CentreRight

Much will be written today, and in the coming days, about the period of office that began 30 years ago today.  Some from those who worked with Margaret Thatcher, served in her Governments, or in the case of some newspaper commentators from people who were members of the Labour Party or the SDP when Margaret Thatcher began her spell in Number Ten.

I count myself as being very fortunate to know Lady Thatcher well. A few years ago I was sitting next to her at dinner and a fellow guest asked her, "How do you know Conor?" She replied, "Oh, we´ve been friends for years!¨ To know her is an honour.

I thought I might just reflect on two of her qualities that remain as true today as they ever were: her modesty and her authenticity.

One of the things about Margaret Thatcher is that she did not really care much about the trappings of power. Yes she loved Chequers and still becomes animated when talking about her time there.  But she is as likely to reflect on the opportunity it gave her to study vast reports and convene seminar groups on long term policy with experts and advisers as she is to talk about the beautiful gardens or the Great Hall.  For her, office was a means of doing something not being someone. 

There are certain moments in life that stay with you forever. Two of the most obvious must be the day we get our A-Level results and then the day you walk into the building to see what degree you and your friends have achieved on the speadsheet pinned to the wall. (Although perhaps its done by email now.)  I well remember the sensation I felt walking into the Headmaster's office to collect my results that allowed me to take up my place at my first choice University.  My delight was shared by the Brothers and the lay-staff of the school.  Then there was the pride of my parents, my brothers, Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins not to mention family friends. In short there are a lot of people all over Britain who are celebrating the success of young people they know tonight. And that is also true every year.

There is something else that has always happened on results day and that started about 8 years ago.  That is the tradition of a shadow Education Minister popping up to tell is that the increased number of passes and the higher proportion of students getting top marks was because under Labour the exams were getting easier. I well remember shouting at radios and TVs over the years that I was a candidate and wishing they would shut up. Not, I hasten to add, because their argument did not have some validity as the excellent piece by Martin Parsons demonstrates so well.  Martin's arguments should be made and should be debated.  And they should be made and debated by Shadow Ministers.  But not on the day of the results.

Mrs Jack Dromey (aka Ms Harriet Harman) has been stirring it up again. With the Government in a compete mess and the nation feeling the pinch after years of boom and borrow Hatty decides it's time to thrown a bone to the politically correct guardianista brigade.  So she wades in to inform us all that no decision has been taken as to whether to grant Lady Thatcher a State Funeral (Guardian article).

I have written previously on CentreRight about how disgusting it is for this debate to be going on while Lady Thatcher remains in good health and for the unreconstructed left to share with us the thoughts of their disordered and rather sick minds on the subject.  For Harman to wade into this debate is gut wrenching.

Let's be clear on two things, Hatty.  Number one, you assert that no decision has been taken on the subject.  Correct.  That would be because Lady Thatcher is alive and well (and in very good shape as the picture above demonstrates when we had a small Sunday lunch party last weekend at the home of mutual friends).  Secondly, she says no decision has been taken to grant what would be the final honour.  That would also be true. But Hatty should be aware that it will be sod all to do with her when the time comes.  Such decisions are made by the Monarch of the day on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day and as such will be nothing to do with Harperson.

Margaret Thatcher was a master of capturing and manipulating the news agenda to get her message over. Now heading to her 83rd birthday in the autumn the media interest remains undimmed.  In March she fainted over dinner and spent a night in hospital.  Sky and the BBC both broke from normal news to run lengthy bulletins from outside St Thomas' hospital.  The media are all primed for the day of the 'last' story on Lady Thatcher.

Fortunately, however, they appear to be in for a considerable wait.  Despite the persistent and exaggerated rumours of her frailty Margaret is in very good shape. The carefully edited footage of her (always arriving or leaving an event and invariably on stairs where she is looking down to secure her footing) is calculated to present a picture of a lady in poor health.  The reality is quite different.  Lady T keeps up a formidable schedule for someone in her ninth decade.  She undertakes many engagements, is always out and about for lunches and dinners with friends, is highly active in causes she supports (she recently personally signed over 2000 letters for Conservative Way Forward) and is a champion of the Royal Hospital Chelsea fund-raising appeal. Only last week I spent time with her and was very amused that she had followed the Prime Minister's 'larder lecture' and had very forthright views on what he had to say.  It is was vintage Thatcher and involved the famous finger point. So as she prepares to leave later this week for her annual summer break in the French Alps Lady Thatcher may be reflecting on her busy life but I suspect she is not reflecting on her funeral.

