Point taken about John Smith. perhaps dead politicians would not have to have faced up to what live politiians have had to,

It is an interesting question though. Would John Smith have taken us into Iraq?

But the tragedy was that it also seemed to take his death to do that, outside of Labour party and political circles. I think it was a moment that offered a powerful challenge to the ‘folk memory’ caricature of Labour politics (the winter of discontent et al) which had still proved powerful in the party’s defeat in 1992.

Don’t agree with that

Smith was capable, I think, on his own grounds to have suceeded. Perhaps we should leave it at that:?

Also, from talking to politics students (not especially libertarian) from a number of European countries recently, I find that they consider Britain’s membership to be rather essential to the EU’s existence in that its form would be radically altered, and diminished, if we leave. That means we may hold some sway in reforming it if we keep up the pressure (and they really don’t want to lose us). Alternatively, if we really did leave, we may find ourselves in more open territory before too long.

PS
I think John Smth and Gordon Brown are precisely similar , both Scot socialists , whose collectivist tax spend and control instincts are feared .If he did sneak in next May the hate starts day 1 .Blair had a period of good will .

Yup, good point.

It was the combination of things like his Chicago speech outlining his interventionist ‘doctrine’ and the backtracking on student fees. I simply found it impossible to believe a word he said anymore.

However that’s all history now.

Chris Patten seemed to be chastened by the end of his political ambitions, but he still seems susceptible to them. Clarke on the other hand is more formidable, so he represents a threat to Cameron’s leadership. For different reasons I think Cameron should attempt to utilise their abilities to his advantage, but he would be better advised to keep their influence marginal. Major’s cabinet disembled because it couldn’t get the mix right, and I would say that this amounts to a disqualification for those ministers prominent within it.

Experience doesn’t equate to expertise: neither alone is reliable in a crisis, and insufficient levels of either can be seriously harmful.

So if we are to criticise Cameron’s team there is also plenty of cause to criticise Brown’s cabinet – I mean, Smith, Darling, Miliband, Balls, Hoon and Purnell are all pygmies!

Thanks. I agree – to a large extent – about the dangers of managerialism. One irony arising from your point is that John Smith was, until his death, usually attacked (unfairly) for being too cautious and too managerial – the politician as bank manager.

I don’t think John Smith did transcend party politics. The politician who transcended party politics was Tony Blair, especially 1994-97 or 1994-2001. That had an enormously broad appeal, and a certain lack of rootedness. Smith embodied the decent, moderate right of the Labour right (the ‘Old Right), motivated by values of public service and fairness, and a canny political operator in those causes.

I was at university when he died. I remember watching the news and tributes as they developed on TV, and buying all of the papers the next day. And what struck me at the time was how much of a reaction and a connection to John Smith there seemed to be when people engaged with his life story, his values, the response particularly in Scotland and across parties at Westminster. But the tragedy was that it also seemed to take his death to do that, outside of Labour party and political circles. I think it was a moment that offered a powerful challenge to the ‘folk memory’ caricature of Labour politics (the winter of discontent et al) which had still proved powerful in the party’s defeat in 1992.

The Labour politician who resembles John Smith (in several ways at least) is Gordon Brown, who has similar values and sometimes a similar difficulty in getting them across

So I am sceptical of attempts – whoever it is, and however much respect I have for them – to present the lost leader as the solution to escape all of the political tensions and choices we face. I think its a natural, and slightly anti-political, instinct. Good leadership and integrity do matter. Once politicians are no longer actively contesting key debates then we tend to get a more rounded picture of them: I think this applies (among many others) to Roy Jenkins as man of letters, Tony Benn as revered elder statesman and others on the Campaign Group left, and to some extent in different ways to Neil Kinnock, Roy Hattersley after electoral defeat, perhaps William Hague and IDS too.

