What Adam Afriyie’s first major interview really meant

Adam Afriyie: Going somewhere? Photo: Roo Reynolds (Flickr)

There’s no doubting the appeal of Adam Afriyie; with a rags to riches personal story he represents the epitome of what the Conservative Party should stand for. But his answers, during his first major interview with Andrew Neil on Sunday, were sketchy, overtly astute, and his political message – essentially business, business, business – somewhat lacking.

By saying very little, he ended up giving away rather a lot. Not only did Afriyie make mention of the ‘efforts of’ a ‘team’ around him, he also categorically refused to support David Cameron’s leadership. Surely even the most rebellious of MPs would have given the PM their backing, at least for now? It’s difficult to say what exactly Afriyie is planning, but here’s my take on what his interview really meant;

Andrew Neil: You’ve already written that you are ‘prepared to be disappointed’ (with George Osborne’s budget)?

Adam Afriyie: Well budget’s are always disappointing, and there’s a lot of hope for different groups within society and I think sometimes not all those hopes can be met. The key thing for this budget in my view is that we must have business friendly measures, and I think it’s really important that any government both likes business but also is business-like in its approach.

Translation: Budgets are usually disappointing, and this one will probably be no exception. We need more tax cuts for businesses, and of course we need to move on from the ‘omnishambles’ delivery of last year’s Budget.

AN: Liam Fox has called for a public spending freeze for the next five years to fund tax cuts, is he right?

AA: A lot of people will be calling for a lot of different things. My focus is on those things, sometimes they’re boring measures, measures which aren’t headline grabbing, sometimes they aren’t politically attractive. The key thing is that we are business-like about this and introduce measures that genuinely boost growth.

Translation: Sounds good to me.

AN: Is it time to means test universal benefits like the free TV licence and the winter fuel allowance?

AA: These are ideas that need to be considered for sure. But I think, overall my view is that we need to simplify for tax system. I think people are uncomfortable that multimillionaires are receiving benefits from the state, that’s something that needs to be look at in the long term. But if we simplify the tax system then some of these problems disappear over time.

Translation: I don’t want to answer that, so I’ll talk about tax instead. But yes, millionaires shouldn’t receive benefits.

AN: Do you think Cameron and Osborne spend enough time listening to what ordinary members think?

AA: I think they’re listening very carefully. There will always be frustration if the economy isn’t doing well and the answers for getting a thriving Britain aren’t forthcoming. I’m hopeful that this budget will have those measures where people begin to feel more confident. The future for the country lies with a wholly Conservative government that has enterprise and economic growth at the heart of everything it does.

Translation: They might be listening, but not enough. The economy is a mess, and the government does not have enough of a focus on creating a thriving economy. Of course, not much helped by having to work with Liberal Democrats.

AN: Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr Cameron will lead the Tories into the 2015 general election?

AA: I don’t want to get into gossip politics. We have a very good chance of winning the 2015 election if we can demonstrate some economic growth before 2015. Government needs to learn to like business.

AN: You don’t answer me. There is some doubt in your mind? Is there or isn’t there?

AA: I’m not prepared to speculate. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top.

AN: There have been many reports that you have leadership ambitions, do you?

AA: I’m ambitious for the country. I chose to come into politics from a business background, and I’m happy to serve the country in any way I see fit. I’m not ambitious for any position in the party or the government.

AN: Let’s put this to bed, do you want to lead your party?

AA: I have no ambition to lead my party. I’m ambitious to get Britain back on top. The effort’s of my team around me are focused on trying to deliver those policies for a better future.

AN: So you wouldn’t rule out being leader?

AA: You’re asking the question in different ways. You’ve had an answer.

Translation: I don’t much rate Cameron personally, so I’m not prepared to back him. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top; Cameron is failing in both regards. At the same time his position is still fairly safe so I’m not going to call for his head either. I’m ambitious, but I’m not about to mount a leadership challenge. In the future though, I’m happy to serve the country in anyway I see fit. Which might mean leader of the party.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Votes at Sixteen? No thanks.

Photo: Steve Lawson (Flickr)

With the recent questions about the legality of the planned referendum on the future of Scotland, much has been made of the inclusion of 16-year-olds in the decision. However, barely a month ago, MPs in the UK Parliament stealthily voted in favour of lowering the voting age. This is not the end of the debate, but it is certain to be defeated unless there is a dramatic swing in current opinion. The can of worms, however, has been opened again, and it is firmly back in the news.

