Without principled convictions the Conservatives will continue to fail to attract voters
SIR – It is over a quarter of a century since a Conservative leader proclaimed with clear conviction the abiding principles of the party as freedom of the individual, free trade and strong law and order and defence. These conservative values are the best foundation for national success and prosperity.
David Cameron was obsessed with “modernising” the party, and Theresa May, although starting well when she became Prime Minister, wrote her own “Red Conservative” manifesto. It was a confusing message to voters.
Lack of conviction is at the heart of the Conservatives’ problem. If the party cannot make a case for its core principles, why should voters support it?
David Saunders
Sidmouth, Devon
SIR – George Freeman, the chairman of Conservative Policy Forum, is right that his party needs a “new vision” to win over the young voters seduced by Jeremy Corbyn’s radical idealism (Commentary, June 12). He should not underestimate the task.
As the great political philosopher
F A Hayek put it in The Intellectuals and Socialism (1949): “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.”
This vision could not be “a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty”. Achieving it required “intellectual leaders who are willing to work for an ideal” and “to stick to principles”.
Not bad advice for today. But are the Tories up for it?
Dr Eamonn Butler
Director, Adam Smith Institute London SW1
SIR – Nigel Evans, the joint secretary of the 1922 Committee, has demanded that we return to Cabinet government, with “collective responsibility and inclusivity”. Had this been how the pre-election government was run, the Conservatives would now have a comfortable majority in Parliament.
Tony Blair started “sofa government”, and David Cameron had his coterie of old Etonians. Theresa May resorted to anti-parliamentary rule through unelected “advisers” forming government policy.
Britain elects a government with a prime minister heading a Cabinet. We do not elect a president. Michael R Gordon
Bewdley, Worcestershire
SIR – At least one of the criticisms of Mrs May is irrational, though popular.
Decisions have to be based on the evidence available at the time – not, of course, in retrospect.
When Mrs May called the election, the evidence was overwhelming that the Conservatives would get a comfortable majority. Her decision was right; that it turned out disastrously proved nothing. She should not be criticised for that particular decision.
Stuart Wheeler
London SW1
SIR – Despite the moaning about a “disastrous” election result, one should perhaps recall that Angela Merkel, one of the most powerful politicians in the world, has never obtained an overall majority for her party in the German parliament.
Alan Hay
Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany
SIR – The BBC online news carried the headline on the French election: “Macron on course for big win”. Yet in a turnout of only 49 per cent, he secured less than 33 per cent of the vote, amounting to approval from 15 per cent of the electorate.
Dorian Wood
Castle Cary, Somerset SIR – Saying that the people have shown, by their votes in the General Election, that they want a “soft Brexit”, as Anna Soubry argues, is nonsense.
The people spoke in the referendum for Brexit. It was the incompetence of the Prime Minister’s campaign that led to the worst election turnaround ever. The British people want a full Brexit, so that an independent, competent UK government should be accountable to them.
Peter Booth
Altrincham, Cheshire
SIR – Theresa May should set up a cross-party commission to negotiate Brexit. This will give Britain a strong hand and a consensus for a good deal with the EU.
If Labour declines, it will be putting party politics before national interest.
SIR – Following Theresa May’s Downing Street speech on her appointment as Prime Minister last year, you published a letter from me saying that she had the potential to become a great holder of that office.
Since that time there has been absolutely nothing to confirm my initial observation. Instead, what I have seen is an untalented individual sorely lacking in intellect, communication skills and common sense, who appears to have been overwhelmed by a sense of her own importance.
I would suggest that now is an opportune time for Mrs May to step down from high office.
Christopher Devine
Salisbury, Wiltshire
SIR – The country now requires strong and stable leavership.
Steven Skelley
London SW6 SIR – Am I alone in thinking George Osborne’s behaviour disgusting in calling Mrs May a “dead woman walking”? He’s sore because she once sacked him. Thank goodness she did.
SIR – Theresa May must be pleased that Ruth Davidson’s influence is in the ascendancy in Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon’s is on the decline.
But Ms Davidson was an ardent Remainer. She tells us she wants immigration control to play no part of Brexit. That is easy for her to say, given that 93 per cent of immigrants to Britain come to England, with the other 7 per cent spread around Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Moreover, the photo-shoot of her new Westminster contingent (report, June 11) shows not one person from a non-white ethnic minority.
Edward Thomas
Eastbourne, East Sussex
SIR – A bigot is someone unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion or faction, and intolerant towards other people’s beliefs and practices.
Are not those who “hold their nose” at the thought of the Democratic Unionist Party keeping the Tories in power as bigoted in their opinions as they accuse the DUP of being?
The mathematics is clear. The Conservatives won an outright majority of Britain’s seats; the DUP won an outright majority of Northern Ireland’s seats. Taken together, that means the Conservatives and DUP won the election separately in their regions or together nationally.
I have never voted DUP, but am left wondering whether tolerance is any more of a reality in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland.
Jeremy Eves
Bangor, Co Down SIR – An objection has been raised to the Conservative partnership with the DUP on the grounds that this would compromise the Government’s “neutral” role in Northern Ireland.
The fact that most previous British governments refused any principled commitment to maintaining the integrity of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom has bedevilled the situation there and sustained Republican ambitions.
Throughout the Troubles, there was little effort to take on the IRA politically, either in England or America – the two key constituencies of public opinion. As a result, Republican apologists were able to present the issue as either one of civil rights or sectarianism.
Whereas the government of the Irish Republic in previous IRA campaigns moved quickly to arrest or intern IRA members simultaneously with action in Northern Ireland, from the Seventies onwards it tried to make political capital from the Troubles. We should recall the provocative sight of ambulances and “refugee” reception facilities set up by the Irish authorities just over the border in 1971. While there was good operational cooperation in certain quarters, it was not reflected publicly at political level.
The upshot of all this was that the law-abiding, loyal population of Northern Ireland – the great majority – had no government fighting their corner. The British government was “neutral” while the Nationalist element in Northern Ireland had the Irish Government on its side.
Surely there should be nothing surprising about a British government supporting people who wish to remain British.
Geoffrey Van Orden MEP (Con) Chelmsford, Essex
SIR – Labour members must be breathing a sigh of relief that they were not elected as the largest party and therefore obliged to form a government.
They promised the earth to everyone without a clue of how it should be paid for – and nearly came unstuck by getting voted in. Dr Roy Thurston
Droitwich, Worcestershire
SIR – Jeremy Corbyn should look at the figures from when the Labour Party last gained power at Westminster. In May 2005, Labour won 355 seats against the Conservatives’ 197.
This figure was achieved without offering bribes to gullible students, whose votes had such a strong influence in the recent election.
Some victory, Mr Corbyn.
SIR – Until a few short weeks ago, the bulk of the parliamentary Labour Party wanted to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn because they thought he was too extreme (he is) and would destroy our defence, balance of payments, economy, constitution, inward investment and whole country. They worried that he would turn the party into a hard-left anti-democratic Marxist administration.
Yet now that he has almost won a general election, they are suddenly huge supporters of him. Will these once-principled moderates be subsumed and converted by Momentum with the promise of power?
Will they fight for democracy? Or are they gutless wretches with no morality, scruples or shame?
SIR – Oh how I long for the days when the news was about Theresa May’s shoes and I had never heard of Jeremy Corbyn.
Dr John A Rees Stratford-upon-avon, Warwickshire