Editor's Note: This article was first published as a Free Life Commentary and was sent out to the usual thousand subscribers and exposed on the usual newsgroups and distribution lists to perhaps another 20,000 people. It also found its way into The Times. In his article "Sceptic website sets out to topple Hague", published on the 28th February this year, Roland Watson quoted the "strategic" sentences in which I explain how we can take over the Conservative Party just as the Militants took over Labour in the early 1980s.

Mr Watson's article seems to have caused a wild panic in Central Office. This was communicated to a Conservative grouping - I am too polite to name it - that believed its pitifully small donation had given it a controlling interest in my Candidlist. At one point, I was "ordered" to take the List down. Of course, I treated this "order" with the contempt it deserved.

There are still many people who believe that Mr Watson had smehow attacked me and tried to damage the credibility of the Candidlist. I disagree. No article is ever published in a British newspaper but some interest groups wants it put there. But whatever agenda Mr Watson was serving, I do not see how it was hostile to me. The article was accurate in its quotations from me, and correct in its understanding of my motives - though I must say that he ges a little too far in ascribing these motives to the Libertarian Alliance as a whole. Beyond this, it gave me even more publicity, and attracted over 3,000 visitors in one day to the Candidlist Web Site.

I telephoned Mr Watson at The Times to thank him for the publicity and to compliment him on his accuracy, and I have awarded him a subscription to Free Life. I hope he enjoys it.

Because of its notoriety, I follow this article with three replies that take issue with my case.

First, there are the electoral mechanics. Labour won its big majority last time with just 45 percent of the vote, which is less than the Conservatives got in 1992. One reason was the electoral pact between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. A Conservative Party with 31 per cent of the vote had to face a reasonably united 62 per cent, and was horribly squeezed. But with Paddy Ashdown gone, this pact is dissolved, and the two "progressive" parties are back to hating each other more than they hate the Conservatives. This being so, the Conservatives do not need to pick up a single extra vote next time to cut the Labour majority to around 60.

Second, the Conservatives will pick up extra votes. Economic stability aside - and this is mostly the delayed effect of the Thatcher reforms - the past three years of Labour in government have been a disaster. The House of Lords has been destroyed with no regard for constitutional balance. Devolution has revealed Scottish and Welsh élites as corrupt and incompetent as any in Eastern Europe, and has encouraged a wave of anti-English hatred. Trial by Jury and other fundamental rights are being torn apart with reasons of cost given as an increasingly feeble excuse. The BBC, the Bench and the Civil Service have all been packed with friends of the Prime Minister, and are beginning to work as divisions of the Labour Party. We have been twice to war since 1997 - with Serbia and Iraq. In neither case was any British interest involved. Both wars involved the avoidable killing of civilians and were justified by a wall of lies. Our "ethical foreign policy" is a matter of sucking up to every mass murderer who might be inclined to buy some cattle prods from British Aerospace.

Then there is Europe. After years of indifference, the electors are coming to agree that this is the most important single issue in politics. And they suspect Labour of being on the wrong side. Mr Blair has dropped his earlier enthusiasm for the Euro, and has been firm so far against the withholding tax. Even so, the inter-governmental conference set for later this year will not be good for Labour. The proposals for closer integration will amount to a common European state, giving this country less self-government than California has. Labour may resist these proposals - indeed, it probably must resist them if it wants to avoid rioting in the streets. But this will mean abandoning its whole policy on Europe.

And so we have a Government that is widely seen as incompetent and tyrannical and at least passively hostile to the interests of English people. Though not yet likely, it is possible that the next election will go badly for Labour. Perhaps disillusioned Labour voters will stay at home, while Conservatives turn out in large numbers. Perhaps Europe will become important enough to produce defections from Labour on the same scale as in the 1980s. Perhaps the Conservatives will win a small majority in England while a nationalist push squeezes Labour in Scotland and Wales. Even as the Ministers are assuring us about a generation to come of unbroken Labour rule, the forces may be gathering that will throw them back into opposition before the spring of 2001. Some Labour supporters in the media have seen this and are alarmed. Anything is possible.

