Comments on: A response to Peter Hitchens

By: barry kingsley

barry kingsley — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:54:11 +0000

Dear Mike, Back in this blog archives are a number of suggestions for possible future presidents. Most were serious ,but a few rather” tongue in cheek “, or even a bit facetious ,if not humorous,( “Legs” Lumley ,for example. ). The “Simon Cowell ” example shows us the type of person that we could do without, I think. Celebrityism is a modern media fuelled social disease that” clogs up the works”. All too often today ,celebrities are able to publish books,for example, and open doors ,poke their noses into all sorts of things which they are not just talented for. Being able to sing songs or take the p**** out of people on talent shows etc, is no criterion for political leadership.

By: Liam Finn

Liam Finn — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:01:20 +0000

Have we actually contacted Hitchens directly over this?

By: mike barnes

mike barnes — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:59:44 +0000

You say that their are many able candidates for the position of head of state. But then fail to mention a single one. That in my mind is the seconded biggest problem you have Public opinion as to who this worthy or worthies might be. My choice would be my choice.
The most important problem in your senario is how would real worthies rise up to the public attention . Would it be a Simon Cowell type hype Presidential factor.
My guess is that your choice would be even more unsuitable than mine Nick Griffin. You see the problem surely.

By: Ash Walsh

Ash Walsh — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:44:35 +0000

The word Conservatism derives from latin, meaning protect or preserve.
In order for Conservatism to work, thought is required to decide what is worth preserving and what we should do away with.

Like rotting wood, deciding to Conserve for Conservatism sake will make everything else rot.
That’s why we could do with more thoughtful Conservatives.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:40:02 +0000

At the core of conservatism is the belief in heirarchy, deference to established authority and the preservation of traditions and institutions for the purpose of stabilty and continuity. This is totally at odds with Republicanism.

What an extraordinary claim. Have you tried that one on US conservatives? I think they may disagree.

What you’re talking about is feudalism and servility, not really a political tradition, more a state of mind.

By: Matt Showering

Matt Showering — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:41:45 +0000

Lewis, where do I even begin?

At the core of conservatism is the belief in hierarchy, deference to established authority and the preservation of traditions and institutions for the purpose of stabilty and continuity. This is totally at odds with republicanism.

The face of conservatism may have changed over the years, but at its heart has always been the belief in individual enterprise. How can you possibly square that with a system which gives government absolute power and makes it completely unaccountable? What’s more, a republic based on popular sovereignty will arguably strengthen many of our traditional institutions: not only Parliament, but the judiciary, the police and the armed forces, to name but a few. More on this later.

The Conservative Party is no longer a truly conservative party; it is a liberal party with a liberal leader, and as such I will not be voting Tory at the next general election.

Vote UKIP if you must, and listen to Gordon Brown squealing with delight.

I am also in the Bristol North-West constituency…

What makes you think I’m in that constituency?

However I can not vote for a pro-european, anti-grammar school, pro-multiculturalist, pro-foreign wars of liberation – in which we have no place, anti-marriage, anti-law and order, pro-big state left winger.

WHAT?! Cameron – pro-multiculturalist, anti-marriage, anti-law-and-order and pro-big-state?! Like, what planet are you on LMAO?!

How can you possibly be still considering to vote for him after the Libson Treaty debacle? He could have offered us an ‘in or out’ referendum. But he didn’t. Why?

Because to unilaterally withdraw from the EU would be a very bad move indeed. But I have faith in Cameron’s ability to re-negotiate our relationship with Brussels, thus laying the ground for the sovereign people of the United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland to force a smoother withdrawal years from now.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:11:49 +0000

Mathew Showering you are not a real conservative. At the core of conservatism is the belief in heirarchy, deference to established authority and the preservation of traditions and institutions for the purpose of stabilty and continuity. This is totally at odds with Republicanism.

The conserative party is no longer a truly conservative party; it is a liberal party with a liberal leader, and as such I will not be voting Tory at the next general election. I am also in the Bristol North constituency and I know it is a very tight marginal seat – one that Cameron must win in order to win the election. However I can not vote for a pro-european, anti-grammar school, pro-multiculturalist, pro-foregin wars of liberation – of which we have no place, anti-marriage, anti-law and order, pro-big state left winger. He is the self confessed “heir to blair”. Honestly, what difference is there between Cameron and Brown? There is no real choice in politics in this country anymore. You can choose one liberal or the other, the only differnce between them being one is prettier and more media savvy than the other. It’s about style not substance, that is the only reason Cameron is ahead in the polls. How can you possibly be still considering to vote for him after the Libson Treaty debacle? He could of offered us an ‘in or out’ referendum. But he didn’t. Why? Because He knows will vote ‘no’ and he doesn’t want that for one minitue because he is as pro-european as any other left wing politican.

All the Best

Lewis