Lord Denning once gave the wise counsel that, "Two reasonable persons could perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their right to be regarded as reasonable." Some of the hotter heads in the debate on 42 days detention with out charge would do well to reflect on Lord Denning's words today.

However one of the most disgraceful things that has been implied is that somehow in opposition to 42 days and in support of existing liberty the Conservative Party is somehow soft on terrorism.  David Cameron made the point in PMQs that it was Conservative politicians who were the target of IRA terrorism.  And I can say that among the subjects that Lady Thatcher still talks about with gripping detail is the Brighton bomb and its aftermath. My own experience of terrorism is obviously more limited but I can say that when you are woken in the middle of the night, at the age of 5, by a knock on the door from a person in uniform and your parents are frantic with worry not knowing if it is THE Army or another 'Army' instructing you onto the cold Belfast streets due to a bomb scare the experience stays with you.

There is a rather silly unwillingness on the part of some to raise their voices in protest at the evil racist Robert Mugabe.  Some feel that Britain needs to be careful due to some sort of post-Colonial guilt complex. I think that is a warped view. Almost as silly as Blair apologising for the famine.  Each generation should be judged by their actions not those of their ancestors. Despite the craven attitude of his fellow African leaders demonstrated over the weekend it is clear that Mugabe is finished.  To rid the world of his vile regime may take days, weeks or even months. It may happen peacefully or, more likely, he will leave with even more African blood having been spilt.  But that he is going is beyond doubt.

So what next?  And what role can Britain play?  I thought one of the most constructive and positive comments I've heard on the subject came from William Hague on 'Any Questions' this weekend.

Margaret Thatcher spoke in one of her last conference speeches of her victory in 1979.   She said, "Some elections are not just part of history - they make history."

I was over at the University library yesterday doing some research and as I was walking back to my car I remembered being in exactly that spot 16 years ago to the day.  It was the 10th April 1992 and the morning after the general election. I had been up all night - first at the count and then later at a party. I was a first year undergraduate and it was the first election I had been fully involved in (although I did canvass in 87 as a boy).  It was a morning of mixed emotions.  We had failed to hold the Southampton seat of Chris Chope by some 500 votes but we had won the general election. That morning I bumped into one of the Labour students who is a friend to this day.  I had expected him to be despondent. Conversely he was very cheerful.  He informed me that in his judgement this was a disaster for the Conservatives.  Our majority would ebb away and Labour would win next time and be in for a generation.  This struck me as odd.

It has been going round in my head of the last 24 hours.  There are so many 'what ifs' in life.  What if Labour had won and Kinnock had to deal with the ERM disaster? Would the Conservatives have been back quickly?  Would Blair have happened?

Tomorrow Zimbabwe goes to the polls and the reports are already coming out of the country of the ruthless way the ruling ZPF party of the odious Robert Mugabe is using force, intimidation and food to secure the 50% he requires to avoid a run off by securing 50%+ in the first round.

The Central Intelligence Organisation (Mugabe's own Gestapo) is hard at work. The arguments about the ghastly nature of this evil, racist old man's regime have been well rehearsed.  After turning the nation until recently known as "the bread basket of Africa" into an agricultural desert through his disastrous "land reform programme" (ie stealing land from skilled and experienced farmers and giving it to your mates and party loyalists) Zimbabwe suffers from inflation of 1,000%+ and unemployment rates of 80%.

The BBC are reporting of the massive problems being experienced in Heathrow's new Terminal 5.  At a cost of £4.3 billion this was to be the best of British.  Yet this afternoon check-in at Terminal 5 has been suspended, there are big delays in baggage reclaim and one disabled passenger was even left on a plane for an hour and found when they got to the terminal that there was not a disabled ramp.  BA are putting it all down to lack of planning and training "staff familiarisation" problems. Makes you proud to be British!  It is a great shame that after the international positive coverage the opening and the engineering got the news around the world will be of something again not working in Britain.  One could almost start to feel sorry for Gordon Brown as nothing seems to go right at the moment.  Although, of course, its nothing to do with him I do wonder if we are approaching the same mood that allowed the late John Smith to taunt John Major's front bench with the words...

"No wonder we live in a country where the Grand National doesn't start on time and hotels fall into the sea!"

Hillary Clinton's key pitch in her campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination has been that she has "experience".  Other than her botched attempt at Medicare reform which almost derailed her husband's first term it is hard to know what this experience is.  In recent weeks we have had her preposterous contention that she was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The problem is no one else involved in the process remembers her having any role other than visiting with Bill.  Now she has been exposed as telling porkies about a visit she and her daughter made to Bosnia. She talks of her experience of coming under sniper fire and running over the runway to her car.  The problem is that it is totally untrue.  Television crews from CBS were with her during the trip 12 years ago.  They have a fantastic 2min segment on the story HERE.   It’s well worth watching. So either Ms Clinton has serious memory problems or she is a complete liar.  Either way not good characteristics for a potential President of the United States.

According to the BBC  'Conservatives'  have done very well in Iran's election. Turns out that by 'Conservative' they mean supporters of President AhMADinejad's regime and other supporters of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei who want Iran to take an ever harder line with the West over issues such as nuclear weapons power. So why describe them as 'Conservatives'?  Surely descriptions such as 'hardliners', 'reactionaries', revolutionaries', or 'Islamic fundamentalists' would better suit? Not for the BBC.

It often strikes me that the BBC use the word 'c(C)onservative' as an implied term of abuse.  When the Communists do well in Russian elections they are styled as 'conservatives', Castro's Marxist regime likewise, China's old guard are 'conservative forces.' I've even heard what the BBC calls 'the insurgency' (what most of us call terrorism) in Iraq being described as having a 'conservative leadership.' Very sloppy.  Very unfair.  And, probably, very deliberate.

I wrote yesterday about the distressing case of the young gay Iranian student, Mehdi Kazemi,  who was denied asylum despite the very real threat to his life from the vile Iranian regime should he sent back. Mehdi's 'crime' is that he is gay.  I am very pleased to see that after the extensive media coverage and pressure from various quarters the BBC are reporting that the Home Secretary is to personally review his case. The BBC report is HERE . I profoundly hope that Ms Smith will use her common sense and allow this young man to stay in the UK.  Whilst I have some sympathy with some of the comments yesterday about people coming here and claiming asylum this case appears to be very different.  Mehdi Kazemi did not come here to claim asylum. Rather he came here to study.  He only put in an asylum application when it emerged that, under torture, his former partner had named him to the authorities as being gay. There are much bigger questions to be addressed about the treatment of certain sections of society by countries like Iran. (I defy anyone to look at the picture I have included in this post and not find their blood rising to boiling point with profound anger). But those are for another time.  Today I am just hoping that this young man can continue his life in this country free from fear of execution.

Iran. Gay. Muslim. Asylum.  Four words which when put together can cause any politician, real or aspirant, to find themselves in big trouble.  So I choose my words very carefully.  I have been following the case of  19 year old  Iranian student  Mehdi Kazemi very carefully.  He came to Britain to study.  He is gay. He discovered while here that his former boyfriend had been arrested in Iran, charged and hanged for being gay. Somewhat odd really since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured students in Washington last year that there was no homosexuality in Iran! Fearing for his life should he return to Iran he has claimed asylum here in Britain.  He was turned down.  Having now failed in the Netherlands he is to be returned to Britain before being "removed" to Iran and almost certain torture and death for the "crime" of being gay. The Times has a good summary of the case HERE.

This, to me, is an open and shut case. Mehdi, who came here to learn, should be allowed to stay in Britain.  We cannot on the one hand claim to abhor the treatment of certain people by the Iranian regime and on the other send a young man to his certain death.  I hope that our leadership will speak up for this young man. Look at the picture.  Thats what we, if we don't let him stay, are condemning this young man to.

I was delighted to see that readers of ConservativeHome have voted Michael Fallon to be their Parliamentarian of the Year.  Fully deserved. Yet, and I say this as one who voted for Michael, it is in another way totally meaningless. Micheal Fallon has many talents.  He is diligence personified. He has a mastery of economic matters. He has experience. He is a skilled media performer. But he is in the wrong job.  Anyone who has watched Michael in action on the Treasury Select Committee, of which he is Deputy Chairman, knows we need Michael on the front bench. It is a mystery why he is not.

