E ven in successful parliamentary democracies there comes a time when
no political party is confronting the questions which matter most, and so the voter feels cheated. The worst time for this in Britain was the 1930s. Conservative appeasement seemed more and more inadequate, but the Labour party, then in pacifist mood, did not offer a convincing alternative. It is similar today, only the other way round in party terms. The biggest problem facing the country is Islamist terrorism, not so much because of the security threat (grave though that is), but because of the cultural and political war that is behind it. An effort is being made, like the effort once made by communists, to undermine our Western, plural, free, semi-Christian way of life. In a way it is more dangerous than communism was — at least in Britain — because it has more adherents and fellow travellers. Tony Blair and some in his government are very aware of this, and some of their ideas about it are right, but they are hamstrung by their own ideology which has for so long taught that a multicultural society is a self-evident good. Thus, for example, a Home Office charged with identifying Islamist threats has saddled itself with Muslim advisers who resist this at every turn. In these circumstances, the opposition should be supporting Mr Blair in a tough line, and embarrassing him and the government by exposing the weakness and ambiguity of so many of its members and supporters. Instead of which, the Tories have an obsession with ‘getting Blair’. They bore on about ‘spin’, really only because his is better than theirs, and are tempted to ally with the Left against the Prime Minister. Every time they do that they look less like a potential government, a lesson which Mr Blair learnt long ago when he positioned himself as a critical admirer of the Thatcher revolution. One of the deepest reasons for voting for a party is how you answer the question, ‘Who is most forceful in protecting the safety of the country?’ The clear answer since 7 July — perhaps since 11 September 2001 — is Tony Blair. When you think of how many things he has got wrong, how often he has pandered to terrorism, you can see just how vast is the Conservative failure. Yet when you discuss this subject with Tory MPs they just look completely blank, and return to squabbling about whether David will get the support of David as well as that of David, or whether David will turn against David and support Ken, and so on to the crack of doom (an event which perhaps is not as distant as it used to be). Iam grateful to a reader who has written with evidence which he thinks proves al-Qa’eda timed the broadcast of the video by the British suicide bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan to follow Kenneth Clarke’s speech against the Iraq war. Al-Qa’eda backs Mr Clarke’s bid for the leadership of the Conservative party, he asserts. I remain sceptical, but no more so than at the suggestion that it is a ‘no brainer’ to choose Mr Clarke since he leads his nearest rival (David Davis) in public opinion polls by four to one. Heath led Mrs Thatcher in opinion polls at the same point. Heseltine led Major. I expect R.A. Butler led Harold Macmillan. Yet the three less popular ones went on to win the next election. If a party has been in opposition for a long time, no one has heard of anyone in it except a) its leader b) its oddballs and c) a couple of its most prominent former ministers. Mr Clarke’s name is recognised. Quite a lot of people like him, quite a lot of people don’t. There has to be a stronger reason for wanting him than that.
One reason — a very 1930s one — that some Tories like Mr Clarke is his instinctive hatred of a new idea. He treats the appearance of such a thing as a cook treats the sight of a cockroach in the kitchen. Almost the only interesting idea to come from the Tories recently is the flat tax, so Ken’s immediate reaction is to flatten it still further. He is the Ian Paisley of moderation — bullying, charming, resilient, saying ‘no’ to everything anyone has thought since roughly 1965. is Islam’s Pope John XXIII, bringing a new order of modernisation and moderation to his flock. Here is John XXIII’s view on Muslims, as expressed in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium). The passage speaks warmly of Jews, then it says: ‘The design of salvation also includes those who recognise the Creator, and among them especially the Muslims; it is their avowal that they hold the faith of Abraham, they join us in adoring the single, merciful God who will judge mankind at the last day.’ And here is al-Qaradawi on Jews and Christians (in a sermon reported on Qatar TV in 2003): ‘O God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile Crusaders, and infidels. O God, destroy them along with their supporters.’ You may think of Von as a prefix for the surnames of aristocratic Germans, but it stands for Voice over the Net, and this is Von Week. Everyone hails Skype as the king of Von: it allows you to speak freely to any other Skype user anywhere in the world via your computer. This is called (again it sounds aristocratic) a ‘peer to peer voice service’ and, according to its self-promotion, its ‘high fidelity and “inside the other person’s head” factor’ make it a good medium for falling in love. Ebay have just bought Skype for $2.6 billion. How long before the telephone call which costs money is as dead as the man-operated switchboard? Will BT, Vodafone, etc. move from being new giants to white elephants in a generation?
In our village Dog and Flower Show this month the Moore family made several entries. My wife got first prize in ‘Dish of any other fruit’ (other than apples, that is), but was unplaced in the ‘Action Photograph’ section of the photography competition. Our son won the competition to design next year’s programme cover. Our daughter was Highly Commended in the ‘Home made Chocolate Buns (5)’ category. My unworthy feeling was that the judges were right when we won, and rather off-beam when we didn’t. What was wrong with our action photograph? Shouldn’t the clever design of the chocolate buns have more than compensated for their somewhat dry texture? If that’s what I felt after this modest (and scrupulously fair) contest, how appalling must be the pressure on GCSE and A-level examiners when they make decisions which actually affect people’s lives. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the government has taken the line of least resistance and let virtually all involved pretend they have won.
Previous page
