For Cameron Unity Is Key

For Cameron Unity Is Key

This has been a tough week for Conservative party unity, after the funeral of Maggie Thatcher the party seemed so united.  Then came the local election and the party returned to the usual battle on Europe, there is a strong consensus within the party that we should have a referendum.  However some want it before the general election to stave off the UKIP threat while others don’t believe it is necessary until after the next election.  Then we had gay marriage in which the party was split and both sides were passionate about the issue, which makes the split even more damaging however I believe this rift will heal.  The most damaging thing to happen this weak was the Swivel eyed loons comment, but this highlights a greater communication problem between the grassroots of the party and the leadership.

Whatever your view on gay marriage you will probably agree it was not a shrewd political move by David Cameron to try to pass a law legalising it.  His thinking was that the bill would detoxify the party image and in theory, it would have however in practice backbench MP’s don’t always dance to the tune of the leadership.  Gay marriage was an issue which stirred passions amongst many Tory MP’s and has left the party looking intolerant, although the main opposition argument was not one of tolerance it was more about the definition of  marriage but the truth does not matter perception is what matters.  The most damaging thing to come out of the gay marriage debate for the Conservatives was it once again showed the divisions in the party between socially liberal modernisers and socially Conservatives.  This is only one rift in the party there are the Europhiles and Euro sceptics, there are One nation conservatives and Thatcherites.  It seems at the moment on any issue us Conservatives could scrap amongst ourselves, we fought over gay marriage, we are still fighting over Europe, we fight over how to deal with UKIP, we fought over what Osborne should have done with his last budget and we fight over David Cameron’s capability to lead the party.  Labour also has its infighting largely to do with their current policy vacuum but these have not been publicised of late.

To conclude the Conservative party is a broad coalition, it is a big tent party and that is why it can be such a political force.  However when the party is not properly managed it can wage war upon its self, Europe is the major flashpoint issue but as the gay marriage bill illustrated there are other serious dividing lines within the party.  If David Cameron intends to remain in number 10 after the 2015 election he has to steer the party away from these flashpoint issues, the party needs to be united come 2015.  There are issues which he can stick to, although there are differences of opinion on how to manage the economy there is a broad consensus within the party we need to tackle the deficit.  He can also continue with other big projects like education reform, but if he intends to win in 2015 he needs to avoid infighting by choosing policy wisely.  He also needs to make sure no member of his inner circle mutters a bad word about the party members, and he would be wise to start looking at reforming the party structure to attract more members and so the leadership has clearer communications with the grass roots.   

Does the UK need the European Court of Human Rights?

Does the UK need the European Court of Human Rights?

Chris Grayling (Justice Secretary) and Theresa May (Home Secretary) have recently announced a Conservative manifesto pledge to leave the European court of human rights, (ECHR) but what would that actually mean for the UK?  The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU it is a court that was established by the European convention of human rights.  If an individual feels that the state is infringing one of their rights given to them in European convention on human rights, they can take the state to the ECHR.

I don’t think anyone would argue against human rights being a good thing however the ECHR is often vilified in the right wing press.  For things such as Abu Hamza not be deported due to the ECHR, the court can make it difficult to deport asylum seekers and this is the court that wants to give prisoners the vote.  However, this does not negate the fact that the ECHR is a great protector of human rights across Europe.  It is also worth noting that in all the cases against the UK government the court has only ruled against the government in 2% of cases, however these cases do usually get reported leaving many angry at the court.

Despite claims from the left, you would not lose all your human rights if we were to leave the ECHR look at countries such as America and Australia their citizens are not being abused by the state.  It is true that the ECHR would no longer protect our rights, but either the human rights Act or if David Cameron gets his way a British bill of rights would protect our rights.  It would be our courts however rather than the ECHR which would make ruling on what is and what is not an infringement of our human rights based on the human rights Act or a bill of rights.  There is an argument that a government could get rid of the Human rights Act or a bill of rights however due to the fact that would be extremely unpopular and due to the fact the UK is proud of its record of standing up for human rights it would be unlikely to happen.  So to conclude although I believe that the ECHR is a fantastic institution and a staunch protector of human rights I do not believe our rights would be at risk if we left due to our own track record on human rights and our own courts independence and commitment to upholding human rights.