.

    Who needs to have any personal responsibility when the government steps in and ‘is there to help’. And of course, those who can’t be bothered to budget properly…or refuse or can’t be a*rsed to find themselves a cheap energy deal, will enjoy the benefits of their indolence, courtesy of the rest of us, who do the right thing and have to cough up to pay for them.

    Tories? Really?

    • I have some sympathy for the adoption of the Roman system of debt interest calculation. Which is to say, no compound interest. Your interest is only ever calculated on the value of the original debt.

      • But lenders will still require the same return for the risk – so it will just lead to higher interest rates.

    • Nothing this government does now surprises me, but it seems a terribly vague proposal – how are they defining “difficulties” for the populace? Mortgage arrears? Trimming their foreign holidays from 3 to 2 a year? Overstretching themselves by having that BMW instead of settling for a Fiesta?

  44. Don’t worry, Britain will be an *extremely* socially conservative country in about 15 years time when the imams hold the balance of power.

        • Things are heading that direction regardless of whether it’s May or Corbyn in power.

          Perhaps it’s better somebody turns up the heat and everybody realised what hot water we are in rather than being slow boiled

          • Bring it to a head right now. It’s the only hope we have, and that is a very small hope. Universal suppression of the truth plus a disarmed and apathetic population, cowed into silence is not a great combination.

    • Exactly! It might sound counter-intuitive (and scary), but modern European Right is Islam. Secularists/atheists/Christians are all shades of Left, with a very few exceptions.

  45. An excellent article! However, practically, what can we do to get back control of the Conservative Party from these idiots? Is it time for a mass movement Conservative membership to get in and start the deselection processes?

    • It’s why I’ve just rejoined using the discounted veterans rate. We can’t just sit here and let this pass us by

    • It was time to do that twenty years ago and it is now much too late.

      It will be Corbyn’s exchange controls which will imprison us all, exposing us to massive taxation and seizure of assets.

      They are talking about this right now in their plans deal with the aftermath of the runs on the banks and the pound, massive inflation and the collapse of the stock market.

      They are quite open about it.

  46. “What do you think of when you think of conservative values? I think of constitutional democracy, tough on crime, strong defence, low-tax, personal responsibility and strong families, reform not revolution.“

    So many of us do Laura yet the voices outside of the London bubble are ignored by the party these days. We need our own momentum style movement so we start having a voice again.

    • Those values were abandoned in 1992 since when UKIP have been the major proponents of what you refer to as conservative values – and the Conservative party has abused them for their efforts.

  47. I agree because the Tories are whitewashing the conservative viewpoint from the political landscape in this country. Under a two party system we rely on the Tories to be our voice, especially without UKIP, and they’re an embarrassment.

  48. … yes of course the author is correct, it was with mounting horror I became aware that Cameron and now May are politically correct, open borders, globalists who sailed into power under the false flag of the ‘Conservative Party’ ..

  49. Portugal is probably the most attractive place to move to before Corbyn takes over and imposes the exchange controls which are inevitable.

    Portugal depends upon its tourism revenue much of which comes from the Algarve which is populated by a great extent by British settlers and the government is well aware and sensitive to this fact..

    English is widely spoken and there are lots of British supermarkets including a new Waitrose.

    The weather is lovely too.

    Get your money out before Corbyn takes it – and he will as night follows day.

    • My wife is a US citizen – I’m going to join the Trump revolution! The UK – however much I hate to say it – requires nothing short of a military takeover, with a bullet in the head for much of the Establishment. Out of the resulting mess a truly free nation might emerge. Without it, we’re headed for totalitarianism, whether or not Corbyn gets into office (he’s already wielding some power).

  50. … my personal experience of the undemocratic nature of the ‘Conservative Party’ was in Richmond, North Yorkshire where the standing MP William Hague stood down, a candidate was imposed by central office although a ‘selection procedure’ was gone through, not unlike a Soviet era show trial, the PPC was to be a London based hedge fund manager (Rishi Sunak) who had married into one of the wealthiest families in India, little was known about him, little still is known about him, as the second safest seat in the country he was dually elected with a much reduced majority, don’t go there anymore, miss the snooker tables ..


  51. Expecting May, Rudd, Hammond, Green, et al., to be conservative is delusional.
    Read what they write – they don’t hide the fact that they are not conservative.
    May’s promise to introduce more thought “hate” crime legislation, the only promise she has kept, should tell you that.

  52. Bravo Zulu, Laura. I remember the link on an American site about complaining to the UN about ‘pregnant women’. It was succinct. “The UK is still crazy.” Pretty much sums up the Conservative Party.

  53. Said a fortnight ago that Peter Hitchens had been saying the Tories were useless, for at least a decade. What takes some people so long ?

    Be objective now, compare your wishes against their policies, and draw your own conclusions.

    Part of the difficulty I think is the old Orwellian trick of calling yourself something that you aren’t, in this case, “conservative”. I always despised the Tories (and still do), not however because they were a conservative political party, but because they weren’t. That’s it.

    The Tory claim to the title “The Conservative Party” is however a sneaky move. Any genuinely conservative political party that actually wants to be straightforward and plain speaking has to think of some new label instead of the plain and straightforward one – whereupon it has already started being not so plain, nor so straightforward.

  54. Rather like Arthur I spoiled my ballot paper. I cannot understand why we persist with an overseas aid budget that we have to borrow to fund. Overseas aid can only be justified if by spending it, for example, to keep refugees in the middle east, we save money by not having them here.

    Anything else is charity which is the business of the individual, not the state.

    I have no interest in intergenerational fairness, housing shortages or anything else that people hide behind. The only area I have any sympathy at all is with university fees and expansion. So many people go to university now a degree is simply used to screen applications. When we were looking for temp staff or junior assistants the cut off was a degree. 30 years ago it was typing skills and a positive and cheerful attitude. You have to go to university to get noticed, you end up burdened with debt and you are far worse off than would otherwise be the case.

    Those that argue that degrees provide higher wages over a lifetime are basing their research on graduates who have proper degrees earned 30 years ago. I doubt a poly upgraded to university will compare with even a redbrick qualification, let alone Oxbridge.

  55. I came to this conclusion long ago, the truth is the Right in this country has been successfully subverted by those elements who wish for social and cultural change.

  56. You are right, of course, Ms Perrins. The politicians who now occupy virtually all the seats of power in the government hold no truly Conservative values. They are entirely occupied with issues of process and procedure, with appearance and influence – for that is exactly how they wormed their way into power without arousing enough suspicion to stop them.

    Their skill is in argumentation and persuasion, selling species as gold. There is no point in arguing with them. Their Achilles’ heel is that they have bet the farm on guile placing them in a position of such power that they are actually unassailable. They are not yet there, and decisive action could still be taken to unseat them, summarily and without engaging in their own methods. There is no need to invite Mr Corbyn in, one devil to deal with another – that never works, does it? Can constituency parties not disafilliate? Is there no history of central-party politics having its knees hewn from under it by popular revolt? I don’t think the country should follow the left/Momentum route of deliberate schism – that is more in line with the perpetual internal factionalising of the socialists. The Conservative Party itself needs to be rudely wrested back from the grasp of these entryists – how to do it?

  57. Conservatism was about preserving what is best in society. Since the party found Cameron as their own Blair, it has been in a muddle. Theresa May is end result, not the start of this decline. No point blaming her as the sole cause. The rot set in much earlier. People like Roger Scruton don’t stand for elections. So we get the politicians we deserve.

  58. Conservatism is dead. You can’t keep harking back to the 1950s and a “golden age” that never was.

    Jeremy Corbyn is going to be Prime Minister. Deal with it.

    • I am confused. You say the 1950’s are over but you want us to vote for an old man who has never had a job? Explain.

        • Corbyn, May, they are all the same and owned by Globalists. It doesn’t matter any more. They all produce the same results.

          By the way, most people have exported their wealth under the current government. Wake up and read the article.