This being said, is it desirable? It is nice to see people like Hugo Young in his first serious panic since 1992. It is even nicer to imagine the removal vans in Downing Street. The problem is that it would mean having William Hague as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo as Chancellor, Ann Widdicombe as Home Secretary, and perhaps Francis Maude as Foreign Secretary. Is this something to be desired - even by the bitterest enemies of Tony Blair? I suggest that the answer is no. For anyone really concerned about national independence and personal freedom, the last thing needed is a Conservative government of the kind presently offered. Let me explain.

The Modern Conservative Party is built on deception. Its leaders have been experts at complaining about problems they do not intend to solve. Since the War, they have known just how much to complain, and just how little definitely to promise, to gather in the votes from their supporters. Invariably, they have said one thing in opposition and done entirely otherwise in government. In the 1970s, they warned about the dangers of "elective dictatorship", and began haltingly to speak the language of classical liberalism. Once back in office, they remodelled the Constitution, giving documents like Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights the same practical respect as the Italian Government might give the Twelve Tables or the Lex Regia. With the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht, they helped transform the European Union from a customs union into a federal state. It is difficult to recall a betrayal more complete.

They did not do this from principle. To speak of these people as having principles in the manner of Tony Benn or Enoch Powell would be ridiculous. They are in politics simply to advance their own benefit. Some are there for the bribes, some for the sex, some for the thrill of the red boxes and ministerial cars. Scarcely any are there because they are conscious of unusual talents and a desire to serve the public good. But neither have they been indiscriminately corrupt. They are guided in their pursuit of personal benefit by certain assumptions about the world; and by imposing a consistency on their behaviour, these supply the want of principle in the same way as a neck brace supplies the want of healthy bone and muscle.

The most important of these assumptions is that the nation state is an "outmoded" institution. Looking into the future, they do not see how a small island like ours can remain independent, let alone wealthy and powerful. Like the Tory Imperialists of a hundred years ago, whose intellectual descendants they are in a vague and degraded way, they believe that the future lies with big, multinational federations - with big government and big business. Their repeated talk of influence in the world, of seats "at the top table" and of "punching above our weight", all proceeds from this assumption. That is why the older Conservative leaders clung so grimly to the American alliance, putting up with endless humiliation. And that is why the present ones cannot imagine that there is a case for withdrawing from the European Union. They do not need to like what is happening in Brussels. They can sometimes feel very angry and hurt by what is done there - as John Major did repeatedly. But they cannot see any alternative to staying in.

From this follows their contempt for English ways. For them, the past is dead - save perhaps as a commodified "heritage" that shows as a plus on the balance of payments. It was Conservative Governments that destroyed the ancient county boundaries, and decimalised the currency and forced metrication on us with threats of fine and imprisonment, sneering at anyone who complained.

In the past, this deception was easily managed. There was an alternative party of government that was hostile to the European project. But voting Labour meant having the country run by more or less unendurable socialists who would destroy everything else worth saving. Indeed, when Labour was at its most anti-European, the main argument in English politics was not Europe, but taxes and privatisation and other economic matters. Enoch Powell may have been clear-sighted enough never to lose sight of the main issue, but most even of his supporters were willing to put up with a Conservative leadership that was quietly abolishing the country. Every so often, the leaders would move a little too fast. But the murmurings and even the odd explosion of outrage that resulted could generally be soothed by a few patriotic gestures, a few speeches larded with quotes from Edmund Burke, and a waving of the Union Flag. But during the past six years or so, this system of management has broken down. The reason is Europe.

On the one hand, the nature of the European project has become undeniable. It is no longer a question of helping create a single market, but of things like the Euro and Corpus Juris. Objections to these cannot be laughed at or lulled away with a few more refrains of Land of Hope and Glory. On the other hand, Tony Blair has broken the bond of fear between Conservative leaders and supporters. Though dreadful, Labour in government has not been immediately catastrophic. The Major and Hague leaderships have not been able to impose peace over Europe among their supporters by pointing to anything else of overriding importance.

Moreover, the leadership has been outclassed in its drift to European political union. The relevant big business and City interests, the federalists in the media and administration, and the foreign élites, no longer have to put up with the furtive, shuffling progress that was all a Conservative Government was able to offer. They now have a party unhampered by nationalist sentiment. The collapse of socialism has left the Labour leadership with few principles to fear among its supporters. Those principles that do remain powerful - multiculturalism and "anti-racism" - can be assimilated with little effort into support for the European project.

There are two conceivable positions the Conservative leadership could take on Europe. It could, like the UK Independence Party, campaign for withdrawal. Or it could, like the Liberal Democrats, accept Europe and compete with Labour to obtain the greatest alleged benefits at the greatest speed. Neither position is open. The latter would split the Party within half an hour. The former is unthinkable. As said, it is not only the bribes and applause of the Europhile interests that keeps the leadership committed to Europe. People like William Hague and Francis Maude do not believe in the viability of independence. Even if they decided to lie their heads off, they would sound as unhappy and hesitant as a committee of biologists hired to defend the creationist theory.

The resulting paralysis has given conservatives and libertarians our best opportunity in a generation to fight a clear and open battle for what we believe. The intellectual ferment of the 1970s was ultimately a failure, because it took place beside and within a Conservative Party always on the verge of power. The Freedom Association, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and most other of the dissenting organisations, were influenced where not controlled from Central Office. Too many of the personnel wanted seats in Parliament, or believed that, by being moderate, they could influence a Conservative Government. In consequence, the radicals in this movement were marginalised. I must have spent weeks of my life in the late 1970s talking about free markets with the same five people and with the same chipped coffee mug in my hand. Otherwise I was handing out badly duplicated leaflets at fringe meetings. Though I was too young at the time to be important, all the older people I admired were also unimportant. Once in government, of course, the Conservative leaders used us, tainted us with their betrayal, and then abandoned us.

It has been different in the 1990s. The Libertarian Alliance, the Countryside Alliance, the Democracy Movement, the Cybershooters and the Eurofaq distribution lists, and so forth, have emerged not as allies or dupes of the Conservative leadership, but as rivals to it. The UK Independence Party has even taken votes and seats away from it. The Internet has helped, by bringing together communities of activists that could never before have existed, and by making publication both cheap and easy. But the lack of interference from Central Office has been perhaps more important. On a whole range of issues, the Conservative Party is no longer seen as the opposition to Labour. Instead of calling on some Conservative MP, the media people are increasingly turning to people like me to put the case against Government policy.

We are setting the agenda of debate within the Conservative Party. We have not won the debates, but the leadership is impotent to stop us from saying and doing as we like. Give us another five years of this, and we can probably capture the Conservative Party more surely than the left captured the Labour Party in the 1980s. With initiatives like my Candidlist - among many others - we can root out the careerists and ensure that people of good principle are elected in their place. Our predecessors in the 1970s believed that they could influence the Conservative Party at the top. We may be able to rebuild it from the bottom up - to the point where the William Hagues and Francis Maudes can be replaced.

A Conservative recovery now would stop all this. If Labour really were to begin falling apart, William Hague would be the direct, immediate beneficiary. In office, he would make the easiest face-saving compromise with Brussels that he could - and short term compromise is always possible - and continue the same course of domestic betrayal and destruction that Tony Blair inherited from John Major. Whoever is in power, the next five years will be dreadful. By 2005, there will be surveillance cameras in all public and many private places. There will be identity cards required for all transactions. The police will be able to spy on people in their homes on the slightest suspicion. It will be possible for a man to be arrested and charged with offences that did not exist when we were children, and to be tried without a Jury on the basis of written evidence that he cannot efficiently call in question, but disproving which will be his duty if he wants to be acquitted. If the paid magistrates trying him should by some miracle acquit, his assets will all have been taken by some civil forfeiture process; and it will be possible to rearrest and retry him for the same offence as often as it takes the authorities to get a conviction before another magistrate. We then have the linked but separate malevolence of the race relations bureaucracies, the health fascists, the environmentalists, the general forces of political correctness, and any other special interest group that naturally has or can buy influence with the powers that be. These are the changes that Jack Straw and his friends are currently making or proposing - and that Ann Widdecombe and the other Conservative leaders are doing nothing substantial to oppose, because that is what they also want.

