Paul - very well said! (@16:47) Your point should be stressed over and over.

If we can include those from beyond the free-market grave, Keith Joseph. And from the other end of the Tory spectrum (for it is a big tent, is it not?)... Peregrine Worsthorne. A writer, and still very much alive! I now brace myself for the consequences of that second suggestion.

Sir, enjoyed the article as always. Though I do have to disagree with you about decent Americans voting Democrat. To be sure, the perception of the federal front man over the last seven years has damaged the GOP in the eyes of 'educated' voters, but also, keep in mind that Philly (I was born 45 minutes north of it) is an overwhelmingly Dem town. I can assure you that during Giuliani's two terms as mayor in New York decent people of all stripes voted for the Republican. And there are (hopefully) just enough decent people out there who will see through Mrs. Clinton. I myself am considering printing and distributing tee shirts emblazoned with: "If Hillary Clinton is elected President I am moving to France." Or maybe, if she wins, "Get Me Away From Here I'm Dying."

This'll be a little bit off the thread topic. But I happened to read all the above comments before I had a chance to watch Question Time online tonight, and therefore I despaired at the prospect of seeing Mr. Maude up against Galloway & co. .... Yet you know, as far as what Maude actually said I think he was mostly fine. He's just not a good public speaker, on television at least. Even his good points were met with the audience's weak applause at best, because he simply cannot put any emotion behind what he's saying. He should be kept off the show. And despite fatty F representing everything in a party that makes me want to throw my laptop out the window, we should all agree with what he said about 'smacking', as well as his attempts to defend the Lords - in the face of Galloway and Ms. Brainless.

I winced on seeing this topic title because I had the mistaken impression that the Sun was cooling towards bullying, as in 'the bullying of Brown'. Happy to see it's not the case! Yet, I remember the Times headline the day after the 100% elected Lords plan passed the Commons. It blared, "Democracy Triumphs", or some such garbage. *That* was pure Murdoch talking and it really scared me, to see one man's influence on what used to be the UK’s paper of record. I've heard rumors that he's a republican. In a 2004 Intelligence Squared debate on Margaret Thatcher’s legacy, one of the main points against Mrs T was that her economic liberalism allowed Murdoch to take over so much of the British press, and that Murdoch was never interested in conserving anything - especially institutions that Tories should hold dear. The Sun’s support for DC is important, yet I think slightly repugnant, and also sad for us, because of its importance.

Thanks Jim Carr@18:16, for adding nothing. This isn't a presidential system and therefore a third-party leader's personal poll lead over DC means much much less than something similar would in France or the US. Ming is out because of that dreaded 11% party poll. Look up who was ahead in personal popularity before the 1979 GE. Of course, personal polls do mean something, but not in the way you frame it. And last time I checked the Tories were over 40% - DC's on track and not going anywhere. But up.

Yes those are all killers. I understand exactly what you mean with String Bean Jean. And I've seen them three times, all here in NY. The first had Isobel still in the band and the last was a great free show in Battery Park in July '06. Trumpeter Mick Cooke started out as an occasional sideman before joining ft right around their third album.... Now, if only I could tie the above into why we should bring back the hereditary peers. :)

Graeme, You're right, I shouldn't attach a poli angle to those lyrics, but I have to say that S Murdoch's themes and implications fascinate me to no end, themes that get bolder with each record it seems. Songs? Well I love most all, but those early EPs really get me these days - especially the three slower numbers on the 3.6.9 Seconds record (Century of Fakers...). I must stop before I fill up a page here.

Great to hear that you're a fan of B&S! I hoped there were a few of us on ConHome, and have always thought Stuart Murdoch's lyrics are profoundly conservative. Well, most of them...

Enjoy the well-deserved rest! I think many of us wonder how the two of you can do all this...

Good news. And I think Mr 'Tory Toff' above is Labour operative!

Thank you Editor for the video. Very moving. But, Graham Checker has point - even if it might not be comfortable to say.

Congratulations, and all the best...

Mr. Brinsmead, Mike Bloomberg is despised, and I mean despised, by conservatives here in New York whether they are of the small or big ‘c’ variety. The man switched parties for the 2001 mayoral primary only because he would have an easier time of it, and then ran a false campaign to woo supporters of the (wildly popular) Giuliani. Then as soon as he was elected he threw out an agenda based in the main on higher taxes, a truckload of amazingly intrusive government regulation, and of course Ken L-style national politicking. And you'd be amazed at how immediately dirtier and less efficient the city seemed within months of Bloomie's arrival in office. It seems to many of us that he ran for mayor only to push some of his personal preferences -- such as banning ashtrays in outdoor cafes, for example. And he won re-election by obscenely outspending a non entity. (nothing wrong with spending, but I just bring that up to underline why he won an easy second term)

And even better....from the current Graniaud online headline: "The new ICM poll, from random telephone interviews of adults, shows Labour on 39%, Conservatives 38% and Liberal Democrats 16%." A 1% lead.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Anthony Wells over at UK Polling Report recently wrote (about that rumoured %3 lead): "UPDATE - not true after all, seems those were interim figures and the final ones show a small Labour lead." Still, it sure is great to see some good moods on the Tory blogs lately.

First off, it seems to me that the majority of people here criticising DC's performance today in the Commons simply do not want him - or his party - to succeed. Now, my main point is a question... I'm not from the UK (or any part of the Commonwealth) and I have searched in vain on the conservative blogs for an explanation of the implications of Brown's proposed 'reforms'. I'll guess I'm not the only who reads this site who has been left wondering, so could somebody please spell out responses to my three questions below: 1. Why are the PM's proposals inherently anti-Tory? (as stated above early on) 2. How exactly do they threaten the Monarchy? 3. Are they a threat to the C of E? (and how) Thanks. Apologies in advance from the simpleton....