        • Being an MP is not a job, but a political appointment made by the people of whatever constituency the MP is elected by.
          It is worth reiterating, Jeremy Corbyn has never had a job. Certainly not a job most people would recognise as one.

        • You poor deluded lonely people always think that `this is it’ – `one more push’.

          But it never is.

        • > Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for over 30 years and probably earns more than you.

          So he’s a bloodsucking capitalist then? I say, hang the bourgeois pig!

          • I wonder how Comrade Stalin would have dealt with BBC presenters on £300,000+ a year, or university VCs on >£400,000 p.a., or come to that Clive Lewis, Jared O’Mara and yes, JC himself?

        • “…and probably earns more than you.”

          You’re probably right there, although MPs and even the PM are paupers in comparison with many of your “public sector workers” , for example BBC apparatchiks, university VCs, local government ‘leaders’ and quangocrats. These people earn (or more accurately, get) six figure salaries plus perks. These people’s salaries have grown geometrically whilst most people’s incomes have flatlined.

          Presumably, in the name of equality, a Corbyn government will either have a cull of the ‘six-figure nomenklatura’, or cut their incomes, or a combination of these two courses of action. If not, why not?

    • ‘Dealing with it’ and ‘getting over it’ should not be confused with ‘giving in to it’.

      Resistance is futile? Really?? Sounds more like a value of .. wait a minute .. the left to me.

      This is one communication channel that defeatists like yourself will find difficult to straddle successfully. With 4 comments, private profile, it seems to me you are more a sign of stress in the ranks of our masters..

    • I don’t think many genuine conservatives are so worried about Corbyn since Theresa isn’t a whole lot better.

  59. I think there are many further questions to ask. Conservative Council elections were very successful. Placing the ‘Tories’ 20 points ahead. Post these elections Local Council and Grass route ‘ Tories’ were TOLD to be quiet by Tory HQ. They then went on to produce suicidal Manifesto followed by one U Turn after another by Hammond attacking its core voters.Their subsequent obsession has been to entice the ‘ Yoof’ vote. Even after endless reports have proved it is true Conservatives they have lost. The hard working Youth continued to vote for them. Marxist Youth never will.

    So ask ourselves. Why? Why do they wish to lose by repeating the same mistakes over.?

    The only chance now is for Boris to then hand over to JRM. It is time for Conservatism again.

  60. Shortly there will be a General Election, in which Jeremy Corbyn will be swept to power.

    Most people will welcome this news – especially young people, students, public sector workers, women, the LGBT community and BME communities.

    Those who have become rich through exploiting the poor under our present capitalist system will doubtless be trembling in fear at the prospect of Corbyn and McDonnell’s progressive reforms.

    To them I say this:

    If you don’t like Corbyn’s Britain, you are welcome to leave.

    Just don’t expect to take your assets with you 😉

    • And you, deluded one, will not get one penny of the seized assets. Your envy and hatred will not be assuaged.

      Your leaders have complete contempt for you as Marxist Leninists always do.

    • Or what?

      (clue; implicit is the threat of extreme violence if you attempt it. It is after all, the socialist’s way)

    • You are right, comrade. As a Russian, I can make a fortune on building Gulag-style camps for dissidents under Corbyn. I will reserve a place for you – you posting on CW, this petite bourgeois proto-fascist nest, did not went unnoticed.

    • You certainly live up to your moniker. Another option would be for you to go and enjoy sunshine, burning tyres and tear gas in Venezuela.

    • Hi Feminist Delusions, how is the cross training getting on? What about your boyfriend? is he still happy with your gender pay gap? Is it cold yet in Canada? How are the daddy issues?

    • Well, you certainly got a reaction there!

      So Corbynism stands for asset confiscation, does it? Especially for Jews, presumably, who are unlikely to be popular in the New Britain if present Labour policy is any guide. Easy for them, you might say, all they have to do is ask Grandpa how he got out of Austria after the Anschluss.

      I find it interesting that you advocate people leaving the country if they don’t like its projected new form. Why are you still here, as it’s clear that you don’t like the country’s current characteristics?

      I haven’t got rich, but I do tremble for the future of a country ruled by fanatics peddling a failed creed.

    • You haven’t been great with your predictions so far. Plenty of premature hubris, telemachus & friend(s), but no substance.

      The people you reckon will celebrate are not “most people”. Thinking that they are defines the problem of you.

    • Apart from land, “assets” are pretty mobile. The least mobile assets are land and houses, and it is these assets which are held by most people.

      There would actually be a good case for taxing land ownership (probably with a tax threshold roughly equating to the price of a modest family home) rather than taxing income, but your pal JC bottled out of putting this up as a policy. If you try to grab shares or tax corporations heavily you will simply see a ‘flight of capital”, as happened with Labour governments in the era before smoothie Blair converted the Labour Party into a MSM-friendly public sector professionals’ vehicle. As for punitive income tax, there are many rather useful people with above average incomes, for example surgeons, engineers and research scientists who would be caught by this and who would no doubt sell up and s0d off abroad.

      Please note also that a large chunk of capital is actually owned by pension funds directly or indirectly, so attacks on share ownership would probably backfire spectacularly.

  61. Sadly the Conservative Party has been hi-jacked by a clique of soft left globalists who are more inspired by Blairism than true conservatism and have, effectively, turned the party into a Blairite New Labor Lite group.
    It is high time the constituency parties got their act together and ejected this clique.

    • Absolutely agree. But who would they introduce in their place? Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and half a dozen more stand out. But you need over 100 to staff ministries. (Until you shrink it all down, of course!)

      • And would that be a bad thing? Surely smaller Government and less interference is one of Conservatism’s main aims?

        • Well, it ought to be, I agree. But I think you may need, in the short term, to staff these ministries up to their present levels in order to ascertain what’s going on, and cut only in the light of knowledge informed by ideology, rather than simple ideology uninformed by fact. The latter was evident in some aspects of the generally rather good 1980s, but there were some foolish decisions too. I’d like to avoid those the next time round.

  62. It might be that modern Britain is not, in fact, a multi-party state in the classical sense, and neither is the US. Both are ruled by the mix of media, academia and civil service by now. All three, combined, can massively influence the moods of population – and hence the popularity of elected politicians. The democracy transformed to the rule of “experts” managing the masses via educational process and media to legitimise their agenda. People became disenfranchised, and politics – the very word – became meaningless. There’s no “left”, or “right”, or “conservatism” anymore – just the media/press/civil service narrative, and every politician that steps out of it will suffer instantly.

    I am not sure that they be called partisan, or “leftist” – they might just promote their own corporate interests, that are co-align with progressive narrative. And they support the democracy (in its modern sorry state) all right: modern technocratic “policy-based” democracy is exactly what grants those groups (none of them elected, all of them are effectively un-firable) the power they wield. All of them are gravely afraid of “populist”, who proclaim to diminish their power (see Trump, and agent of destruction, who wages the war on civil service aka “deep state” and “fake media”) – hence their tantrum during the last US election.

    • The only distinction that matters is between those who hold to absolute values, and those whose values are for sale.

        • Apologies – maybe ‘truths’ is a better term than ‘values’. Just to affirm that there are some things whose truth is non-negotiable seems at least to be a necessary condition, if what we are fighting is the shifting provisionality, the subjugation of truthfulness to the greater good and the noble cause.

          And as far as the Bolsheviks are concerned, rank opportunism was perhaps a central component of their attitudes, from Lenin in the box-car, through the Mexican ice-pick, to the shuffling of living corpse-populations across the Soviet plains, right through to Gorbachev’s trimming and tacking towards the West? I am no historian, plainly, but the cruelty and injustice of Tsarist Russia was something they latched on to only when Germany proved too hard a knut to tackle, iirc?

          • I’d say, the Bolshevism (which pretty much died with Stalin securing his reign) was opportunistic in means, but pretty much persistent with the ends. Which was the scariest part of it.

            Opposing zealotry with even more zealotry never ends well. But then again, it’s not like there are a lot of options to pick from.

        • At least one knew where the Bolsheviks stood. I’d be perfectly happy to see an absolutist re-invented Tory party opposing the absolutist Momentum lot. We had something like that in the 1980s. It was far from perfect, but it was also a far better Tory Party than we have now, IMHO.

          Sadly, though. too many people have become dependent on the continuation of the State support lavished during the Blair/Brown years which, even though they know it to be against the national interest, they continue to demand – and will vote against any party that seeks to withdraw it.

          Difficult to avoid Pte Fraser’s conclusion: we are all doomed!

  63. Well said! Well said! A superb and accurate polemic. Real conservatives are now totally disenfranchised in this country. Hitchens is right when he says the Tory party should be destroyed. It is now as useless and indeed as dangerous as the British left.

    • Destroyed? No, not if it can be helped. Re-occupied, with extreme prejudice to its current incumbents? That’s more like it.

  64. I agree to a certain point, until you get to the bit about ‘Social Conservatism’. If The Conservatives want to gain popularity (& membership) then they need to be more socially liberal. They need to drop the religious attitudes, be tolerant, open-minded and only base policy on evidence, not on 1930s morals.

    The Conservatives will lose everything if they double down on the whole; Men are men, women are women, Homosexuality doesn’t exist, Abortions should be illegal, Consuming Cannabis leads to murder, Climate Change is a conspiracy theory, Diesel Engines are good for you, etc….
    The people who are damaging the Conservative party are people like Theresa May, Jacob Rees-Mogg, etc… The religious nutjobs wanting to take us to a parody of 1950s England a la ‘Last of the Summer Wine’.

    This is 2017. If 80 year olds don’t want to contemplate banning diesel engines, or paying more tax for the NHS, fixing energy prices, fixing the housing market, legalising Cannabis, or legalising assisted euthanasia then you have nothing to give younger generations.

    Its quite simple; people want change, and if the conservative party want to turn the UK into a christian version of Saudi Arabia then all hell will break loose. The conservative party is pushing young people like me away in droves because they refuse to embrace change. Laura Perrins wonders whatever happened to her Conservative Party, she would do better to live in an Islamic Dictatorship, the right level of conservatism for her.

    • > They need to drop the religious attitudes

      Would you consider “equality and diversity are both good” to be a religious attitude, and if not – why?

      • Lets put it this way, if Jacob Rees-Mogg ever became Conservative leader then the party would be dead in 10 years. I’m sure the British population do not want a PM that will moralise over what Women do with their own bodies, or whether Homosexuality is a choice, or whether Abortion is prohibited, or whether we should reinstate the death penalty for drug users. I’m sure that would be popular with a voter base of 80+ year old religious fundamentalists, but once that voter base had died out no one else would ever buy the conservative party again. If the Conservatives want a future in the 21st century then they’ll have to do the exact opposite.

        • I can’t care less for Tories, I am not even a Brit.

          But I do think that progressivism is just a form of deconstructed Christianity with the god/saviour figure removed. It’s full of irrational religious bigotry, and I can’t quite grasp while one type of religious nut jobs in disagreement with the other.

          > I’m sure the British population do not want a PM that will moralise over what Women do with their own bodies, or whether Homosexuality is a choice, or whether Abortion is prohibited, or whether we should reinstate the death penalty for drug users.

          Those are constant topics of progressives though. They constantly moralise that women DO own their bodies, that homosexuality is NOT a choice. that abortions should be even more accessible and that drugs needs to be legalised (or at the very least their usage must be decriminalised).

          Now, do you want the both side to stop their preaching simultaneously?

          Or do you rather want only for your opponents to shut up and die, while you keep preaching your side of the argument – like every religious zealot ever wants?

          • >Those are constant topics of progressives though. They constantly moralise that women DO own their bodies, that homosexuality is NOT a choice. that abortions should be even more accessible and that drugs needs to be legalised (or at the very least their usage must be decriminalised).

            The differnce is that unlike socons, progressives aren’t trying to force you to have an abortion, or be gay, or take drugs. They just want people to be allowed to make their own decisions on these matter for themselves.

          • > The differnce is that unlike socons, progressives aren’t trying to force you to have an abortion, or be gay, or take drugs

            You are a progressive. Your viewpoint is that socons prevent women from having an abortion (sometimes by force). Socon’s viewpoint? The likes of you trying to convert their kids into homosexuality (sometimes by force, through mandatory courses during the “educational” process). Who’s right? That depends on what side you take, and if do not take sides then both are wrong.

            My viewpoint? Both sides are religious nuts, it’s just half of them believe in Jesus and Heaven in the afterlife, while the others – in Inevitable Progress and Building Heaven on Earth. Blind faith does not require a supra-natural being in the sky. Rousseau was no different from Torquemada.

            I was born in USSR, I saw a lot of people, who had religious zeal without faith in god. They end up killing their fellow citizens by millions. Being a pawn in a religious war is no fun.

        • That study that the BBC suppressed, but Americans heard about says that 53%+ agree with Rees=Mogg on abortion. It would be popular with anybody who wants a free country along with protection of their rights.

        • Focus in on the Left’s fetishised hobby horses why don’t you. Tha`t’s what it’s all about – according to the BBC.

          Any reservations about them are immediately categorised as “fundamentalist far right denial” – even by the Tories now it seems.

          The PM moralises about plenty, but just not those things which attract noisy and strident lobby groups.

          • Well yeah mate. If you support the conservatives then surely you understand that you have no right to meddle in others personal lives. If someone wants to dress up at home as a unicorn and roam around a field then they’re perfectly entitled to. Just like if someone wants to live an extremely rigorous religious lifestyle.

            What angers me is there are lots of conservatives who want to tell OTHER people not to do abortions, or not to be gay, or not to smoke cannabis. This is fundamentally opposed to liberal conservative & libertarian values. Those people are not conservatives, they are Communists, fascists, authoritarians and totalitarians.

            The Conservative party is being fought between two forces at the moment; the Libertarians & social liberals who value personal freedoms vs. the religious & social conservatives who want people to live according to their morals. If the Conservative party goes the way of social conservatism then it will be dead within 10 years.

          • No life is private in a welfare state. If you are on a dole – the tax payers are your shareholders. Don’t like it? Vote for dismantling of the NHS and the welfare state. Otherwise – you’d better embrace the collectivism because it is your new reality.

            You can’t have long-term personal freedom without the personal responsibility.

          • If anybody wants to spend their benefit money on drugs and alcohol, fine. Just don’t come whining and complaining when you get thrown out onto the street for not paying your rent.

            And as for the taxpayer paying for drug rehabilitation, I’m sure if we toughen up drug supply in prisons then the dropouts will have to come off drugs when they end up in prison.

          • > Just don’t come whining and complaining when you get thrown out onto the street for not paying your rent.

            They don’t whine – they vote. And their votes are equal to yours.

          • I’m not a member of the Conservative party but I don’t think for one moment that it is fretting either about defending our personal freedoms or making people conform to a set of morals. It has no principles of any kind – that is surely the reason for its demise. As for meddling in others’ personal lives – I’m happy to ignore them but don’t ask me or anyone else to subsidise their life choices or pay to clean up the messy consequences when it all goes pear shaped.

        • The Tory Party has been dead to a sizeable number of voters since they stabbed Maggie and turned into the ersatz Lib Dems.
          I have no problem with someone’s personal view or religious convictions as long as they are not conflated with their professional duty. JRM made this abundantly clear during the interview. So much for your straw man.

        • Ironically that would all be popular with the growing Muslim population but they will keep voting Labour nevertheless.

      • By definition “diversity is good” can never be a religious attitude of any particular religion, since any church dislikes diversity of religious views from its own.

        • Every group that preaches diversity exclude some sub-groups. Every group is very selective about what they can tolerate in their “diversity”. I.e. Christians can’t tolerate radical Muslims, and Progressives can’t tolerate national-socialists (one of their competitors in the field of civic religions in the past).

          So, diversity is not equal to “all-inclusion”, mere “some variety” and hence CAN be a part of religious belief.

    • You have very clearly elaborated more-or-less exactly what Ms Perrins has just defined as the problem!

      • See i got the opposite, I thought she was opposed to big government, but also wants to reverse social liberalism. I couldn’t care less if someone chooses to identify as gay, trans, cis-gender, unicorn, pan-sexual, whatever. I also defend peoples rights to live however they want, consume whatever they want, without harassment from the state. To me Conservatism means, utter total freedom to do whatever i want (including injecting heroin into my eyeballs, LEGALLY!) with my own body and no one can say a damn thing to me. Conservatism to me is freedom (without infringing on others freedom).

        Social conservatives like to use the nanny state to infringe on other peoples personal freedoms (especially the religious). These people see Conservatism as a set of rules by which you must live your life, if you step over the line be prepared to be stigmatised and ashamed of yourself. Do not deviate from being a man or a woman, do as society tells you, and always identify an enemy, any enemy, always be hating someone basically. These people take the idea of personal freedom to infringe on others freedoms (i don’t want to breathe other peoples cigarette smoke, Wah! I don’t want my children raised by gay people in case they turn gay themselves, wah!). This idea of conservatism (social conservatism) is more like Fascism/Communism to me.

        I thought Ms. Perrins identified more with social conservatism ideals rather than being socially liberal. Correct me if i’m wrong.

        • > I couldn’t care less if someone chooses to identify as gay, trans, cis-gender, unicorn, pan-sexual, whatever.

          I couldn’t care less if some people are eating poo. Each to his own.

          I wouldn’t like for M&S to start serving shît sandwiches (to avoid stigmatising the above people) along with their usual assortment of sandwiches. Does it make me a bad person?

          > To me Conservatism means, utter total freedom to do whatever i want (including injecting heroin into my eyeballs, LEGALLY!) with my own body and no one can say a damn thing to me.

          The only reasons I, as a conservative, oppose to that is due to me being forced to pay for your rehab from my taxes. Once we drop the welfare state – I wouldn’t care of what you do with yourself. Everyone should be free to fail (even if this means destitution and death).

        • Ah – I mistook what you were saying. But you still have the conundrum that you can end up tolerating the intolerable and the intolerant, which then turns round and eats you up or enslaves you. I don’t see the conflict between libertarianism of the sort you describe and holding some truths to be self-evident and transcendental (even of ‘value’). Deep waters for me, though..

        • Redefining biological genders has nothing to do with classical liberalism, which accepts human nature and seeks to empower citizens to act in a responsible way in as self-reliant a way as possible. Gender theory is not only anti-scientific, it makes people more dependent on the state and/or big business for everything from hormones to procreation. Natural sexual selection seems to have stood the test of time of last 1 billion or so years. Why change it?

    • Obviously and patently true. Sadly the truth isn’t highly valued on this site as, no doubt, sundry Conservative fundamentalists and other assorted disturbed personalities will be illustrating when replying to your sage comment, in the immediate future. Enjoy!

      • You seem to highly value sneering as well as armchair psychiatry. The Soviet Union used to categorise dissent as mental disorder too.

        • You yourself, sir, are one of my most favourite broken toys. Sadly I have not the leisure to play with you now.

    • May I congratulate you on your sarcasm and your parody of brainwashed social justice snowflakes who need trigger warnings before discussing Shakespeare plays.

      However, please enlighten why we always need to change things that have worked so well over thousands of years and across diverse societies? Femininity and masculinity are fundamentally biological realities. Why deny this? Why rewrite history and trash good hard science to pursue an ideological anti-science agenda?

  65. How many times must it be said, as G.K. Chesterton did, that the business of Conservatives is to keep mistakes from being corrected?

    I may have got Michael Oakeshott all wrong in my reading of him, since it is a bit impenetrable, but as I understand him, the tendency of the human animal in aggregate is conservative in any event, and the species “progresses” when the bulk of humanity decides that “what has worked so far” no longer does, and moves on. However, the political Left fetishize “progress,” and look to push it for its own sake, absent an actual and perceived need for it. What happens is that many people will decide, “Progress from A to B was necessary and beneficial, and let’s stay at B,” as others cry “B isn’t nearly good enough! We need to get to H!”

    It well may be that B WAS beneficial (e.g., the abolition of slavery) and in no event should we ever return to A nor even consider doing so. And B might be a fine place to rest on our laurels. But a party that has no philosophical argument against “progress to H” risks becoming the Me-Too Party that Franklin Roosevelt claimed his opposition, the Republicans, were: “The Republicans tell you, ‘FDR wants [X]– we do too, but not as much/not in the same way/not right now.’ If you are going to vote for a party that wants the same things as Roosevelt, then why not vote for Roosevelt?”

    If you are going to be “conservative,” explain what needs to be conserved and why it does. It will not do to say, “Let’s try [X], see if it works, and hold onto it, because we cannot fetishize the past simply for being the past.” You will thereby contradict yourself– you will experiment, find “what works,” and afterwards resist change, and with the passage of time, the progress-fetishizers will call you hidebound and ossified. And you will have no good answer.

  66. I liked many of the DUP’s policies in their last manifesto (and I’m of Irish Catholic descent!) – though still too statist on the economics. Any chance of persuading them to expand nationwide?

    • Wow! If you want the Conservatives to turn into the DUP, thats just not going to happen (Unless JRM becomes party leader). If you want to control womens bodies, deny homosexuality exists, and ban abortion then I would recommend you convert to Islam and live in Saudi Arabia. The UK would fall into a civil war before adopting those views.

        • Not do I. I don’t have a problem with homosexuality, but don’t want it advocated to children. I would advocate stricter controls on abortion. Islam is demonstrably a false religion, an ideology masquerading as religion, so no thanks. Apart from that, Rory, your comment is spot on. #StrawMan

          • You can’t just ban Islam as a culture or as a religion, that would be discriminatory. You would have to adopt secularism and ban all religions from public spaces; no religious paraphernalia in public, no street/hate preaching, no condemning others for being different, which i support 100%.

            You cannot advocate stricter controls on abortion, you would get less people going to abortion clinics, more miscarriages, more abnormal fatal foetal conditions and it puts more mothers/women in danger (sounds inherently anti-conservative to me).

            Lastly, you cannot advocate Homosexuality, it not a culture, or a belief, or an attitude. Its something you are born as. You cannot advocate having blue eyes because you have no choice over whether to possess them or not, same with homosexuality, its not a choice. you’re born that way.

          • How is it then that “pale, male and stale” can be used as anti-advocacy? That simply refers to race, gender and age which there is no choice over either.

          • Well I know I am male, pale and stale, but i didn’t mention that nor do i identify as that (theres more to me than my sex, age and skin colour you know!). If you choose to get into the weeds and choose to identify yourself as ‘pale, male and stale’ then you are playing the games of the SJW and playing into their hands. Don’t do it. We are all unique, our own people. Don’t let anyone (left/right, Fascist/snowflake) ever label you.

          • You seem more like an ultra-liberal than a conservative to me. We share beliefs about individual freedom, at least in the economic sphere. But you fail to recognise the institutional foundations of capitalism (including Judeo-Christianity) and that those are being undermined by the left through such vehicles as Islamic immigration and a denial that the vast majority of people are heterosexual. To lump in other religions with Islam is to be fundamentally in denial of the history of the latter and its violent conversion of populations it has ‘invaded’.

          • And you do have a quasi religious faith in liberal fundamentalism, eg the insistence that we can’t discriminate between Islam and other religions. We can, and if we wish to survive, we must.

          • > You can’t just ban Islam as a culture or as a religion, that would be discriminatory.

            And why discrimination is bad, exactly? Is this axiom a part of your religious belief?

          • I have no faith, I am a secularist. Religion is awful and pits us against each other. Personally I would like to see anyone and everyone who identifies as ‘religious’, be they christian, muslim, jew, buddhist, whatever… Put them all in a giant arena (like out of Hunger Games or Battle Royale), and let them fight to the death over their ridiculous beliefs.

            By the way don’t confuse gender with sexuality with sexual orientation. Learn English and buy a dictionary if you need help.

            Gender: the socially constructed ‘gender’ you identify as.
            Sex: The genitals you were born with
            Sexuality: Levels of sexual desire, i.e, Libido
            Sexual orientation: type of people who sexually arouse you.

          • I came across you for the first time earlier this evening in a comment in which you described yourself as “libertarian”. Unlike you, I put off joining UKIP precisely because I read “we are a libertarian party” near the top of its website. But I have met several people who call themselves “libertarians”, and heard and read commentary from many more. Generally speaking they have been tolerant people with whom I have much in common even though we often disagree and whose views and arguments I can respect. I don’t remember ever before coming across one as intolerant and narrow minded as you seem to be, judging by your posts here, today. You might like to reconsider your self-estimate.

            I was just going to ignore you but I eventually decided that needed saying.

          • Well it’s tricky isn’t it. Ayn Rand had some great ideas and Objectivism appeals to many of us but she was also a bit barking around the edges. I think you can split Libertarians into two groups – nice people who just would rather everyone stopped being a busybody and bothering them, and nut-jobs – who like to call themselves “libertarian” because it sounds cool – but couldn’t spell “Ayn Rand” if you paid them.

          • > Religion is awful and pits us against each other.

            I am a religiously indifferent Russian, who grew up in the Soviet Union. The closest thing to religious bigots we had were atheists. Those guys LITERALLY killed their opponents, those heretics who dared to hold different religious beliefs, Christians and Muslims by tens of thousands. Do they belong to that pit of yours?

            > By the way don’t confuse gender with sexuality with sexual orientation.

            Semantics and ad hominem to avoid giving the answer. Okay, the sexual orientation it is then. So, do you think that sexual orientation is rigid and defined at birth? Can’t a man, who considers himself heterosexual be ever sexually attracted to other men? And if he can – doesn’t that mean that sexual orientation is another social construct influenced by upbringing?

          • “Are you saying that sexuality is rigidly installed at birth?”

            Well, I’ve known my entire life since I was old enough to realise, that I was heterosexual. Haven’t you? There has never been any “fluidity” about it. (For a small number of people, I think they are genetically 50/50 and therefore are equally attracted either way)
            But in general, to talk about homosexuality as a “choice” is as ludicrous as to say that you or I decided to be heterosexual.

            You may not understand this last paragraph if you didn’t grow up in Britain in the 1970s : I knew I was heterosexual when I realised I enjoyed watching Pans People on Top of the Pops

          • > Well, I’ve known my entire life since I was old enough to realise, that I was heterosexual. Haven’t you?

            An argument can be made that you became heterosexual when you stopped being asexual – that is, after reaching puberty. Which meant that you had a decade of heteronormative pressure from the society around you (given that it was the 70s Britain, I presume it was quite some pressure). So, your heterosexuality is merely a social construct, which might change in the future. In fact, it might’ve changed already, with up to 10% of 20-something British men reporting to be non-hetero (comparing to 1.7% estimates from past decades).

            The argument can be made – and it is being made daily in the progressive media. A conspirologist might even say that the old boring “born this way” stuff was mere;y a foot-in-the-door moment to feed us the total dissolution of gender agenda.

            Anyway, my point was to provide a hint to Rory that he (?) flag behind the party line. My personal opinion on the question is different.

          • My word you have drunk of the cool aid of the last 50 years haven’t you. All these things you cannot do in your own country.

            Islam, or more precisely Wahhabism is intent on colonising the western world as happened in the Middle East. If we do not learn from history we are finished as a free nation. Closing mosques and deporting or interning dangerous individuals is necessary. Banning multiple marriages and the burka – in fact enforcing our culture and not adopting or promoting theirs.

            Christianity is the glue of the western world as the gay aetheist Douglas Murray writes in “The Strange Death if Europe”. Our culture is born of Christianity which is that every person is born in the image of God. This is why abortion should be avoided wherever possible and the original Act is written in this way, but is flouted. And now up to the point of birth they want you to be able to kill your child – infanticide in fact.

            Cannabis is a much more dangerous drug than it was in the 60’s – many young people have become psychotic through use. It certainly should not be legalised.

            And finally homosexuality. The great symbol of our time. There is no scienctific basis of your born that way comment. The reasons are many and complex and many seek to leave the lifestyle. Young men in particular should not have this lifestyle glamourised as it holds many health dangers. And it is leading to pornography being taught as PSHE in schools.

      • > The UK would fall into a civil war before adopting those views.

        Given the quality of people, who support the Left, I’d say the civil war will be laughably one-sided.

  67. Fair enough. Please can you all leave and let me have the pro-Remain, socially liberal but fiscally conservative party I used to vote for?

        • Socially liberal positions end up costing a fortune (promoting single-parenthood, free child care, relaxed on drugs, soft on criminals, etc).

          • Surely social conservatism also has its costs – whether its the cost of policing unacceptable behaviours, building and managing more prisons, maintaining larger military forces etc. I don’t think there is a strong reason to believe that one is going to be more expensive than the other.

          • > building and managing more prisons,

            Over the last hundred years the number of crimes committed in the UK increased 46 fold. I assume this is due to massive shift to social conservatism that British society experienced since 1917?

          • Levels of recorded crime have rocketed since the early 1960s and then fallen like a stone since the early 1990s/2000s (depending on the type of crime).

          • It does cost an arm and a leg because every action of an individual will have an impact on others.

            Want evidence?

            The areas of Britain have taken your ideas to heart e.g. the inner cities are pretty much a vacuum of morality, responsibility, drug addiction and disfunctional “families”.

            They also cost the country the most in terms of police, social services and benefits.

            And you want the rest of us to enjoy this “freedom”……..

            At least pay for it.

          • A socially liberal (or libertarian) viewpoint doesn’t prevent you from educating people about the value of morality, responsibility, the dreadful impact of drug addiction, or the value of family life. In fact, social liberals are pretty keen on education and are generally pretty keen on morality etc. These are values we all share. Your argument seems to confuse cause and effect.

          • Not in my experience they are not. Those that call themselves socially liberal are anything but.

            They have their own world view, own agenda and will do anything to achieve their ends, which are the antithesis of freedom.

            As we witness in the UK day after day after day………

          • I’m sure you are neither a peddler of hate nor old fashioned and I can only apologise on behalf of liberals everywhere if someone has accused you of this and you are feeling sore.

            I repeat that you can be socially liberal without unaffordable policies. Are you confusing “liberal” with “socialist” or something? Hard to know what you are thinking.

            You’ve lost me on the “when change comes” piece. Are you saying “come the revolution etc.”?

          • You can be socially liberal but no government can or has managed to distance themselves from the misery and chaos that these policies bring.

            E.g. when you weaken marriage, the state steps in to become the father – or at least steps in as an elder to enforce the father’s financial obligations. When drug abuse reduces or destroys social cohesion and productivity the state steps in to reduce availability or to enforce moderation.

            Liberal policies and small state? Cannot happen without utter chaos and misery.

            Show me where they exist, or indeed did exist. If we want small state (and I do want a small state) we need strong laws with teeth, enforced without favour, based on a framework of consistent morality that rewards virtue and is supportive of the traditional family structure.

          • In essence, to borrow the words from Officer Krupke, social conservatists [sic] believe that people are “deprived because they are depraved” while social liberals believe that they are “depraved because they are deprived”.

            These differences in viewpoint will drive your policy priorities. The rest, however, is just policy and you can as a nation choose to spend as much or as little as you wish to improve the situation.