The difference is that these horrors at home and abroad are being opposed by a reasonably united conservative and libertarian movement. Replace Tony Blair with William Hague, and at once half the opposition would fall silent. Central Office would regain much of its old influence over the wider movement. The young careerists would find their reasons for not pushing on certain issues. The loyalists would again believe in keeping quiet and trusting the leaders. The radicals, who now set the agenda, would be forced back to the fringes. When I go nowadays into a radio studio with a senior Conservative MP, I know that I am going to win whatever argument we are likely to have. He is too demoralised - still too shocked from the collapse of 1997 - to have any effective response to me. Let these people back into office, and the old confidence will return. I can almost imagine one of these creatures, twitching in his pin stripe suit as he explains that he represents "the electable wing of the Conservative Party", and how if anyone had listened to people like me, the Party would still be in opposition. In short, we would lose.

Granting certain minimal assumptions, we really are better off with Labour. So long as the New Labour police state is largely a domestic affair, it can be reversed by domestic means given the right political will. There is reason to think that Labour will not take the final, irreversible steps to tyranny. These would be the adoption of the Euro, or Corpus Juris, or the adoption of proportional representation at Westminster. Either of these first two would lock us into Europe so tightly that only violence might get us out again. The last would ensure permanent rule by Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition. At the moment, these are looking increasingly improbable.

Proportional representation was popular within the Labour Party while it is out of government. Since 1997, its popularity has declined. There is the experience of it in the Scottish Parliament, where it has made devolution into a joke and helped sour relations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats throughout the United Kingdom. There is the experience of it in the European elections last year, when it showed an ability to dissolve traditional patterns of support - and not always to Labour advantage. There is also the fact that Labour is in power and should remain there for at least several years to come, and that this is draining energy from all schemes of reform that might raise a large and unpredictable opposition without bringing any tangible benefit to the Government.

As for closer European involvement, the growing opposition within the country to the Euro, and the growing fears within the City about tax harmonisation and hostile regulation, probably mean that the high point of Labour's enthusiasm for Europe has now passed, and that we are back to the furtive, shuffling progress of the Thatcher and Major Governments. The pro-European rhetoric will continue, but there will be no entry to the Euro.

Combine all this with the corruption and mediocrity of the Ministers, and the chance that the modish radicalism they carried over from their student union days is subsiding, and we have the beginnings of quiescence on constitutional change. There will be continued changes elsewhere, and - as said - these will be horrible. But they will not be fundamental enough to destroy us as a nation in the next five years. There may be a crisis at the inter-governmental crisis that blows all these assumptions apart. But I do not think this will happen. As said, there is always room for compromise in the short term on Europe.

I have already mentioned the Labour left of 20 years ago. Some of my friends were part of this, and they gave me a set of arguments very similar to the above. The leadership had to be defeated, they told me, to make way for real socialism. Every electoral defeat for Labour was also a defeat for the leadership and a step closer to the victory of the militants. I can only say that the difference lies in the credibility of our programmes. Their organisation tactics were a success, but what my Labour friends wanted to do next could not be achieved. They were defeated by reality; and the less principled among them are now running a set of policies more Thatcherite than Margaret Thatcher herself would once have dared propose. But national independence and personal freedom are things that can be achieved. Give us time to take over the Conservative Party, and we can win.

And so let us hope that the opinion polls are telling the truth about how people will vote. Perhaps they are. After all, William Hague is an astonishingly worthless leader. His problem with Europe is something he inherited and that would be faced by any other probable leader. But there are issues where he has had, and rejected, a greater freedom of action. Take last year's Serbian War. This was a blunder that sent Robin Cook into a nervous breakdown and accelerated the retreat of Mr Blair's hairline. The war was fought for no identifiable British interest, and in defiance of international law, and by means increasingly barbarous on our side. It was lost, in the sense that the Russians brokered a peace in exchange for a vast bribe and approval for their second Chechen War, and got Mr Milosevic better terms than had been offered before the bombing started. Since then, the NATO lies about genocide have been laid bare in almost every quality newspaper; and the only ethnic cleansing we have seen in Kossovo was of the Serbs by Albanian terrorists whom we had done much to arm.

Had Mr Hague denounced the war in March 1999, he might have suffered some immediate unpopularity. At best, however, he might have used the atrocities and final defeat to bring the Government down - one of those surprises that do sometimes happen to upset all the clever analyses. At worst, he would be now be seen as a man of principle, respected even by his enemies. As it was, he dithered and did nothing. Half his shadow cabinet wanted to support the war, half to oppose it. So he compromised, and supported the war in principle but criticised some of its details. Whatever the Government may have suffered because of its participation in the Serbian War, Mr Hague ensured that there was to be no gain for the Conservatives.

