Tom Utley trashes Jonathan Aitken in the Telegraph.

Actually, not so random. This is mostly based on the party political broadcast (sort of political commercial) that the Conservatives put out last night. He actually talked about Tax Freedom Day. Yes, that's the idea first put out by those nutters at the Adam Smith Institute.

That takes balls. Frankly, since taking over as Conservative Party, Howard has played a blinder. He's sorting out policy, he's sorting out the organisation and he's even giving Tony Blair a run for his money in debate.

Politics is getting very interesting.

Peter Cuthbertson says:

The apparent elevation by acclamation of Michael Howard to the leadership of the Conservative Party is thought provoking to say the least. At present these thoughts (at least to me) are coming thick and fast but not necessarily in any particular order - so this post, and the ones that follow (if indeed they do) may seem a bit like a stream of conciousness.

Framing the question. The questions that matter are: will he win the next general election; if he does, will he be any good, and, if he doesn't, will he be any good for the Conservative Party?

Playing to the public. I find him grating. My mum thinks he's fantastic. This is probably good news (for him). I am amazed he's still around. I thought that he was finished after the Paxman interview (the one in which he was asked the same question 14 times). The thing that really struck me about that interview was how he allowed himself to be stitched up so easily. But the man's got staying power. Ken Clarke was elected to Parliament in 1970. It took Howard another 13 years and 40 rejections.

He's clean. Anyone who can be in high office through the Major years and not be caught up in a scandal ought to be a candidate for cannonization.

He's not particularly ideological. Which I think is bad news. For years I have felt that what the Conservative Party desperately needs is to define itself. What it is and what it isn't. Maybe I'm wrong.

Unity in the Conservative Party? Amazing.

The return of the Magic Circle. Up until the 1960s for as long as anyone could remember the leader of the Conservative Party was selected by "the Magic Circle" - an informal collection of high-ups who, through a process of late night chats and horse-trading eventually came up with a name. The wider party was very definitely not part of the process. For the last 40 years the Conservative Party has experimented with a variety of more democratic alternatives. Now it finally seems to have reverted to what it knows best.

Oh the irony. Hacks will remember how in 1997 Howard was on the verge of cutting a deal with William Hague in which he [Howard] would become leader. At the last minute Hague backed out and stood himself. If only it had been the other way round...

Brian was right. I'm pretty sure that Brian Micklethwait has said what he said on Samizdata before ie that once the Conservative Party sniffed Labour blood then they would unite and get themselves a decent leader.

The curious disappearance of the Tory left. In the 1990 leadership election all the candidates were from the left. Where are they in 2003? It is quite astonishing how the European issue has ceased to be devisive. I really thought that it would only ever be resolved by a bloodbath. What happened?

Don't trust statistics. In the Telegraph today, Howard is making much of the 18% reduction in crime which took place while he was Home Secretary. Unfortunately, he's missing the point. As with so many other things, crime is what you feel. I don't remember feeling that much safer in 1997 than I had in 1993. It's the feeling that counts.

From Tim Hames in the Times:

The real split in the Conservative party - the one that is really holding it back - is not the split on Europe or the split between libertarians and authoritarians or between traditionalists and modernisers. The real split is between those who believe it to be a machine for winning elections and those who believe it is a machine for propagating ideas.

It works like this:

They go down in the polls

So, fewer people want to join them

So, power is increasingly concentrated in the gerontocracy

So, they get ever more out of touch

So, they go down in the polls.

QED.

The implosion of the Tory party is worthy of The Office, where David Brent tries to appear competent and trendy and fails dismally at both. - The Telegraph

The kerfuffle over recent days about challenges to IDS's leadership makes me wonder what the Conservative Party's problem is.

I suspect it is paralysis. There are four directions they can go in:

Social Democratic with Ken Clarke
Liberal with Michael Portillo
Authoritarian with IDS (or at least that was the option)
Do nothing.

If they take one of the three "doing something" options they risk a definite split and probable electoral extinction. It is interesting to note that in the last leadership election each candidate got almost exactly the same number of votes.

If they do nothing they may also risk extinction but then again something might turn up.