            Interestingly, the one policy area which should be a high priority for both camps is education. A good education provides people with the personal resources to secure a better job for themselves (tackling depravity by reducing deprivation) and can instil in that person a sense of morality, responsibility, awareness of the perils of drug addiction etc. (tackling deprivation by reducing depravity). The only question therefore is whether the cost of a decent education should fall more on the individual or collectively on us all (e.g. via taxation – creating a “larger” state). I submit that this latter issue is independent of the question of your position on the deprivation vs depravity question.

          • It was a genuine question as to where you think your socially liberal small state exists or existed.

            Germany in the 1920s springs to mind. (Although that did not turn out so well)


          • In haste as I am at work but the answer seems to be: Switzerland.

            Government Spending as % GDP 33%, Social Progress Index = 90.1 (see “Social Progress Index” and “Government Spending” Wikipedia pages).

            See Wikipedia entry on “LGBT Rights in Switzerland” for example of their relatively liberal attitudes to one touchstone issue.

          • I think we have the crux of the problem right here.

            How do you measure social progress?

            By your measure of course!!

            So what happens when your liberal society conflicts with mine?

            Who wins?

            I think we know the answer to that.

            BTW 35% of GDP is not small state……!

          • Haha – no, I wasn’t beating any particular drum for the “Social Progress Index”. I just did a quick Google and grabbed it as the data was available and it seemed something along the lines of what we required.

            I am not sure what you mean by “what happens when your liberal society conflicts with mine?”. If you mean “how do we resolve the differences in policy priorities between social conservatists and social liberals” then I would guess this is achieved in our society through the imperfect mechanics of our representative democracy. But I also enjoy discussions like this, learn from them and modify my views a little as a result (I think).

            Regarding whether 33.0% of GDP is small state, I agree there are many nations with smaller spend as %ge of GDP (see below) but it does seem to be the smallest of the “developed world” that I can see by a reasonable margin. The USA stands at 37.8%. And it is a good 10% smaller than the UK which was quite impressive to me. Of course, some of this may be down to how healthcare is funded – don’t know and a bit of it will be down to the military spend (or rather lack of it in Switzerland). Don’t know. Overall, there were 67 countries with a lower Govt spend as a %GDP and 62 countries with a higher spend. So perhaps we can describe it as “middling”.

            In support of your overall contention, looking at the world as a whole there is a strong correlation between this Social Progress Index and Government Spend as %GDP. If you are looking at Gov’t spend as a variable to “explain” the social progress index then 34% of the variance in the SP index is “explained” by government spend (i.e. correlation coefficient = 0.58). Countries with low SP Indices tend to have low government spending (and v-v). However, when you look at the “developed” countries there is little correlation – a country like Switzerland can gain a higher level of “Social Progress” than the UK while having the government consuming a full 10 points less of GDP (43 -> 33).

            This Social Progress Index might be a heap of junk. Don’t know. I’m not going to the wire on this one – but Switzerland has certainly done better than us with state expenditure that is nearly 25% smaller than ours.

            If you want a couple of more radical alternatives, the Democratic Republic of Congo achieves an SP Index of 84.2 with a government spend of only 14.2% of GDP, while Costa Rica has an SP Index of 81.0 with a government spend of only 20% of GDP. Congo is the fourth lowest spend worldwide and Costa Rica is 19th, so I would submit both of those are definitely small states – at least on these statistics. Personally I would go for Costa Rica over the Congo any day but maybe that just reflects my ignorance.

            Have a good evening

          • Source for this dubious statistic? I don’t think record-keeping of crimes was accurate or indeed top priority in 1917, particularly when we were in the middle of a massive war.

          • I can’t quite remember the source for the 2000s, but here’are the stats from 1900s to 1990s: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP99-111/RP99-111.pdf

            “The number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1. The graph records offences that are reported to the police and recorded by them.
            The British Crime Survey estimates unreported crime; in 1997 56% of crimes were not reported to the police. In earlier years, this figure was probably higher and accounts for some of the increase. Reported crime peaked in 1992 when 109.4 indictable offences were recorded per thousand population.”

            109/2.4 =~ 45.4

          • Oh please! You would rather the workforce be reduced by 50% overnight by sending all women back to the kitchens. The economy only recovered after the 2nd world war because we liberated women from the kitchen and got them working alongside the rest of the population.

            And also if you support the current prohibition on drugs then you support criminals. If Cannabis is so dangerous then why would you allow criminals to control the market? Thats just utter lunacy. Drug dealers don’t check age or ID, all they need to see is £££. Would you allow criminals to control the alcohol industry, as that would be the fastest way to have drunk children. Police have already come to this conclusion and groups like LEAP UK (Law Enforcement against prohibition) already advocate legalisation of Cannabis. I’m afraid a lot of us already saw through the Bullsh!t that is ‘Reefer Madness’. If you like seeing children as young as 12, high on cannabis, then continue your thinking. Thats what prohibition has led to. And don’t say “well, the law isn’t properly enforced by the police!”, you’ll sound just like that out-of-touch loser Peter Hitchens who wants to imprison 75% of the UKs population.

          • > The economy only recovered after the 2nd world war because we liberated women from the kitchen and got them working alongside the rest of the population.

            Soviet Union made exactly that in 1917. By your logic, modern-day Russia should be an economic leviathan.

            And Japan never actually followed this western fat – but who cares about that economically backwater Asian nation?

            > if you support the current prohibition on drugs then you support criminals.

            The first organised actions of feminists in the US was imposing of Prohibition. By your logic, feminists support criminals.

          • Why are reservations about the “emacipation” of women always countered with hyperbole about sending them back, etc.? That’s tripe.

            As for kitchens. What is the demographic that buys all the new kitchens but then gets mighty offended if it is suggested they might spend more time in them? Clue – it isn’t men.

    • Can’t really have a Pro EU and a fiscally conservative party either. Because the EU is pro regulations, be it on fish, farming, toasters, ovens, vacuum cleaners, environment, so called “workers rights” and so on.

      • I disagree. Fiscally we have been in a much better position since joining the EEC/EC/EU. Of course, many things changed over time so it isn’t certain how we will fare once we are back outside the EU but I doubt we will find it easier to maintain or improve our balance of payments.

          • Ah. So you are not a historian then. If Corbyn gets in once we have fallen out of the EU then we will get a chance to revisit the early 1970s and you will have an opportunity to see it (for the first time?).

  68. I have lived outside the UK for many years now, and I wake up every day wondering how the heck this country ended up in this cul-de-sac. The one is a damp rag masquerading as a tuxedo, the other is a suicidal pilot advertising seats on his next flight! I know the UK has competent people, who could do a lot better, but how will they ever be drafted into service when the institutions are rotten? I pray for the coming of a true leader and a man of courage, who can bring sanity back into our politics.

  69. Politics has changed from left/right to a new politics of authoritarianism/freedom; both Labour and the Conservatives are pro authoritarianism and anti freedom, a plague on both their houses.

    • Completely agree. There are the religious fundamentalists who are anti-freedom and want the UK to be turned into a larger version of Northern Ireland (Theresa May, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sarah Newton). Then there are the Libertarians who allow people to live their lives any which way they want (Boris Johnson, Crispin Blunt, Ruth Davison).

      I’ve always been Libertarian and i’ve switched from Conservatives, to lib dems, to UKIP, back to Tories again because they all have Libertarian policies. This conservative party led by Theresa May has completely based Policy on ‘feelings’ and ‘morals’ rather than Evidence.

      • Yup, me too. Until recently I’d always aligned conservatism with personal freedoms (small state and all that) – and then you read the comments of some of the colonel blimps here and realise they are very authoritarian.

        • Bik, I have read your comments here. You are small state until people want to run their lives and communities in a way that conflicts with your worldview.

          The essence of small state is the freedom create a community (and to enforce its laws) that you might disapprove of.

          • When you point your finger at me, you have four fingers* pointing back towards yourself, Phil R.
            *well, three fingers and a thumb pointing sideways, but you get my drift.

      • Theresa May is just like a leaf in the wind.

        “Evidence”, if we could rely on the data, the interpretation of the data and the presentation of the “conclusions” being free from bias/“feelings” as a Christian I would be with you.

        Time and time again, it is not what we see. Data is endlessly collected by public and “private” organisations to try to support a preconceived worldview. Or is not collected at all if it might or obviously will support, a socially conservative solution.

      • Ruth Davidson? A libertarian.
        Shut up, she supports Cultural Marxist movements such as the LGBT agenda, feminism and the European Union.
        While Boris supports a living wage and is against huge welfare cuts (ie not libertarian).

  70. A perfect article.

    I’ve been of the opinion for a while now that the so called Labour party is now the ultra far left party while the Tories are the new Labour party,because they have moved so far to the left.

    That’s why in 2015 I voted UKIP as they were the only party that appealed to me politically.Also,I couldn’t vote Labour as they are an anti-white and anti-British racist party.

    After voting to Leave in June 2016,I saw the Tories as the only party capable of delivering Brexit as UKIP had collapsed.So in Junes General Election I was forced to vote for the Tories,not because they are a party that represents my political ideals but because they were the lesser of the two evils.

    Now I’m hoping for a miracle and that either UKIP go bonkers and resurface as an electable party capable of running the country or that the Conservative party changes back to a real Conservative party.

    I live in hope.

    • Neither will happen.
      Thankfully I live in Northern Ireland, we have a couple of real Conservative parties.
      Neither are perfect but they are against feminists, LGBT 50 million genders agenda, mass immigration etc.

  71. Thank you Laura. A perfectly reasoned article. The trouble is just who is out there making a case for small state conservatism and getting any serious attention?
    The Conservatives, in their cowardice, have a abandoned any principles they had in the pursuit of power alone, so when they get there they don’t know what to do with power because they have no guiding principles.
    I long to see the Big State rolled back considerably. But I fear we will need to experience (again) the disaster of a truly socialist government under Corbyn before two things happen: 1 – for the populace learn (yet again) that socialism is a disaster; 2 – for the Tories to have a purge of big staters and return to selling the virtues of genuine conservatism.

  72. Well, congratulations – Con Woman must be a more significant bell-wether site than I thought, to TPTB. Such a gathering of the wicked, spreading confusion! I wonder why they’ve all swooped at once? Could it be that the trimmers and the tackers, the morally compromised are a bit worried? Do they think that the Party at large is possibly quite near to critical mass, that the obvious treachery from the Centre is now pissing people off so big time that something Might be Done? I do hope so – I promise to join the Tories if they start to represent my views. UKIP is a busted flush, in the hands of just the same kinds of faux-Right, so I reckon a re-invigorated, straight-talking Tory party might just do the trick. Either way, it’s got the current lot of our representatives and their minging SPADs rattled, so something good must be happening.

      • Ha! Although they’d have to be cunning about giving him a position of responsibility – I think his main talent is being some kind of modern berserker who can be deployed to put the fear of God into the enemy. That is undoubtedly when he is at his best – he can be a bit ropey (if that’s the right word..) when he himself feels put on the spot.

  73. I agree – except that Theresa May didn’t call the party ‘nasty’, she referred to others saying it.

    • Another May own-goal, then. Sloganise what others are saying and you will be given the credit for the slogan. She is amazingly incompetent as a communicator.

  74. I thought I was alone in this view of the Tories being a potent opposition,they have turned into the kind of Socialists I despise,look forward to them being consigned to the ashcan of history

  75. “They use the school system to try to solve every social problem”, indeed – except those for which education was invented – ignorance and barbarism, which the state-controlled education system likes to leave untouched or even intensified.

  76. The problem is basically that many who call themselves conservatives are simply neo-cons who are really Liberals without a party so they latch onto the Conservative Party. Sooner or later a Trump like figure will arise, probably after the Tories have spent a decade in opposition and they are desperate to win. Then they will go back to being neo cons and the whole sorry cycle of them spitting in the voters faces will start again.

  77. As usual Laura, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’m really struggling as a conservative activist. I’ve even started thinking a few years of chaos under Corbyn to show how bad socialism is might be worth enduring to reform the cultural marxists and statists out of the conservative party.

  78. What needs to happen is for true Conservatives to infiltrate the Conservative Party and take it over like Momentum have done to Labour. Leaving the Fascist EU might be the start of the counter revolution.

  79. What is a strong family? What utter nonsense. I think she means god-fearing, role-playing, do-as-you’re-told 1950s autocracy. You’re a man so you do this, you’re a woman so you do that, you’re working class so this is not for you, you’re from good stock so you can have this.

    It’s hard to believe people still think like this. ‘Christian Conservative’? God forbid we import that kind of American madness here.

    • If we don’t have strong families, our society is finished.

      Evidence? Look at parts of Britain where families are weakest. We can drive to the centre of our cities and see your future this very evening.

      But we will keep our doors locked

      • Poverty is the cause of that. Poverty destroys families.

        The strongest nuclear families are in muslim areas – they marry young and have children immediately, so why are so many areas with such strong families so impoverished and debased?

        I suspect the author’s idea of strong families is based on some kind of catholic grin & bear it, pump out kids and work yourself to death feeding them all model.

        If you want an example of strong society then look to Scandinavia – strong states, strong societies, weak religion, strong sense of civic responsibility. Not Christian conservatism.

        • Poverty agreed

          The strongest predictor of poverty is?

          Drug addition and single parent/non traditional households.

          Children growing up in traditional households with both biological parents are between 6 and 30 times more likely to do well, on every measure and far less likely to grow up in poverty.

          • Scandinavia is very tolerant, liberal, even left-of-centre which might also have something to do with its social cohesion and success.

          • Replace the is with was and I would agree with you.

            Emphasis the word might and I also agree.

            There, two small changes and we agree!

        • Poverty did not destroy families in the 1930s, It did not destroy them in the age of (real) austerity, the 1950s. It did not destroy families in countries that have climbed out of poverty such as Singapore and South Korea.

        • HA HA HA Poverty ! Another meaningless leftie buzzword ! Poverty in Britain means not being able to afford a full suite of Sky channels ! Even the Queen is living in poverty according to the leftie loons and it is an insoluble issue because the income level for ‘poverty’ is set £1 below the benefits rate. In other words if benefits claimants were paid £1 Million per week they would still be judged as living in poverty.

          We are seeing the results of children leaving school who have never known corporal punishment, never learned that actions have consequences, but instead that they can do as they please and no one will stop them – ever.

          What is needed is a return to corporal punishment. A divorce system which isn’t so massively biased in favour of women, that they are travelling from all over the world to get divorced here. No wonder that 70% of divorces are started by women when they stand to get everything – more than everything because they’ll probably take the poor sods future earnings even if she earns more than him !

          I look at Scandinavia and shake my head in disbelief at the problems there. Paradise wrecked who cannot accept reality even when it’s staring them in the face. If ever an example of liberalism going wrong, after Venezuela then Sweden is next !

        • Don’t look at Sweden at the moment . It’s Socialist Government allowed almost unlimited immigration ( just like ours ) in spite of knowing that the majority were against it . Like all socialists ” they know best what people need “

    • We need the nuclear family more than we need 99% of things the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, even UKIP think we need.
      Children brought up in a single parent household are more likely to be homeless, unemployment, criminals, drug addicts etc.

    • Do you despise people of your parents and grandparents’ generation as much as you despise some Americans?

  80. I’m not sure it’s fair to call the government “unconservative” as Conservatism is a broad church, and I think we’re just seeing a return to the Tory paternalism which was dominant before the Thatcherite capture of the party. I’m 42 and I think that those of my generation and younger think that conservatism means low taxes, small state and maximal personal freedom, but those things would have been anathema to a Tory of the 1950’s (Macmillan was famously sniffy about privatisation) and before. I suspect that much of the health nannying and identity politics is merely an extension of that paternalist impulse updated for what we think we “know” nowadays in medicine and psychology. It may be that the pendulum will swing back and those of the Thatcherite tendency will regain the upper hand, but I suspect that history will see those views as a virus which infected the party for 30 odd years before, unfortunately, being expelled.

    • The so-called paternalists knew that biology is important. They knew the difference between male and female and they knew what marriage is – even the adulterers among them. The paternalists were also patriotic and not a bunch of quislings.

      • I seem to remember the Conservatives were quite keen to join the European Community and I think it’s well documented that Heath was aware of the underlying “political” project. It’s obviously hypothetical, but I suspect if you’re paternalistic and “science” says “a,b,c is good or true”, you’ll be quite happy to intervene to promote a,b or c. I imagine (and again this is just speculation) that lifestyle nannying and identity politics didn’t form part of state activity then only because we didn’t “know” enough to decide what to promote. I think that flavour of Conservativism shares with the Left a belief that “we know best”, the only difference being the the source of that knowledge. Conservatives appealed to experience either through family connections, business or the forces, while the left pointed to education (the Hampstead socialists) or lived experience (the trades unions)

  81. In those all too brief few days of ecstasy after the 2016 referendum result when I deluded myself that perhaps I’d maybe see my country returned to me……I didn’t factor in the toryboy Inquisition and with Theresa May sitting in for as a latter day female version of the diversity and cultural Marxist Torquemada/Harrietharperson MkII.

    Yes, in post June 23 2016 England, I thought that things would ease up now, now that we were ‘getting out of the Empire of doom’ but not a bit of it, if anything things, the media, governmental [yes the bleedin’ toryboys] enforced critical theory diktats are being rammed, stuffed up our rears and the UK establishment fought back with all the forces of hell and in Berlin that it could muster.

    We were so stupid to think that a simple NO could be so hard for TPTB to hear, in fact they told us, still do that, WE are the stupid ones for wanting to be FREE and that we just didn’t understand what we were voting for.

    Oh yes we did.

    But lets be honest here, by being so foolish as to expect a Majority vote to get out of the EU was going to change anything……….how stupid were we to believe in democracy?

    “Democracy”, it never existed much before we joined the Empire of doom and when we did, all vestige of people power vanished overnight on Jan 1st 1973…………….of course you can vote but the choice is the same and the same old Multcult claptrap is delivered, but that’s what you get, some call it elective dictatorship, some name it LiblavCON.

  82. I voted Tory at the last election to leave the EU. Now it seems the Tories won’t even guarantee that.
    UKIP has to beat the FPTP election system, another thing the Tories adore. No matter, it is UKIP for me from now on.

    • PR would be even worse than FPTP. You’d have never ending utterly unaccountable coalitions. A feast for the professional parasites. Why do you think Clegg and co. love the idea?

    • Need to break the tribal voting and dispel the illusion that the Tory Party is conservative.

      Nothing wrong with the system – you just need more people to vote for UKIP. Given its current state its a tall order.

  83. I agree wholeheartedly with the article. And I wish I had, say, the Gender women as my MP because it would ease my decision not to vote Conservative. But I like my MP a lot. I suspect he thinks he’s in a madhouse too.

    Do I ditch him by spoiling my ballot paper to show my disaffection with the overall party? It’s all very well letting Labour in, but there’s got to be some kind of opposition.

    (Btw, I suspect the mocking of Rees-Mogg is because they fear him.)

  84. And you’ve only just realised this?
    Essentially the ‘Torees’ are rent seeking power at any price and any accommodation parasites.
    Why do you think they did for Thatcher?
    What you describe we need is not ‘conservatism’. It’s a ‘party of liberty’.

  85. My worry about the Conservative Party, which I left by the way, is that on the whole, especially at the top ,it is a No-Nation ‘Conservative’ Party; though there are many genuine conservatives and patriots both locally, in Lincoln Shire, and at the bottom. But they do not seem to be leading the Party; that is my worry. But what to do?

    We have nutters on the Right, or Far Right, who seem to think that the Nazis were not bad. I still have some hair, although some of it has been pulled out.

    And what about the Church: they all seem to be such lettuces or Marxists. I could name names, but I will not.

    Thank goodness for conservative women and real conservative men. But when the comments are closed, could we keep them up? So much that is said in them is so useful that it is a pity to take them down.

  86. How good would it be if Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage got together to create a new “real conservative party”? They both want the UK out of the EU properly, they both hate political correctness, they both would end the BBC licence rip off, they both would end HS2, Hinckley point, the Foreign Aid budget, and both would insure the labour party are seen for the insane bonkers party they are, I’d vote for them!

    • Yes please. I wouldn’t vote for it but there is clearly a large constituency for this party.

      Auto correct got you I’m afraid and put “insure” instead of “ensure”. Though the idea of this new party being some form of insurance for Labour is an intriguing one.

  87. I live in a solidly Tory constituency which at the 2015 general election had a UKIP candidate who was a local citizen of long standing ,moderate , well informed , patriotic etc etc . He managed to dramatically increase his party’s share of the vote but the local voters were , and still are , dogmatically wedded to the idea that the current Tory Party is the same entity that it was many years ago . They flock like sheep into the voting booth and put their little crosses next to the name of whoever is the Tory candidate . They are every bit as deluded as those northern voters who vote Labour without even thinking about it and they are just as much to blame for the pathetic state to which our country has sunk . Shame on them all !

  88. It’s really a big game of prisoner’s dilemma. At the end of the day, we only now vote Conservative because the prospect of Labour getting in is too horrific to contemplate, and whilst we may be tempted to vote for other parties, we don’t know if enough people will do the same to mean that we don’t end up letting Labour in by splitting the vote.

    The real question here, the much deeper question here is: how did first past the post liberal democracy become the best friend of radicals and Marxists? How did it become the perfect vehicle for the transmission of fringe, pathological, anti-democratic and socially destructive ideas?

    I think we’ve been complacent, we’ve imagined that our ancient democracy protected us from these tyrannies and excesses, from rule by a radical, subversive clerisy, but we were absolutely wrong.

    We know that radicals have always known that the way to seize power over the majority is by seizing control of the unelected institutions of state, but ironically, in a FPTP system dominated by a handful of parties, it’s just as easy, in fact much easier to seize control of those parties.

    Hitherto unthinkable radical legislation such as “same-sex marriage” and the “Gender Recognition Act”, both of which effectively wipe women and their interests out of legal existence are now fait accomplis.

    Parliamentary democracy in a capitalist society has become the weapon of choice for radicals and Marxists. It’s hard to believe, but that’s what’s happened.

  89. The resounding outcome of not only the response to this article but all over extensive media is the current Tories will lose to Corbyn unless they elect a Conservative leader and Cabinet.

    Over to them.

  90. I fear that Laura Perrins is soon going top be blacklisted on Conservative Home., if she is not already on the blacklist.

    The Conservative Party should be challenged under the Trade Descriptions Act for misrepresentation of their product, just like Labour, the party of the workshy, and the illiberal and undemocratic Liberal Democrats.

  91. You manage to describe exactly how I feel.

    To fix this problem, there is a simple course: vote UKIP. Vote UKIP early and often. Not because UKIP is any good, or because it will win any seats, but because the referendum shows that punishment is the only language the Tories understand, and the only way they can be encouraged to do anything good.

    Early and often, mind.

  92. I give you this, because the problem for both our countries is systemic more than a matter of parties.

    “The men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He’s the pestilence of modern times. What we should do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians close enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It’s terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged today.”

    G.K. Chesterton: Cleveland press interview (March 1, 1921).

  93. So spot on it hurts. I should be a natural Conservative, but I only voted Conservative at the last GE, because it was the least worst Brexit option. Even that is in doubt to be honest.

  94. Welcome aboard the bus! Better late than never.

    Visiting – and commenting on – ConservativeHome makes for a very depressing experience.

Comments are closed.