Yes, we are not now facing scoundrels as good as Robert Boothby and Quentin Hogg. We only need worry about a successor generation of political dwarves. It is not desirable that they should do well at the next election; and all things considered, it may be less likely that they will do well than the present state of the Government would normally allow.

To summarise the lengthy article by Dr. Gabb, the answer to the question that he posed above was no. The logic appeared to be that a Conservative government would push Britain down a European integrationalist path little different to Labour and that now was the time for people like himself to grab hold of the European agenda.

I think he is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, Labour is a federalist party whose progress towards integrating Britain into a European superstate is only held back fear of an electoral backlash. In practical terms that means that they are scared of a Tory revival on the back of a Eurosceptic agenda. This fear is well founded as William Hague has placed the Party on the right side of the argument on the major European issues, for example the single currency. However, if the Conservatives do not win or at least do well at the next election than Labour's fear will fade and another five-year term of the current government will leave many of us wondering where our country has gone. Anything that undermines the Conservative cause at this point gives comfort to those who want a single European state with Britain as a province of it.

Secondly, the Conservative Party has had a generational change. European federalists are largely older and not in positions of power in the Party. Mr Hague has taken a lot of trouble and a lot of criticism to arrive at this point and he wouldn't have done it if he intended to fall back into the federalist consensus after the election. In any case the Party would not let him.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, it is a simple fact that even a sceptical British government cannot pretend that Europe does not exist. The last thousand years of British history are littered with continental entanglements for good reasons of national interest.

Moreover, if the nations of Europe make a historic mistake in attempting to cobble together an undemocratic corporatist superstate then it will certainly end badly, and it is unlikely that the UK would avoid the fallout even though we were on the outside. The only sensible option is for a British government to remain engaged in Europe, while resisting and reversing the federal agenda not just for Britain but for all of Europe. This is the view of the overwhelming majority of the British people, and they are right. It is also the policy of the Conservative Party. Perhaps this is less dramatic than tearing up treaties but it has the virtue of being a credible policy that is saleable at an election.

To summarise, the only thing that checks Labour is fear of losing the next election. William Hague has shifted Conservative policy dramatically on Europe and the Conservatives remain the only credible electoral opposition to Labour. It would be better if non-Conservative sceptics recognised this and gave Mr Hague some credit for it instead of giving comfort to his enemies.
 

One of my main concerns is assumptions that are made about the electorate. I agree that Conservatives can expect to pick up many more votes at the next election. I disagree that, at the coming election, issues such as House of Lords reform, devolution, non-trial by jury, or wars with Iraq or Serbia will much influence the wider electorate. They may, probably will, strengthen Tory non-voters to return but that's all.

New Labour's elitist attitudes towards traditional socialists concerns will have a greater impact on reducing Labour numbers - these votes might even be picked up by the LibDems.

I agree that "Europe" is becoming a much more significant issue. The polls show this. But these are single issue polls. I don't believe that the electorate at large, at the coming election, will feel so concerned at the impact of a federal EU that it will override their present contentment. This contentment is based on "the economy, stupid" - to repeat a phrase. I would concede, however, that the issues that arise within this year's IGC and how Mr Blair (and Mr Hague) handles them could produce considerable ripples. But, as noted, Mr Blair will do his utmost to smooth these over.

The proposition made in the Free Life article is that Conservative activists need time to replace the present hierarchy with withdrawalists who will defend British sovereignty and possibly reinstate British institutions along lines which existed pre-Blair. While this is 100 per cent what I would like to see personally, I am not convinced that the electorate is in any way ready to vote for this.

There are, foreseeably, only three issues which may affect an election: how much further Mr Blair and cohorts alienate voters by messing up handling state-responsible institutions like the NHS, welfare, schools, police and crime; the hard and negative impact on Britain of EU federalism; and the state of the economy. It is only by overseeing a dramatic downturn in the last that I think Mr Blair becomes really vulnerable. Negative European issues could combine with this to create a hammer blow, but not on their own.