I've just been listening to Any Questions? on Radio 4.  Despite it being less enjoyable than when Jonathan Dimbleby is on holiday it was interesting.  It put a question back into my head.  Should Nick Clegg be watching his back?  Chris Huhne was one of the panel and it was put to him that Clegg had not approached this week's vote on a referendum on principle. He was reminded that Clegg had told the Today programme that the LibDem approach would depend on the arithmetic.  Huhne responded that Clegg had said this "before it was discussed." It was said in the rather patronising style that Chris Huhne has mastered to perfection.  Chris Huhne is ruthlessly ambitious.  Indeed a LibDem Councillor in Eastleigh told me in 2004 that Mr Huhne had told them that he would be the next leader after Kennedy - before he had even entered Parliament.  With the tight result of the leadership election between Clegg and Huhne I have no doubt that Chris Huhne still regards his leadership ambitions as very much 'in play'.  If I were Nick Clegg I'd be watching my back.

After so many people were released from their white coats to comment on my UKIP post yesterday I must be a glutton for punishment to return to the subject of Europe again today.  But I have just returned home to find my ballot papers for the rankings of  our MEP candidates in the South East. Firstly, and for the record, I despise this system.  I am against closed party lists.  I think it is totally wrong that the incumbent MEPs have been given a 'pass' to the top places.  Yet that is the system and so be it.

In the so-called 'South East Region' we have 4 MEPs that we can rank.  And we must vote for all 4. Fair enough I suppose although some may prefer to stop at 2, 3 or even just 1. Then on a separate list we have 6 candidates for the slots below the 4 MEPs.  Regardless of the ballot result the 5th place will go to a woman.  The accompanying letter assures us that this is for this election only. Each candidate is given 2 pages in a little booklet to tell us about themselves.  This is where I have a problem.

I have just done something I have never done before.  I have emailed my MP. At the last General Election he was my opponent in Eastleigh.  He beat me by 568 votes. Despite my long track record of Euro-scepticism dating back to my opposition of Maastricht at University, with my contemporary Dan Hannan, UKIP decided to field a candidate.  The UKIP candidate polled 1,669. I know from talking to many of them that they would otherwise have been Conservative voters.  They almost certainly secured the election of Chris Huhne to Parliament.  And tonight they may well see the consequences of their actions. At that election both Chris Huhne and myself, as well as the Labour candidate (all pictured), promised the people of Eastleigh that we would support a referendum of the Lisbon Treaty.  Tonight only one of us has the chance to honour that pledge we made in good faith.  I have reminded Chris of that promise and said that if I were Eastleigh's MP I would honour it tonight.  Chris Huhne should do the same.  If he fails to do so and Parliament fails to give the promised referendum UKIP will be partly to blame.

Is Margaret Hodge going for the award of the most patronising woman on the (Labour) front bench?  The title is up for grabs since the retirement of Hewitt.  With offerings like this Proms speech she will win.  So now the Proms should be more 'inclusive'. Why stop there?  We could complain that there is no Mozart at a Meat Loaf concert or no Elgar at an Elton John gig. Sometimes I wonder if the left are waging a war of attrition in the hope that the sensible right will just give up.  With nonsense like this from a member of the cabinet it is enough to make one want to.

I enjoyed last night's BBC 4 programme on Margaret Thatcher. Michael Portillo (on whose leadership campaign team I declare I served) showed again how the camera loves him.  He exploited the vast range of post-premiership footage to show glimpses of Margaret's theatrical best.  The Lady is the most flamboyant diva on the stage.  However I sensed at times that the programme played up to, and sought to reinforce, the stereotype that Lady T had become a parody of herself. There is so much that could have been explored about her role post 1990. (As an aside much was made about the need to see the Conservative Party 'change' and seeing Mellor on screen again must have reminded even the most dubious that this is right.)

One thing I'm disappointed Michael did not find time to make mention of was the role that Margaret played in 1993 in breaking the consensus of despair that was the West's foreign policy towards events in Bosnia.  Through interviews (including an extended one on the BCC news at 6 in the studio) and speeches in the States Margaret forced the West to confront the so-called ethnic cleansing that was going on against Muslims (worth repeating in the light of today's events....yes against Muslims) and intervene.

