It's not Ukip who are 'swivel-eyed', Greg Barker
Greg Barker knows a swivelling eye when he sees one
My heart sank when I saw in the Telegraph that Greg Barker had told Christopher Hope, the Telegraph's political correspondent, that the Conservatives "don't need to follow Ukip into 'swivel-eyed rhetoric'" to win the general election. Of course, as an energy minister Mr Barker has some personal experience of generating swivel-eyed rhetoric, and I certainly don't think that wind farms and carbon taxes will do much to help the Conservatives to win in 2015. Even aside from that, there are a good many Conservatives who will question Mr Barker's enthusiasm for what he calls Mr Cameron's "robust and clear position on Europe."
On the Today Programme of October 1st last year it was Mr Cameron's deputy, Nick Clegg, who became swivel-eyed when he claimed, on Mr Cameron's behalf, that three million jobs in the United Kingdom "depend on our participation and role and place" in the European Union. That nonsensical claim has been quietly, calmly and firmly rebutted by Tim Congdon, whose reputation as one of our leading economists (and one time Conservative supporter) is of rather greater quality and longer standing than that of Mr Barker.
Congdon is the Honorary Chairman of The Freedom Association and stood as a Ukip candidate in 2010, and his calm arguments on the EU issue cannot simply be brushed aside as "swivel-eyed". If Mr. Barker thinks Congdon is wrong, let him put the argument, not merely engage in name calling.
It is worrying enough that Mr Barker, who has been chosen to "put together ideas for the Conservative Party election manifesto", is a victim of the delusion that the election will be won on the middle ground. He goes on to grumble that there seems to be something wrong about the "whole balance of power between ministers and civil servants" with "so many decisions and appointments being taken by the civil service and faceless unaccountable committees."
That may well be so, but there is no need to await the 2015 manifesto to put it right. I never had any problems with officials going their own way when I was a minister. All a minister has to do is to set out quite clearly what he wants done and how it should be done, and his officials will get on and do it. The problem is not that the civil servants do not obey instructions, but that ministers are incapable of giving them clearly.
After all, who in Mr Barker's Department thought up that vote-losing nonsense of "The Green Deal"? Was it Mr Barker, or one of his officials? And who in the Treasury proposed changing the rules on charitable giving without thinking through its impact? Was that the responsibility of ministers, or officials?
I have some news for Mr Barker's committee. Elections are not won by sneering at one's own supporters' rational views on the EU. Nor are they won by rushing into policies without thinking them through and then blaming the civil service. Nor are they won by asking what minority groups such as homosexuals or "BMEs" think and telling them that you agree. I am not a Conservative because I am an elderly white heterosexual. I am a Conservative because I believe in Conservative principles. I think that homosexuals and "BMEs" support one party or another for the same reasons.
Elections are won by setting out the ideals of your party, stating how they would benefit the country and how they could be achieved, then persuading electors to support you. Good politics is about leadership, not following and buck-passing. No amount of modernising, minority-chasing or detoxifying will change those realities.
Posts