I have noticed a certain sniffiness in libertarian circles over last week's Conservative Conference. As I was away, I missed the coverage so it's difficult to pass comment but my prejudice was that nothing much was going to happen. Indeed, I left the party earlier this year after I came to the conclusion that IDS's leadership was going nowhere.

But, this is not a universal opinion. Indeed, good friend Paul Gray of Connect (the man who first put me in the direction of libertarianism, no less) was very upbeat. Paul, a man who is as optimistic as I am pessimistic, thinks that this was the conference where the party turned the corner.

On a vast range of policy areas the party is turning in a more liberal/libertarian direction. He points to proposals to create a voucher scheme for schools, allowing people to opt out of the NHS and the decision to end the war on motorists. He accepts that it is early days and that the party has only made tentative steps in a liberal direction but he feels these are significant.

Also significant is the way that the media are starting to be less cool to Conservatives. This is in part, he feels, because of new policies and in part because the party has started to face up to the mistakes of the past.

He also feels that IDS's apparently tepid leadership style may in fact be an advantage. The presidential style of Blair is beginning to wane and voters may eventually warm to a quieter, more thoughtful approach.

As with all things time will tell. I am still very much a sceptic. My view is that you know a leader within the first 100 days and frankly, IDS was found wanting, but it is interesting that there are other views out there. We shall see.

From the Telegraph. For what it's worth, I gave up on IDS at the beginning of the year. I'll give a leader 100 days. After that you pretty much know what he's going to be like. The great shame is that he has never stood up and said what he really believes. Had he done so I think he would have done far better.

Alibhai-Brown ordered to pull herself together - Public Interest
Godzilla spotting - take the test - The Captain
Tebbit wrong - Dodgeblog
Greed is green - Conservative Commentary
Tebbit is Tories' Doctor Death - Samizdata
DVD region encoding to be abandoned? - The Captain
The co-ed disaster - The Edge
THIS IS NOT A MISPRINT. Scots win something - Freedom and Whisky
The case for war - Liberty Log
Abu Nidal dead - Oxblog
Joke of the Day: How many Tory activists does it take to change a light bulb? - Dodgeblog

The torrent of comment on a (not actually) possible breakaway Conservative Party has subsided but continues to threaten the integrity of some of the blogosphere's most treasured monuments.

Reacting to an anti-Rand rant in the Spectator, Tom Burroughes of Samizdata challenged the author to: "Give us some reasons why you think Miss Rand's brand of ethical egoism is wrong. After all, an egoist could justly claim that benevolence towards others is in fact often very 'selfish' since it still means doing something of value to the actor as well as the beneficiary."

Meanwhile and stifling a yawn, Paul Marks, also of Samizdata said: "I should be interested in this idea."

The story began when it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that lots of libertarian conservatives were thinking of setting up their own party. The rumour is that there aren't lots of them and they aren't libertarian.

Byers loses mojo - Public Interest
Now, it's Ayatollah Prodi - Samizdata
Mandrake takes parachute jump. Rearranges internal organs - Sgt Stryker
Why the Tories are losing - Freedom and Whisky
Women getting even more mysterious - Dodgeblog
Churchill overrated - Airstrip One

News that a few members of the Conservative Party are considering thinking about possibly setting up a new political party has sent shockwaves through the blogosphere. According to Peter Cuthbertson of Conservative Commentary, a "libertarian" party would be: "...a gift to Labour that would last a decade, retaining a failing, useless government in power unnecessarily." Peter Briffa of Public Interest said: "These goons are only 'libertarian' in the same sense that the Guardian is. i.e. Not at all." While Andrew Dodge of Dodgeblog felt that the whole thing was a hoax. He said:"The Portillo supporters seem to be trying to sucker the true libertarians by giving them a few carrots."

However, the not-yet-new party is not entirely without support. Arch libertarian, Paul Staines said in a post to the LAF (registration required): "Contemporary politics is boring, the mainstream spectrum is narrow. The fact that libertarian Tories are described as centre-left is a breakthrough - it means that we are no longer arguing about liberal economics, but civil liberties and the liberty of the individual."

He continured:"This is fertile territory to win over people who consider themselves left-of-centre. I can envisage a libertarian electoral coalition emerging over the next decade or so along those lines."

Ian Duncan Smith is the leader. Alan Duncan is the one who's gay.