I'm not minimising Britain's alienation with the EU, but looking at the choice they would need to make to elect a different party: a Conservative party. Even if the changes within the Conservative leadership which Sean advocates were made, and even if the EU was seen as becoming far more threatening, Messrs Blair et al will have to be seen and felt to be making Britain an uncomfortable place before the electorate will want a sea-change rather than just a slow drift of Blairism into ignominy. Voting for a pro-independence, and libertarian Conservative party (so-called right wing) would be such a sea-change. I expect such a change may eventually happen - but when?

I would also expect the Conservative party to adjust its policies if such an opportunity arose. I cannot deny that "the modern Conservative party is built on deception". Major obviously. Now Hague seems to be speaking with two voices. My (optimistic) interpretation is that Mr Hague refuses to be spiked by Blair accusations of isolationism at the next election. If he loses, he wants neither himself, nor the party, to be categorised with the "Michael Foot syndrome". There is simply not the groundswell of opinion to make withdrawal from the EU a "winning" policy for the next election.

On Mr Hague himself, it is said he receives weekly phone calls from Lady Thatcher - which he doesn't have to accept. I think I know what Lady T.'s views are on EU membership (Mr T. has voiced his to me, loudly and confidently, after a speech by herself - and I doubt there is much disparity). Mr Hague presumably feels comfortable with Lady T.'s chats. Nevertheless, he has certainly set himself for the present, unequivocally, on continuing EU membership. I regret this, but issues of financial backers plus a non-"isolationist" position for this next election could well be the overriding cause.

I can only endorse the objective in the article of increasing the power of absolute anti-federalists within the Conservative party. However, I am concerned by the comparison with militants trying to take over the Labour party 20 years ago. I would wish that Conservatives who believe in British sovereignty and independence from the laws of the European federal state do so out of logic and reason, not blind ideology. I would suggest it is only through logic and reason that we can hope to win over the majority electorate. Neither they, nor the influential liberal media, are likely to be attracted to a party 'taken over' by (inevitably so-called "right-wing, extremist") militants. Or am I being naive about the ways of internal politics?
 

This is a well thought out analysis (if a little long) and has the merit that you can express yourself clearly and argue for your point of view logically and without some of the extravagant language and overt prejudice which I see too often. However .....

Your basic argument (oversimplified) seems to be that:

1) The present Labour government is making a right old mess of things which might just, as the LibDems are no longer in bed with them, allow the Conservatives to win the next election.

2) The Conservatives are nevertheless a bunch of self serving hypocrites who are not to be trusted and, despite what they may say now, would revert to a europhile policy if in power.

3) There is, however, a possibility of right thinking and principled people taking over the Conservative party in some 5 years time because they are unable to prevent the dissemination of information though the Internet.

4) Meanwhile, you would prefer to retain Labour in power because you think they are cooling off on the EU under the pressure of public opinion. And if their damage to democracy, such as trial by jury, is limited to UK legislation it can be undone by a future, and principled, Conservative government after the present leadership has been thrown out.

I do not agree with your conclusion even though parts of the argument may be correct:

1) A lot of Conservative party members are both principled and strongly anti EU. Their pressure has already had the effect of moving the party from just a "wait and see" policy on the euro to one which is almost saying "never, or not for a very long time"; to being strongly critical of all the other EU initiatives which are on the agenda for the next IGC; and to saying they would like to re-negotiate such that our membership is limited to being part of a free market. Your own listing of party candidates is pushing them further down that road.

2) It appears that Labour is trying to soften up the public to accepting much of the EU agenda, in particular QMV in many areas including "freedom, security and justice" which is shorthand for Corpus Juris. The BBC, which seems to parrot what the Labour machine tells it, always puts a favourable spin on the EU. There is therefore a real danger that, by the time a Conservative government regains power and tries to re-negotiate, we would be facing a European army and legal system and it would no longer be a question of just one parliament undoing legislation passed by a previous parliament.

3) The Labour party is now nothing like old Labour. It is an assumption which I do not share (the only part of your argument based on supposition alone) that the Conservative party is not equally able to change, and I would argue that it has already largely done so even if it still has further to go.

4) The choice is therefore between voting for a Labour party which we know wants to take us further into Europe; or having a little faith that, just maybe, the Conservative party means what it is saying and would try to at least limit further encroachment on our rights or at best try to re-negotiate which could lead to ultimate withdrawal.