The real answer to managerialism in politics is to realise that making a clearer pitch on values enables disagreement on substance, as it is then no longer necessary to impugn their integrity. Meg Russell argued that at length in a very good Fabian pamphlet ‘Must Politics Disappoint?’ published before the 2005 election. There is an extract which captures some of the argument here
http://fabians.org.uk/publications/extracts/commentary-politics-in-a-cold-climate

And whlle I think Ken Clarke is decent, and widely respected, I don’t think he transcends party politics either. He was a mainstream moderate Tory who was a participant in Thatcherite, but was probably more comfortable with the tonality of John Major. I agree he is widely respected and think he is deservedly so, even though some issues – notably the tobacco consultancy – do chip the image a bit.

I’d probably vote for Ken Clarke, if he were to stand in my constituency. He reminds me of the great politicians of the immediate past, like John Smith who seemed able to transcend party politics. It is a genuine tragedy that Smith was the leader you never had.

The Labour Party has slipped into managerialism ever since.

I call it as wrong. What say you?

Ta.

Your line about herding cats is trademarked about atheists though.

By me.

And your backatcha was quite funny.

The Trouble with Tribbles was an unforgettable episode of Star Trek. Jesus, it was 1967!

I am old old old. But so are you!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5337744.ece

Portillo writes:

“Brown’s decision to bring back Mandelson reminds us that the Conservatives have left many of their strongest players out of their team. Kenneth Clarke, former chancellor of the exchequer, remains in the House of Commons. He has what his party’s front bench apparently lacks: “bottom”, that combination of independent-mindedness, experience and gravitas that makes people listen and trust.

There is no doubt that if he became shadow chancellor the Tories’ credibility would soar. His return to the team would wipe the smirks from Labour faces as surely as Mandelson’s reenlistment shook the Conservatives a few weeks ago. Labour could then hardly taunt the Tories as Etonian toffs, for nobody looks less Bullingdon club than Clarke.

Certainly, Cameron ought not to fear taking such a giant under his wing. The idea that being surrounded by tall poppies makes you seem smaller is the opposite of the truth. If Barack Obama is big enough to take in Hillary Clinton, why cannot Cameron reel in Clarke?

The reason is Europe”.

Good one ( I wish it was true .., more like herding cats ) ,

I` have no backatcha villain for Lib Con artists .After the Tribbles they probably felt they couldn’t do a lot more with comic infestations

Why not?

Switzerland seems to have a similar arrangement.

The origins of this disagreement are a commitment to laissez fair trade and conservative foreign policy set against being the Party of the Nation. The argument has been resolved not only in the Party but in the country as the global economy has revealed the EU to be protectionist. Its catastrophic ( £5000 per home ) cost , its illegitimacy anti democratic nature and increasingly socialist bent has further alienated all but a very few Conservatives and the British . Perhaps more importantly at its inception the Constituency Parties were often run by people who had actually fought in the last war where only a strong nation could we stand against the Euro stateless and preserve of freedom . To give away the nations birthright was to such people a viscerally felt wrong which , of course , a Sunder or a Hundall , would laugh at …ha ha . The argument now is whether ,as John B appears to suggest we dare regain the democratic rule of our own country and risk the pathetically unlikely event of the Germans abandoning their largest export market on the say so a a few piffling bureaucrats who themselves are a parasitic waste of time .Tough one

I somehow doubt ( which is to say I find the suggestion fatuously ignorant ) it but at al events there are many markets and many people to supply such items in their stead . What a Sunder and a Hundall will not grasp is that all Conservatives act in the best interests of this country first and foremost.. There never was an internationalist dream to submerge this nation only a tactic to enrich it Now the Labour Party have lied as have the Liberals and are quite obviously conspiring to thwart the clear wishes of the people.
If I were them I would be keeping very quiet about plotting with socialist foreign allies to impose unwanted restrictions on a people who detest their arrogance and suspect outright betrayal. Chris Patten would be welcome to assist Ken Clarke certainly will which knocks this hopeful little wish into a cocked hat .

Fun , miles off target but definitely a vastly better article than most on this site . Enjoyable to disagree with

The resulting creatures are a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse (as all of their emotions were removed except hate).

They are probably the sort of folk that signed the Euston Manifesto.

It has always struck me that Tories are the Borg. But without their cultural diversity.