The biggest new group of political supporters which are being ruthlessly courted are the young. This is seen most recently in the transparently politicised move by Alex Salmond, who has already chosen to give younger voters the opportunity to decide on Scottish Independence, a calculating move more based on potential numbers rather than any real conviction. He knows that younger voters are more naive, and also more likely to identify with Scottish nationalism as a result. They don’t pay taxes too, and so this serves as a boon to socialist parties, as they know that the level of financial self-interest will be lowest among those who the state (or indeed mummy) props up.

But the pathetic drive for politicians to associate with the young is derived from the baseless idea that they are a huge, and yet untapped, electoral resource. This is unsound logic, considering the massive lack of any apparent political interest among the under-25s. The very nature of the current political approach to dealing with the young has been misguided. Politics is not, and will never be ‘cool’. Any spin saying that enfranchising 16-year-olds will make them more involved is obviously rubbish. Even the website of the British Youth Council (which campaigns for a lower voting age) is mothballed and out of date; for example getting the age at which teenagers can leave school wrong.

It is often said that the young today are now more educated about politics, with citizenship lessons in schools. This is wrong, not only as citizenship is a total waste of time, but also because people are overwhelmingly more likely to be influenced by external factors, such as celebrity endorsements and parents’ voting habits. They could vote in a silly way, but are unlikely to come to any mature political decisions on their own.

Initiatives such as Youth Councils and Parliaments have succeeded in not only eroding national dignity by debasing the House of Commons chamber, but also subjecting minors to the irritating busybodies which always inevitably run for the ridiculous jobs. These self-regarding mini-Milibands run for the wrong reasons, but even those are trivial compared to the corruption of the older generation. It is not a salary or a grace-and-favour mansion which motivates them; but a slightly less dismal UCAS record. It has come to something when not even their cynicism is as grown-up as that of the professionals.

Politics has been described as ‘showbusiness for ugly people’, so we should not expect the young to take to the current crop of greying marionettes which dominate the political stage. Already we have seen age and experience in our ruling classes diminish, to be replaced by vacuous younger men who are not as accustomed to holding power as those who took office fifty years ago.

There is a worrying trend towards the superficial in political discourse, aided and abetted by the televised leaders’ debates which lead governmental selection to be little more than an immature popularity contest. With the involvement of younger voters; we could end up with a system more disfigured by physical attributes like attractiveness than before. It is a possibility that we could end up choosing the candidate who is the best looking, like a school council election, but this time investing them with actual power.

In short, our democracy is in difficulty already, with the rise of a statist Labour party, and equally statist Ukip (masquerading as Libertarians); as well as a cultural elite happily cracking down on press freedom. Now is not the time to risk denigrating our already anemic ruling class by mixing in the moronic would-be demagogues of the younger generation. We could do with a more serious political process rather than one conducted like a pin-up contest.

The young are flawed, selfish and arrogant; their major concerns are too domestic to truly matter in national debate. Their natural apathy is actually a good thing, as a disinterested youth are less likely to stir the pot for the sake of it. I myself would be enfranchised by any new legislation, but knowing my contemporaries as I do, I know for certain that without the maturity adulthood provides, they would damage democracy with their triviality and lack of life experience.

Giving 16-year-olds the vote is only a tired last throw of the dice from the political runts of the 2010 intake in Parliament. These people are absurdly ambitious and desperately seeking a way out from the crumbling shambles that is our political class. Shattered by expenses scandals and the over-riding sense of isolation from the very people they are paid exorbitant salaries to represent, this is failing attempt to break the toxic mold, and not to be seen as anything but a bid for publicity from some balding semi-notables.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

What do you think? Vote in the poll below.

Party political cocktails: The ingredients to 2015 success

Which will you be ordering in 2015?

It is not unknown that the result of the hard fought Eastleigh by-election, with a voter turnout-out of 53%, was a shock to the polls, prospective candidates, leading parties and the country as a whole. Following the Chris Huhne scandal it would not have been unfair to predict a change from the usual Liberal Democrat control to what looked to be a Conservative gain and ultimately another feather in Cameron’s cap.

With a 32% share of the vote for the LibDems and a mere 25% for the Tories, UKIP emerged from being the ‘non-contender’ to the election vanquisher with a surprising 29% share, subsequently reducing the Tory vote and allowing for a LibDem triumph.

Looking ahead to the 2015 General Election, here I look at the essential ingredients needed for each of the three major parties to create a recipe for their own electoral success.

‘Cosmopolitan-Cameron’

With Cameron on the defensive following the catastrophic election results of the Eastleigh by-election last week, a picture of his political advisors and spin-doctors frantically clambering for a solution comes to mind as they desperately attempt to cling on to a second consecutive term in Government. Perhaps the following ingredients for the party’s next manifesto would serve as a thirst quenching relief.

| Europe |

The Prime Minister’s long awaited speech on the UK’s membership to the European Union (EU) left the country questioning the sincerity behind Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in the next Parliament. This was clearly a tactic in procuring the hearts, and more importantly the votes, of the right wing members of his party – those whose loyalty has recently remained uncertain.

However, the Prime Minister would have undoubtedly been better off had he promised the referendum in 2014, a short time before the 2015 election. If the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Prime Minister would have time to decide on his course of action or carefully scripted his U-turn ready for the next Parliament – a far greater incentive for the electorate to re-elect his party into Government than the cold promise he has made.

| Economy |

Despite the UK loosing its triple ‘A’ status, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, exclaimed that he ‘will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter.’ Unfortunately though, while the deficit decreases, the debt sores and the Government’s current plan will unequivocally be challenged by the electorate who have seen little sign of recovery in the years that the Conservatives would have been in power come 2015. Whether you believe the Chancellor’s strategy is working or not, it certainly won’t win votes should it be repeated in the party’s next manifesto.

| A Liberal Perspective |

Although coming under fire for his proposals and consequent reforms to equal marriage, which has unmistakably won the support of youthful generations, Cameron and his party must provide young and first-time voters an additional incentive to side with the Conservatives. Having taken a tough knock over university tuition fees the Liberal Democrats have freed up votes that the Prime Minister must now make a grab for.

‘Mojito-Miliband’

Ed Miliband’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions could be mistaken as a repeat played on a weekly loop – one of the clearest indicators that Miliband and his party have very little direction with regards to policy, if any. However, with a manifesto flourishing of sound policies and a strong sense of ideology, the Labour party might be in with a fighting chance of snatching election victory, if they acquired such a document.

| New Leader |

Firstly then, the key ingredient to this recipe’s success is a complete new appearance. Its presentation is lacking, and that must fundamentally change.

It’s safe to say that while Miliband is at the helm, the ship will be sailing against the wind, making very little progress. Unfortunately, the public realises that Miliband lacks the competencies of leadership, whilst his party refuses to acknowledge it for the sake of appearing as a united front. If his brother, David Miliband, had won the leadership contest however, then the situation would have been completely different.

Until the party boosts in the confidence required to overhaul their leader, it will not accomplish a taste of power for some time. Perhaps, with some polishing, the rising Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Chuka Umunna, would be a strong contender?

| The Fighting Ground |

As briefly mentioned, the body of votes for the Liberal Democrats that lead to their success in the 2010 election are ‘up-for-grabs’ following the disastrous decisions that they’ve taken during their time in office – namely the rise in university tuition fees – therefore isolating their large voter base, many of which were students. The release of this portion of voters could bestow election supremacy for the party that successfully appeals to their interests.

Whilst the Labour leader enjoys the support of trade unions, of which appointed him into his position, he must begin to appeal to the more liberal of voters. An easier achievement than for Cameron. A policy on child adoption for same-sex couples would be an interesting example.

| International Intervention |

Similar to the legacy of economic recession that has loomed over the Labour party, military intervention in the Middle East branded New Labour distinctly interventionist. A drastic foreign policy that sides with limitations on foreign intervention is likely to bode well with those who have military connections and the public more generally. A policy that promises no UK military intervention in a foreign nation unless the Government secures a UN Resolution to legitimise its actions as just, exemplifies the style of foreign policy needed.

‘Caruso-Clegg’

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats, and for Nick Clegg moreover, the 2015 General Election is going to taste bitter. To conjure up a recipe of sweet success for this party is more likely to produce a sour poison. The declining reputation that the party are affording themselves from abandoning their promises continues to speedily disintegrate their voter base.

| New Leader |

Unlike the Labour party, a change of leader would be ineffective. Nonetheless, it would signal an end to an era that the LibDems would very much wish to forget and would allow for minor progress towards repairing its broken image.

| Housing & National Affairs |

Property construction and social benefits to first-time buyers would be a safe bet. Once again appealing to younger voters is a realistic and reliable option. Policies on the economy or foreign affairs would convey the party as unrealistic and incapable of governing. Therefore, it is essential that the Liberals first heal the wounds of domestic politics. Core domestic policies, such as housing, can allow the party to gain a foothold on the ladders of trust and influence once more. From there, the party can regroup, reorganise and rearrange themselves in preparation for an opportunity for leadership to arise once again.

The 2015 General Election will unquestionably be messy following a long period of uncertainty. Will a leading party emerge as the forerunner in the remaining years? It’s doubtful. Instead, we can expect to see a scramble for every available vote no matter what its position on the party continuum. We can also be sure to witness a head-to-head collision between the Tories and Labour party, with no indication of the LibDems as a sincere competitor in the race to power.

But, what looks increasingly likely is another hung-parliament. We already thought the political and economic situation was dreadful – it’s likely to get a lot worse.

Conservative Cocktail

Ingredients:
(12.5ml) Grenadine
(12.5ml) Chambord Black Raspberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Strawberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Cherry Sourz

Directions:
In shaker, mix together and strain into cocktail glass.

Labour Cocktail

Ingredients:
(25ml) Southern Comfort Lime Liqueur
(25ml) Smirnoff Vodka
(25ml) Archers Peach Schnapps
(A Dash) Blue Curacao

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and add a generous helping of fresh lemon juice.

Liberal Cocktail:

Ingredients:
(25ml) Ameretto
(25ml) Banana Liqueur
(25ml) Fresh Orange Juice
(30ml) A ‘Liberal’ helping of Brandy

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and top with lemonade

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

Genocide: A historical reflection on the legal definition

Rwanda adopted a new flag in 2001 to show that it had moved on from the atrocities of the 1994 genocide. Photo: Graham Holliday (Flickr)

Genocide is the ‘deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group’ (Leo Kuper 2002). Genocide is a word created by Raphael Lemkin, it was adopted at the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The convention aimed to bring about a treaty, in which countries would recognise the pre-requisites required for genocide, in order to prevent future atrocities from occurring.

Genocide holds legal, social and wider meaning, and most important of all, provides a legal basis for the persecution of those who are found to be accountable. The term above provides a definition, however it fails to explain the meaning of “in part”, and as a result the interpretation of what amounts to genocide is not completely clear. This can be seen with the case of the Gypsies of Europe during 1939-1945, in which Gypsies were systematically killed under the Nazi Third Reich; however some academics dispute whether or not this was in fact legally genocide.

In order to understand the case of the Gypsies in Europe, we must first look at genocide, and analyse its legal meaning and implications. Article II of the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide describes two pre-requisites for an event to be recognised as genocide. To begin with a mental element is required, an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Second, a physical element, which may come in the form of five different acts of physical harm. “A crime must include both elements to be called genocide”. This definition has been used effectively to categorise many events as genocides, for example the Rwanda genocide, where the Hutus killed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis.

The mental element was demonstrated by the Hutus intention to massacre Tutsis, while the physical element manifested through a systematic killing process implemented by the Hutus. There was a clear intent with a physical outcome; however if we take a look at the Gypsies of Europe, it is not as clear cut as the situation in Rwanda.

Academics of the likes of G. Lewy and Y. Bauer hold the stance that as the Nazis did not have a specific plan to exterminate the Gypsies, the term genocide could not be used.  However this can be disputed, as for genocide to be determined by law there is a requirement for a special intent to be present. However it must be taken into account that the co-ordination of different institutions, which is necessary for genocide to occur, may do so without a synchronized plan. Genocide can occur through stages of radicalisation, which manifest itself in an escalation of violence.

This can be seen with the Rwanda genocide, David Newbury (1999) highlighted that “What is most shocking, perhaps, is that those most responsible for perpetrating these crises…were not only a few isolated sociopaths”. With the genocide in Rwanda, the cause was not a centralised plan based on orders from high ranked officials; it was ordinary people with their own agendas perpetuating the crimes. Despite the lack of a co-ordinated plan among Hutus, it cannot be denied that the intent was still there. In the same way the Nazis may not have had a centralised plan for the Gypsies, nevertheless the intent to eradicate the Gypsies was present.

In asking the question of whether the Gypsies of Europe were subjected to genocide under the Nazis, we are applying a legal definition which has changed shape and form since its inception in 1948. Therefore we must take into account how the discourse on genocide has changed. The most recent definition created by Martin Shaw (2007) states, “Genocide is a form of violent social conflict or war, between armed power organizations that aim to destroy civilian social groups”. If we apply the modern day notion of genocide, to the Gypsies we would come to the conclusion that genocide did occur.

However if we applied the 1945 definition, the ambiguity in the pre-requisites makes it open to personal interpretation. Therefore whether the events that occurred to Gypsies under the Nazis amounted to genocide depends on the perspective one is looking from. However for me, one cannot apply an old form of a definition which has now changed. If we are tackling the question of genocide, we must apply the modern day definition. In doing so we see that deaths of Gypsies that occurred under the Nazis amounted to genocide.

When we look back at history, we should never forget the terrible conditions Gypsies of Europe endured. As global society we must continue to hold those who commit atrocious acts accountable; legal terms such as genocide allows us to do this. However if academics and commentators continue to undermine legal terms and definitions, it makes it harder for the international courts to put forward their arguments and for justice to be reached.

Martin Edobor writes about health and foreign policy. Follow on Twitter @martinedobor

Egypt: A Bloody Shame Indeed

Morsi’s supporters celebrate victory. Photo: Lorenz Khazaleh (Flickr)

One of the major victories of the Arab Spring was the new raft of democratically elected leaders who came to power following the fall of dictatorial regimes who terrorised their people and ruled without regard for freedom of speech, of the press and the views of the down-trodden who inhabited the levels in society below those of the privileged elite who controlled so much of their lives.

This process of democratising the region led to the first free and fair Egyptian election in decades; the election of Mohammad Morsi, candidate for a previously banned party (the Muslim Brotherhood), who successfully won the election as President of the newly freed country. This was a fresh political experience for Egypt’s young population, with millions never having had the opportunity to vote before during the term of the last leader, Hosni Mubarak, and his long fiefdom over the whole nation.

This glorious enfranchisement made the whole country feel like it had a real say in events, for the first time in years. This made the elections held after Mubarak’s downfall particularly engaging and exciting for ordinary Egyptians; their pet parties had to win, in order to get in there first and truly shape the country so monopolised by the oligarchs. The political energy, of the sort not seen in the more apathetic ‘reserved’ European and American democracies, was hailed as another success of the Arab Spring, with a strong vibrant culture around voting becoming the centrepiece for all those who (correctly) supported the Egyptians in their valiant struggle for self government.

However, this joyous revelling in a new found ability to determine the leadership of the nation also created many problems. The movements of mass action which had characterised the protests against the regime also had an effect on the way the campaigns were run as well as the level of political discourse in the country. For even after the brave citizen-led fight to stop the tyranny had been done in a spirit of unity, vast chasms of division remained amongst the politically educated. There were huge amounts of polarisation and partisanship in the run up to the election.

The BBC did an excellent piece analysing the potential results and cross-referencing the potential voters. It turns out that women (by a considerable margin) favoured the non-Islamic candidate, Ahmed Shafik, who was considered by some to be a stooge for the former government. This rejection by womanhood is significant in two ways: the first is their disenchantment with the Islamic message preached by Morsi and his supporters (perhaps showing an awakening amongst those the religion oppresses most?). It is also significant in that women were actually allowed to vote, in direct contrast to other ‘Islamic Republics’.

The world may not be ready for a democratically elected Islamic leader of a free country. People in the West who supported the military intervention in Libya were hugely alarmed when the Leader of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Jilil, said that the new constitution of the country would be broadly based on ultra-conservative Sharia Law, ‘obviously’. It does appear worrying that those who so keenly wrote and spoke in favour of Arabs making their own political futures and choosing their own leaders, are then recoiling when they choose something alien to our experience. Let me be clear, if the new countries’ governments stay within a democratic framework, then there are no problems.

However; if, like in Egypt now, the government exceeds its own powers and gives itself new ones (which the Morsi administration is currently doing) then the world at large is legitimised in its’ worries for the people, and the region. The consequences of further international involvement in a region already struggling to rebuild after the last encounter with hellfire missiles and a democratically elected demagogue at the helm are not happy ones.

It is a true travesty, after winning an election, and the respect of the international community in his mediation between Israel and Palestine (which not only prevented an escalation of the region’s problems, but also demonstrated a new resurgence from Egypt as a new power in the area) he had proved himself capable of the office entrusted to him. To see all of that disintegrate in a matter of hours from statesman to mob orator, who has to watch his party headquarters burn as the collective will of the Egyptians is once more released on another leader with dictatorial ambitions.

Morsi is defiant; he cannot govern while others have the ability to challenge his decisions and to amend them, he has decreed that none of his actions can be changed by the legislature; this is controlling, and hardly the actions of a democrat. But the other implications of his new move are profound. He is now able to take any action necessary to safeguard the revolution. This is Leninist in essence, and any mention of emergency powers whilst in the presidency is pure Putin.

He may genuinely think that by his actions he is stream-lining the process of making decisions, and he may think that concentrating more power in his hands is a positive attempt to respond to crises quicker, and he may well take false consolation in the evidence: he has, after all, done very well in the only major problem to come his way so far.

But this is no true indication of the stresses of his job and the future challenges, where his course of action may not be so well defined. The default Arab response is to defend Palestine, and that has served him well so far, but how can we guess he will respond to a more convoluted situation: presumably involving Iran and Israel? He has no obvious route to navigate the storm of angry rhetoric, UN Security Council vetoes and powerful backers. Let us hope the violence and strife makes him change his ways; we don’t want a situation like 1917, where the errors of a revolutionary government were considered as strong as to warrant another, and more disastrous, upheaval.

James Snell

Eastleigh, the late surge of UKIP and Cameron’s balancing act

Nigel Farage and Diane James will be smiling for some time to come. Photo: Jennifer Jane Mills (Flickr)

By-elections often follow a familiar script: a date is announced, we are told how significant the outcome will be on the ‘political landscape’, a leading candidate emerges before then it becomes a tight race where the outcome will be ‘difficult to predict’ as pollsters unconfidently bemoan the ‘margin of error’. Ultimately, the result comes through which is similar to the one initially expected and it has little effect in a wider political context.

All of that might have been the case in Eastleigh had it not been for one factor: the late surge of UKIP. For much of the campaign, the outcome was considered to be a two-horse-race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The battle was portrayed as the two Coalition partners going ‘head-to-head’.

Ultimately, however, rather than the Conservatives, it was UKIP who narrowly missed out on taking the seat away from Nick Clegg’s party. Nigel Farage was right to say it was the Conservatives who had split the UKIP vote rather than the other way round. Today there might be a few right-leaning voters in Eastleigh cursing the fact they thought the Tories offered the best prospect of defeating the Liberal Democrats. For a party currently wielding the loudspeaker of protest in British politics, the late surge of UKIP was a surprisingly quiet one. Only until the last remaining days of the campaign did the chance of a victory even come into the picture; a Tory campaign leaflet, designed in the colours of purple and gold, proves how worried of UKIP the Conservatives had become.

So why, at the expense of the Tories, did UKIP perform so well? One thing is clear; voters vote for the eurosceptic party for a number of reasons, eurosceptism often less prominent than you’d expect; as an anti-establishment protest? In support of a more right-wing message? Or simply in support of a straight-talking, common-sense message? Perhaps the strength of the candidate locally swayed the voters? Indeed, the impressive candidate Diane James puts paid to the idea that UKIP are a group of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. The words of David Cameron himself, if anything last night’s result might encourage the Prime Minister to take more seriously what is becoming his party’s most significant threat.

But does that mean tacking back to a core right-wing message to win over lost supporters? Or does it mean continuing with a centre-ground ideology to win over an increasingly liberal society? Ultimately, Cameron will have to do both. Despite Labour’s embarrassingly poor performance in Eastleigh, Ed Miliband will stroll into Number 10 by default if the Tories continue to loose support from both the left of the party and the right.

Eastleigh is a major setback, but David Cameron’s conference speech of last year suggests he understands the task in hand. Yesterday Daniel Boomsma argued that the party could learn from perhaps it’s greatest forefather, Edmund Burke. Embracing liberal laissez-faire economics at the same time as developing a moral critique of pure capitalism ‘may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image’. Today, Tim Montgomerie once again calls for a ‘full spectrum, big orchestral, across-the-stage Conservatism’. To pin the party down on the liberal left or the conservative right would be the incorrect response; but the message must be clearer, more optimistic, and reflective of a ‘common ground’ rather than ‘centre ground’. Finding the right balance will be no easy task. But then why should it be; power, after all, is at stake.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK