Boles is also in favour of a continuing coalition with the Libdems.

But that’s part of their problem, isn’t it? That if/when the coalition does do the non-ideological, detoxifying, concern for the ordinary people things, most of the time the Lib Dems are nicking the credit, and at the same time the incredibly ideological, toxic Tory MPs are acting up because of it, since they can then blame the Lib Dems for holding back incredibly clever (for which, read stupid) ideas that would never have a chance in a majority Tory administration.

Still, if he thinks it’s all that, he’s only got one option – defect to the Lib Dems.

But what we need now is to put away our favourite ideological hobby horses, ignore the political positioning of the other parties and dedicate ourselves to addressing the everyday ambitions of ordinary people – a steady job, childcare they can afford, a home of their own – and their most pressing concerns – rising fuel prices, excessive immigration, the care of elderly relatives. Only by showing that we really are “on the side of ordinary people” will we turn the Conservative Party back into a truly national party

That is weird because half those issues are their favourite ideological hobby horses. Home of their own? Thatcherism to its core. Excessive immigration? If you looked up favourite Tory hobby horse in the dictionary it would mention immigration. God knows steady jobs are a big feature of Conservatism.

The Tories would be better off encouraging women, and literally women but if that is too risque then one parent, to stay at home rather than child care.

@ SMFS

Fair point RE Tory hobby horses – but I suspect he’s talking about more “extreme” policies that certain Tories are always looking for an opportunity to push through. All parties have them. In the case of the Conservatives, you can probably find people calling for the abolition of the NHS, the introduction of a flat tax rate, compulsory national service… these are the harsher policies that can put voters off even when they agree with them, and they’re sensibly avoided when you’re a) trying to present yourself as a party of the people and b) not confident that you’ll win the next election.

…In other words, “let’s put aside our various pet issues and concentrate on providing a united face that can be accepted by the majority of voters”.

What Boles appears to be calling for is leadership, and no more.

“All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership” – J K Galbraith

Too many politicians, especially on the right, have convinced themselves that that major anxiety is their own pet hobbyhorse (EU, bin collections, raising the speed limit) rather than addressing the obvious.

To an extent, it suggests that the Coalition is hiding the existing divisions in the Tories. Boles is a known moderate. The right-wing are making very different noises.

I’d be happier to debate this if Mr Boles had indicated what sort of policies he is opposed to here – it seems a bit light on content.

Perhaps this is unsurprising, as it is the sort of short-term, unprincipalled nonsense that you read so often about how a party can get into/retain power – based on how the party is projected and perceived, and dependent on opinion poll findings. It nowhere sets out any particular principles, and seems to assume the point of politics is to retain power for its own sake – winning elections is like scoring goals in football, not actually something of any purpose.

I have problems that the leadership of most political parties think like this – the partial exception, Alex Salmond, at least has a clear principle to follw, which may explain his success (if you think about it, since 1983, the more clearly-principalled candidate has become PM – even if you do not agree with the ideology of Thatcher or Blair (and in 1992 it was the lack of Kinnock’s clear principles that seem to have been a problem – swing voters didn’t trust him enough). Politicians seem increasingly to be about careers and parties and less and less about principles and policies – but election results tend to reward those who favour the latter.

It is surely a mark not only of how extreme the Tory party has become in my lifetime, but also of how far the perceived ‘middle-ground’ of UK politics has also shifted to the far right that Thatcherism can be seen as ‘traditional Toryism’ without – seemingly – inviting derision.

Thatcher wasn’t really a Tory; she was a radical of the kind which have now dominated politics here and elsewhere for nearly two generations.

‘Traditional Toryism’ to me is not the froth-flecked neo-liberal extremism of Keith Joseph married with the sociopathy of the ex-FCS cadre. To me, ‘traditional Toryism’ is that typified by the governments of Macmillan and Heath who, for all their faults, did tend to try to govern for the benefit of society as a whole, and which can therefore be accorded far greater respect than their ideologically-extreme successors and the thoroughgoing revisionist version of history propagated by them.

In short, the sort of Tory party my grandfather (a coal miner) felt comfortable voting for.

The Judge,

In short, the sort of Tory party my grandfather (a coal miner) felt comfortable voting for.

Considering that there were Conservative MPs through the 80s in coal mining Derbyshire (and Nottinghamshire? I’m not sure of the pit area/MP divide round there) then clearly some coal miners felt comfortable voting for the radical Thatcherites.

But yesterday’s radicalism becomes today’s mainstream if it wins – after all, would compulsory eduction till 16 or the NHS be considered as radical solutions now?

Thing is, the Tories really don’t need to move to the right. For one thing, they’ve always been firmly right of centre, but added to that, they’ve actually moved rightwards in recent years. The Conservative Party we have today is a Thatcherite party blue in tooth and claw, implementing savage cuts. Yes, they could be more socially conservative, but from a Tory point of view the emphasis should be on stopping future change, rather than turning back the clock to Victorian times.

In all this, they’re quite different from Labour. New Labour cast aside basic Labour principles in ways that Tory leaders never have and in many ways took the party away from what it was meant to be (a voice for the trade union, socialist and co-operative movements). As New Labour, the Labour Party had some achievements, but it essentially lacked purpose or a reason for people to join.

This is why a shift to the left is sensible and indeed essential for Labour, but a shift to the right is unnecessary for the Conservatives.

@6 – Eh. It’s another indication that FPTP means “parties” are themselves coalitions, this is just another case of overlap…

@7. Watchman

I have problems with your argument. Apologies for slicing and dicing your post.

“It nowhere sets out any particular principles, and seems to assume the point of politics is to retain power for its own sake – winning elections is like scoring goals in football, not actually something of any purpose.”

“Politicians seem increasingly to be about careers and parties and less and less about principles and policies – but election results tend to reward those who favour the latter.”

Everything that is humane and civilised in our society was delivered by grumpy, contrary individuals. Gay rights, equal opportunities by gender or adopted gender, freedom of information — all from the awkward squad. Liberal Tories are always welcome onboard.

The social liberal argument has won (for now). Our queer black neighbours are our friends. But is the consensus of polite society enough? New Tory must squeeze out the homophobes and racists from the party.

So the tories are as divided as ever. Never mind there is always a cretin Lie Dem to come to your rescue.

@ 7:

“if you think about it, since 1983, the more clearly-principalled candidate has become PM – even if you do not agree with the ideology of Thatcher or Blair”

Thatcher I agree with, but since when has Blair been “clearly-principalled”?