several seats. Unfortunately, all the effortrnwas of no use, faced with the public’srnrestlessness, Labour’s professionalism,rnthe aura of “sleaziness” hanging over thernparty, and Mr. Major’s own irredeemablerndullness. Hundreds of thousandsrnof life-long Conservative activistsrnreluctandy deserted the party, fed up finallyrnwith the consistent refusal of the hierarchyrnto do something about crime,rnEurope, the welfare state, immigration,rnpolitical correctness, etc., and with thernparty’s general reluctance to conservernanything. The Conservative powersthat-rnwere seemed interested only in therneconomy. Spoiled by power, they almostrntotally neglected the moral and nationalrnquestions which interest normal peoplernmuch more than “competitive tendering,”rnwhich was all that John Majorrn”wunted.” The work that needed to berndone was not even attempted. The Conservativesrncreated many petty capitalistsrnand shareholders, but these people didrnnot necessarily—or even ordinarily, itrnseems —become convinced conservatives.rnNobody had thought to educaternthem in the philosophy of conservatism,rnso that when Labour made its emotive,rnattractive appeals to “community” andrn”justice,” few had a ready answer.rnLabour’s idea for a “stakeholder partnership,”rna civic (and nationwide, butrnnot national) bond based on sub-NewrnTestament platitudes and exulting in itsrn”diversity,” sounds good but is actuallyrnan enormous weakness. The Conservativesrnshould have opposed this mysticalrnmish-mash with the concept of the nation-rnstate, and come out strongly againstrnLabour’s love for the European Union,rnits fondness for international moralizingrnand warmongering, its pandering to minoritiesrn(whether racial, sexual, religious,rnor physically disabled) and multiculturalismrn(which often strays into actual dislikernof England), and its fondness forrnsteamrolling tradition. The attempt byrnpowerful Labourites to ban fox huntingrnis a case in point. It often seems as ifrnLabour does not like anything to do withrnthe countryside —it has already bannedrnthe sport of shooting, and it has decidedrnto relax building restrictions in thern”Green Belt” areas around our majorrncities.rnThere is plenty of scope in all of thisrnfor the Conservatives to make headway.rnSocially conservative, even reactionary.rnLabour voters in mining villages in southrnWales or inner-city areas of Newcastleupon-rnTyne, to take two classic Labourvotingrngroups, did not vote for the age ofrnhomosexual consent to be reduced to 16,rnbut that is what they are likely to get, ifrnthe waxing zoophyte caucus within thernparliamentary Labour Party has its way.rnNor do all Scots and Welsh necessarilyrnwant to be parted from England, but thisrnis what they may get, if some powerfulrnLabour ideologues have their way.rnThere are millions of Labour voters whornonly vote Labour because the alternativernparty is perceived as being made up ofrnheartless ideologues and Hayekianrnpedants—and there is some tiuth in thisrnstereotype, as in all stereotypes. Thesernvoters could be parted from their traditionalrnallegiance quite easily, like Southernrnwhites were parted from the DemocraticrnParty in the United States, if onlyrnthe Conservatives went some way towardrnmeeting them by espousing a new patriotism,rna revived and spirited nation and arnglorious, unashamed heritage. ThernConservatives need a “Southern strategy”rnof their own.rnBut new Conservative leader WilliamrnHague, although undoubtedly Euroskeptical,rnis no charismatic leader, norrnare his views very well known (exceptrnabout homosexual “marriage,” which hernsupports). An MP told me bemusedlyrnthat he cannot think of any one idea orrnconcept associated with Hague, for betterrnor worse; this suggested to my contactrnthat there was some essential ingredientrnmissing. Hague is young, however, andrnis undoubtedly intelligent. He may bernamenable to new ideas, unlike his fossiliferousrnpredecessor. But any ideas, evenrnif they were being espoused now, willrnneed time to filter through into the partyrnand then the popular subconscious, letrnalone into policy proposals. For the timernbeing, the Conservatives are almost certainrnto focus on any examples of Labourrn”sleaze” to the exclusion of more importantrnthings, thus making themselves lookrnboth sour and ungentiemanly.rnWho, if anyone, will organize an intellectualrncounter-revolution, and who willrnfund it, now that the gallant Sir JamesrnGoldsmith is dead? It seems unlikelyrnthat it will be anyone outside the party.rnSir James’s Referendum Party wouldrnprobably have transformed itself into arncampaigning group to work for a “No”rnvote in the referendum on the SinglernCurrency. It seems unlikely that thisrnwork will now go ahead. The other anti-rnE.U. party which stood at the electionsrn(even against anti-E.U. Tories), the UnitedrnKingdom Independence Party, led byrnan academic from the London School ofrnEconomics, appears to be imploding afterrnits disastrous election results, a televisionrnprogram which claimed neo-Nazirninfiltration, and an internal split, causedrnmostly by ideological differences withinrnthe party. Such think tanks as there arern(John Redwood’s Conservative 2000rnFoundation has closed, the Centre forrnPolicy Studies is too close to the party hierarchy,rnand the Adam Smith Institute isrnworking with Labour) are still concentratingrnon welfare reform and the freernmarket—all very well, but where are thernpamphlets on family law reform and taxrnbreaks, crime, nationalism, immigration,rnthe environment, inequality, manners,rntaste, and abortion, to take just some examples?rnThe Conservatives must rediscoverrnthe spirit of the late 1970’s and early 80’s,rnwhen, as Sir Alfred Sherman put it, “werngave people the idea that ideas counted,rnand that there was a better way.”rnDerek Turner is the editor of Right Now!,rnpublished in London.rnLetter FromrnInner Israelrnby Jacob NeusnerrnMoney, Money, MoneyrnAmerican Jews (like other organized subgroupsrnin American society) do somernthings superbly well and fail at others.rnWhere we are strong, there is our weakness.rnWhen I consider the mistakes wernAmerican Jews make, these simple truthsrnexplain much. By “mistakes,” I refer tornenormous, fundamental errors of publicrnpolicy: the management of Jewish communityrnaffairs. Let me point to five, inrndescending order of importance, all ofrnthem effects of a single cause: our excessivernadmiration for wealth at the expensernof all other human virtues.rnThe greatest mistake we have made isrnto create a community so expensive thatrnonly rich people can play an active role.rnThere is no space for the poor but virtuousrnor pious person. We have not onlyrn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn