Q. Why don't you support the Tories?
A. Two reasons. First, they are the Labour Party with one lung, having adopted most of Labour's policies on crime, education, tax, immigration and defence over the past 50 years. Those who doubt this must surely have been given pause for thought by the recent announcements of the Teenage Toffs who now run the party, on taxation (no change), the public sector (a good thing) and education (no grammar schools). Secondly, they are now so weak and decrepit that they are very unlikely to win a general election ever again. The polls are actually showing a very large defection from Labour, much of which will return when Anthony Blair is gone and the anger caused by the Iraq war has been soothed, and an astonishing number of people saying they do not intend to vote at all. The Tories remain pitifully weak in the North of England. Labour might well lose its majority in the next election, but a Tory victory is on the far side of unlikely. They are Labour's dream opposition. As long as they are Labour's main opponent, Labour can feel safe.
Q. But surely your attitude helps Labour stay in power?
A. Absolutely not. Have you noticed how the Tories barely fought the 1997 election and seemed glad to lose it? How they made the feeblest efforts in 2001 and 2005? If you want to accuse anyone of helping Labour in power, direct your attention elsewhere. The Tories, who are supposed to be our weapon against Labour, won't fight or can't fight. It's the people who keep the Useless Tories alive, by still voting for them, who keep Labour in power. I long to see Labour thrown out. In 1999, Andrew Marr, no less, called my book 'The Abolition of Britain', "The most sustained, internally logical and powerful attack on Tony Blair and all his works". I have been, from the start, an opponent and critic of Mr Blair, even when other Conservative commentators (they know who they are) were expressing admiration for him. I warned that New Labour was a menace to liberty and to the constitution long before almost any other commentator. Labour loathe me so much, and have done so for so long, that they sought to exclude me from the press conference at which they launched their 1997 manifesto, closing the doors in my face and claiming the room was 'full' when it manifestly wasn't. Their sustained attempts to prevent me from even questioning Mr Blair at this and other election campaigns are a matter of record. No partisan journalist (which I freely admit to being) has been more dedicated to the defeat and removal of New Labour. And I think you will find that, if you ask them, they will agree.
It is precisely because of this that, after long thought, I now call for the replacement of the Tories. They have failed three times to beat New Labour, mainly because they have no special urge to get rid of a government they broadly approve of, and they also clearly haven't a clue how to do it. This is mainly because they don't really disagree with Labour about anything important any more, and also because a lot of people just can't stand the sight of them. The central philosophy of the Tories is 'office at any price', which is why they so often end up in office, but not in power. They are hopelessly divided about almost everything important, and dare not risk any bold conservative moves in case they split. The most likely result of the next election is a Lib-Lab coalition. Do we really want to waste another four years after that, watching the Tories fail yet again? Labour's one serious electoral defeat since 1997 was in the North-East, its own heartland, when a non-Tory coalition campaigned against John Prescott's plans for a regional assembly. The plan was thrown into the sea. If the Tories had led the campaign against Prescott, Prescott would have won. I think this shows that a new coalition of voters, patriotic, anti-EU, determined to return to the punishment of criminals and to strict border controls, could be created from people currently abandoned by both Tory and Labour parties. It also shows that the Tory label, especially in the North of England, is a disaster. It is no good the Tories pretending not to be the Tories. They are disliked in the North because of their actual record. It would take a generation to overcome this, always assuming the Tories survived long enough to do so.
Q. Why don't you start a new party?
A. First, I'm not a multi-billionaire with money to burn, so I can no more 'start a party' than anyone else. Second, and more important, new parties in this country have only ever succeeded by taking over from failing old parties. If we're to have a proper pro-British party, the Tory Party must be seen to be finished first. All attempts to start one before this happens will fail, as Veritas and UKIP have failed. It is easy enough to set up something called a party, with a head office, a nice name, a manifesto and the rest. But it has no real existence unless it has a large block of seats at Westminster. The only real way of achieving this is to get MPs to defect in substantial numbers from existing parties, which have split or are falling apart. Without that essential Parliamentary muscle, 'new parties' will not get broadcasting time, and they will fall victim to the faction-fighting that always overcomes small organisations where the egos are big and the stakes are small. As can be seen.
Q. It's no use voting 'None of the Above'. It won't change anything.
A. How do you know? It has never been tried. If enough people do it, it could start a landslide that could end in the real reform of this misgoverned country. Has anything else worked since 1997? The truth is that the millions of people who loathe this government have no positive voice. If the Tories win the next election (most unlikely) or improve their current dire position so much that people believe they can recover (possible) then the chances of them ever gaining a positive voice will be much reduced. The left-liberal consensus will control all three major parties, and the possibility of a new alignment in British politics will be gone, probably for good. So the accusation "It won't change anything" would be much better directed against those who insist on continuing to vote for the Tories. It is now clear from Mr Cameron's public statements and actions what sort of party they are. In fact, in the last few weeks he has done a lot to confirm my long-held view of the Tories, to people who might have doubted it until now. Last weekend he even won the approval of Geoff Mulgan, one of Anthony Blair's (and Gordon Brown's) advisers and not in any way a conservative. If they came to office, what would change? They can't even extricate themselves from the pro-Superstate European People's Party. It is unimaginable that they would seek to leave the EU - the only way to end the EU's theft of power from the British Parliament and courts. Schools would stay comprehensive (except for Eton), immigration would stay uncontrolled, crime uncurbed, tax would stay high, public sector spending too. Political Correctness (see Mr Cameron's 'A' list of preferred candidates) would rule.
Q. Why don't you stand for Parliament yourself?
A. I’d love to, but it's an illusion to think you can just stand. Entry into Parliament is controlled by the major parties, not by the voters. The parties pick the candidates from pre-selected lists in closed meetings. We then obediently vote for them, even if they are Alsatians, or nearly Alsatians. We oughtn't to, but we do. In fact, it's the very people who say "If you put up an Alsatian round here with a red/blue rosette, it would win" who then go out and vote for the Alsatian? Except on very rare occasions, such as the Martin Bell episode where opposition parties stood down in his favour, a non-party candidate will get nowhere. And while I suspect my views are held by a fair number of voters, I am quite certain that none of the major parties would let me stand in a winnable seat, and equally certain that I wouldn't want to stand in their name. So I can't stand for Parliament until the existing party system is reformed - by us, voting 'None of the Above'.
Q. Is it true you are a distant admirer of Tony Blair?
A. I have included this question because a contributor to this site accused me of this last week. It just goes to show how people can get the wrong end of the stick. If I could be propelled 93 million miles away from Mr Blair, I would still not be able to admire him. I have nothing but contempt for his government, and believe him to be an empty person without any real opinions or principles. I should have thought that in the last ten years or so, during which I have written many thousands of words abusing, mocking, attacking and generally not being very nice to this man, that this message at least would have got through to everyone. But not, sadly, to all. A useful lesson.
Q.You are often rude about Margaret Thatcher. Surely she was a great Prime Minister?
A. I just don't accept this. Mrs Thatcher, towards the end of her time in office, had realised that the vital, overarching issue in British politics is the European Union. After all, if you don't have national independence, you can't run the country, any more than you can drive a car when someone else has his hands on the steering wheel. Her Bruges speech, and her famous "No! No! No!" outburst against European Union rule are greatly to her credit. They go some way to offsetting her keen support for the Common Market in the 1975 referendum, and her acceptance of the 'Single European Act' with its grave loss of British sovereignty. These public rebellions against the Europhile Tory mainstream also led to the plot to overthrow her, masterminded by the same shadowy Tory Mafia which is now firmly back in control of the Tory Party. She also deserves credit for standing up to the Warsaw Pact and for breaking the power of the unions, though as we now know both these foes were near to collapse anyway, and the Left had other plans for exerting its power in the free countries of the world.
But she failed to fight the Left on the equally important battlefields of education, the family, morality and culture, a terrible waste of a unique and unrepeatable opportunity. She spectacularly failed to reform the BBC in a way that would benefit the country. And she had a thoroughly unconservative contempt for institutions and traditions. She was also far too presidential, and some of her actions opened the way for Labour's much greater attack on the constitution. Her economic policies were far from perfect, and did much unintended damage to British manufacturing industry. And she allowed herself to be browbeaten into joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism, a surrender that did not save her.
The point of our nuclear bombs was this. That the knowledge that they even might be used neutralised the effect of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, now forgotten, but probably the biggest assembly of military force in human history. America's bombs were a less reliable guarantee. Would the USA really have sacrificed Chicago, Boston or Miami for the sake of Frankfurt or Munich? It is hard to say.