I have always found Claire short rather sanctimonious and annoying. Yet praise where it is due as this lunchtime she broke ranks from her MP colleagues and said what almost everyone is thinking.  see Tim's piece here.   When the establishment in the form of Brown and Clegg are rallying to Mr Speaker's aid Ms Short encapulsated the case against the Speaker.  Dismissing the familiar, and rather tedious, accusation that anyone who thinks the Speaker is hopeless is driven by class Ms Short told the Daily Politics, "He is not a very good Speaker." She went on, "He is a bit biased to Labour and has not got very much grace." Spot on. She also suggested he make it clear that he will not contest the next election. I'm sure her fellow MPs will now wheel in behind her. If wishing made it so.

Amid all the debate in the broadcast and print media about the Speaker of the House of Commons there is one thing that is very noticeable - the total lack of substantial criticism of the Speaker from Members of Parliament on all sides. Even the very annoying, but dogged, little Norman Baker could not bring himself to engage in any criticism when interviewed on the BBC last Wednesday. Yet no MP one speaks to in private has much good to say about Mr Martin.

Mr Martin, very evenly balanced with a chip on both shoulders, likes to deflect the criticism of him accusing his detractors of class motivation.  Well I was born on the Falls Road in Belfast (albeit because that is where the maternity unit in Belfast is) and I don't care about class, colour, or sexual orientation one jot.  But I do care about talent and ability and the truth is that Mr Martin has neither.  There have been fun moments over recent years watching his inability to command the House, his total reliance on the clerks in front of him and his Scottish Prescotian mangling of the English language.  But is has now ceased to be remotely funny.

Given the debate about whether there should be a review on the level of powers enjoyed by the devolved administration in Scotland one thing has been bugging me.  I had dinner with a cousin of mine and his parents last l week.  Their home is in St Andrews and my cousin is Scottish.  I was arguing against further changes in tax changing policy.  He was speaking powerfully in favour.  I've just been listening to the news on the BBC who speak of "new tax raising powers."  But that's not what the legislation said.  That speaks of tax variation powers.  In other words the tax rate could go up in Scotland versus the rest of the UK or, crucially, they could go down.  Why does everyone seem to assume that taxes always have to go up? So I reckon my cousin is right.  Give Scotland more power of variation on tax and let them show the economic benefits of lower rates of tax.

It is often unwise to write something when one is either angry or upset.  It is probably very unwise to write when one is feeling both. I am feeling both now.  I have just listened to two back to back interviews on the PM programme.  One by the Minister for the Armed Forces and then one with the father of the late Captain James Philippson.  I declare an interest.  I knew James.  Or rather Jim as his friends knew him.  We went to the same school and James was in the same year as my younger brother.  I got to know him when I was a prefect and he was a cheeky boisterous young lad.  He had boundless energy and a great sense of fun.  As he grew up he also developed a passion for the army.  Jim died in service to the country he loved and is buried in the beautiful grounds of St Albans Cathedral near the school which formed both our characters.  Jim was the first British death in Afghanistan.

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with Douglas Murray.  I declare two interests. One I am a Catholic. Secondly I believe the Church of England should be disestablished - for the sake of its own future. But that the  Church of England is the established church in this country makes what the Archbishop has done almost unforgivable.  Our legal system is based on Juedo-Christian values of mutual respect, tolerance, fairness and of equality before the law. It is that system law that protects all British citizens and gives them, regardless of faith and including Muslims, one of the most free and benign climates to live in. Its not even worth rehearsing the things that British Muslims can do in practise of their faith and its visual cultural expression that would be impossible in other 'free' countries like France or Turkey.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has given succour to those who believe that we in the West can be gradually ground down until we surrender our liberal values.  He has given our enemies encouragement and he has probably contributed to racial tension.  For that reason alone he should resign.

I am also totally bemused by his timing.  His comments came on the day that Christians were marking Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent.  A time when Christians reflect on the Passion and death of Jesus and the greatest feast of the church - the resurrection from the dead of Christ. That at this time the leader of the established Church is making speeches about the inevitability of sharia law into Britain is breathtaking.

Sadly Dr Williams has no credibility left.  For the sake of community relations, defence of liberal values, the Church of England and his own dignity he should go now.

I'm sure Dan Hannan will be absolutely gutted to be thrown out of the EPP (not). I never thought I'd say this but I suspect Dan will this evening be feeling like one of the chavs who has just seen his street cred soar by being awarded an ASBO. Wear it with pride Dan!