« Bush as Hitler | Main | Tory Chairman: The Republicans are our sister party »



Which 'fabricated' disagreements were those?


Malcolm, I would not mind hearing the answer to that question as well!

"The event was nonetheless wowed by enthusiastic Atlanticist Liam Fox." That tends to happen when you address an audience of the "faithful"!
I just can't take this kind of blatantly biased drivel seriously, it adds nothing to a genuine debate about our continued relationship with the Republicans other than to further their image of "our way or not at all" and reminds us just how vindictive and nasty their negative campaigning and spin can be.
I hope that David Cameron and his team see this kind of attack for what it is, and someone points out to this FOREIGN political party that while the British taxpayer funds our Parliament and politicians then they have every right to expect the leader of the opposition to be more interested in their views than a discredited and unpopular administration in the White House.
I just finds that it turns me off the present Republican party even more.


Scotty, I agree. Keep politics local and ignore other countries. Unilateralism is best.

Jon Gale

1) A newspaper was told that Cameron was not welcome at the White House.
2) White House says no-one said that - but then says the Tories are deceitful opportunist untrustworthy turncoats.

No 'rift' there then!

So, is Cameron welcome at the White House or not?


So, is Cameron welcome at the White House or not?

Nobody said that he was not welcome, but Cameron has three guesses as to whether the White House would welcome "a party of turncoats, opportunists and undependable allies who strike a sorry contrast with the steadfast Tony Blair".

I can only compliment the White House on their perceptiveness re. Cameron.


Jorgen, when was the last time a formal invitation was extended to the leader of the the Conservative party?
And if this slight dates back a lot further than the rather obvious and hilarious "a party of turncoats, opportunists and undependable allies who strike a sorry contrast with the steadfast Tony Blair" will that make your rather pathetic point void!


Scotty, if you read Jon's question again and quite a bit slower that first time, you will find that the question was not about whether DC would get a formal invitation, but whether he would be welcome or not. :)


Jorgen, I think that the question "when was the last time a formal invitation was extended to the leader of the the Conservative party?" is relevant to the discussion.
I think that the Bush administration has not been making Conservative leaders very welcome for a while and this pre dates Cameron becoming leader of the party, it also might highlight the disingenuous nature of the comments made by the official from the White House.
I suggest you let your excitement at another attack on Cameron get in the way of the history between the Bush administration and the Conservative party over a number of years!


That was still not the question. But, you are right that Howard would never have been invited (or wanted to), but wouldn't IDF and Hague (back when he was running the CP) have been invited?

Tory T

This kind of thing makes me so angry I can barely contain my contempt.

The way Michael Howard was treated was disgraceful. The way the so-called American "right" were, in fact, quite happy to abandon the British to years of cod-socialist Eurocrat rule under Tony Blair, the man who wanted to give Gibraltar to the Spanish, so long as Blair said "how high Sir" when the President said "jump"... who, may I ask, are the traitors? Who are the turncoats? They have no truly conservative feelings and no concern for the welfare of the British people, only for how slavish a given ally is. So what if he's a lefty? Why should we care about your taxes and your schools, or if the Euro swallows you whole? Blair's reliable.

Well wake up, Republicans. Smell the coffee. Do not even think about trying your disrespect on with our next Prime Minister. It is for the Americans to prove to us - if they can - why we should continue isolated support for them without recompense or even basic respect (consultation on the Baker report: US journalists yes, British officials no).

The US is getting far more out of it than we are.

It is for you to conciliate us. For you to rebuild trust. For you to prove to me that you in any sense hold conservative ideals.

Right now I'm not buying it.


Tory T, I agree. The special relationship is dead. Feel free to form a new alliance with France, Russia, or China. Or perhaps you'll come to your senses, dismantle the NHS and pour the funds into your military and survive without the need for any alliances.

I'm sure future US leaders will consult the UK leadership, so when you inevitably say no to whatever it is we want to do (as Europeans are wont to do), we can sigh and get back to being unilateral again. Try unilateralism, I think you'll like it.

Tory T

Why should I imagine you will consult us or listen to us? We're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq in huge numbers and you haven't listened thus far.

We give "blood and treasure" and you give... what was it again?

Did you know, JF, that the British were not consulted over the Baker report but that American journalists were? Care to explain that to me?


Tory T, I wasn't aware that the UK had to be bribed to participate in wars against terrorists. My mistake. That said, what does the UK get? The UK demanded that the US fiddle while allowing your allies North Korea and Iran get nuclear weapons. I'd say you scored quite a success in that regard.

As for the Baker report, you seem rather obsessed with this issue. Are we talking about the same Baker report that Bush called "a flaming turd"? The same Baker report that will never be implemented? The UK should thank its lucky stars that it wasn't party to that abomination.


Iran and North Korea allies of the UK? JF your absurdity knows no bounds does it?

Tory T

JF, your comments betray the sort of US derision for British lives and British contributions that have reduced the former special relationship to a pile of ashes. You could have, still could, stop N Korea or for that matter Iran at any time but you lack the political will (and the Dems have said Iran is a no-go). The Conservatives have said that force is not off the table with Iran. Did you know that? I would imagine not.

We participated willingly in Iraq and in Afghanistan. However, AFTER being the only signifcant ally in both theatres, we've basically been spat upon. Not given contracts, not consulted on policy, not even given a pass over steel subsidies after Blair specifically requested it. The "reliable" Blair was told to talk to a US senator. The PM!

Either we're allies and true partners or we're an unvalued convenience. It sure looks like the latter. And it's heartbreaking for me as a Thatcher-Reagan teenager to watch what America is doing to the relationship.

Threatening the Conservatives with "no White House for you" is, frankly, pathetic.


Malcolm, how else to explain the UK's support of the 10 year diplomatic process with North Korea that ended in nuclearization, and the 5 year support of the diplomatic process with Iran that's going to end in nuclearization? You're right, maybe it's just cowardice instead.


JF, you win no arguments throwing those purile insults around. It does not make your comments any more attractive than the negative attacks by the Republican party.


Tory T, I sympathize with you over the loss of your soldiers. We truly appreciate their sacrifice, and if you find time to visit the US, you will find an affection for the UK that is not paralleled with any other country. That said, we have serious disagreements with the UK decision to reduce its presence in Iraq, and its command of southern Afghanistan has been nothing short of disastrous.

As for Iran, why blame Republicans for the lack of Democratic spine? We of course appreciate Conservative support in that regard. But there's the official stance, and then there are the comments left on Iain Dale's diary and ConservativeHome.

Contracts? Who pays for those contracts, and why should they be awarded to the UK?

Not consulted on policy: it was the UK that cut deals with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan after not consulting the US, which resulted in the Taliban overrunning all those towns in the south. A mistake that is still being paid for. Not consulted on policy: it is the UK which is reducing its deployment levels in Iraq just as the US "surge" shows promising results.

Steel tariffs: you should see the excoriating criticism that Bush suffered here in the US (from the GOP) over this decision. I'm glad the UK added its voice to the criticism, but Bush has severe flaws, as you and others have pointed out time and again. He has not, and will not, always take the conservative stance. (also see: screwing Canada on lumber tariffs)

Let's put it out there. What specific actions would the US need to take to appease the Conservative Party and earn it's love? I don't think any British party is capable of loving the US or the Republican party these days. (again, see Iain Dale's site and ConservativeHome for a representative sample).


Scotty, temper got the better of me. The implication is that the UK has tremendous influence over US foreign policy, but always wants more, more, more. I would say that 80% of the reason why the US has not already bombed Iran is because the UK has been pushing for a diplomatic solution. Just because the UK doesn't recognize its own influence doesn't mean it doesn't actually have the influence.


JF, I like Tory T was a teenager growing up in the Reagan/Thatcher years and the that really influenced my interest in politics and it is the reason why I became a Conservative.
I had a lot of respect for both leaders and the thing that struck more than anything else was how these two leaders were able to put their own countries interest first and still forge the incredible relationship they did. I think it was built on a respect for each other as politicians and genuine concern for the well being of each country.
The goodwill from that relationship lived on but was damaged over the last four years as the Bush administration became more arrogant and unwilling to accept or understand the different political landscape in the UK.
Bush has been in power and the Conservatives have been in the political wilderness for 10 years, Blair has been damaged by the perceived subservient relationship he has with Bush and it would be political suicide for Conservative leader not to recognise that. David Cameron has got to try and build a relationship with the Republicans more akin to that of Thatcher, who if you remember was not greeted initially with any great enthusiasm when she was elected leader by her own party or the Americans.
I worry about the often unfair maligning of America throughout the world and think it is a highly damaging situation for all of us. The Republicans are really making a big mistake in alienating the Conservative leadership, they need to understand in a little more detail the politics of the UK and what David Cameron is trying to do for his party. They have to accept that his priority is the next General Election and he needs to concentrate on winning those votes over here rather than go cap in hand for a few crumbs from the Republican party.
He will have to be able to do business with who ever is in the White House just as Blair built a relationship first with Clinton and then Bush.
A bit of mutual respect and an understanding that we aspire to be partners in a coalition where both parties bring something to the table will not only be good for both parties but also lance the boil of the present difficulties.



Stop trying to insult Britain and justify mistreating our closest Ally. If you truly want to see who agreed to turn a blind eye towards North Korea take a look at Jimmy (a.k.a Dhimmi) Carter, and on the contracts you say why should British Companies be allowed to bid on them, well my question is why not? Long live the trans-Atlantic Alliance.

I don't know if this message will get through without a TypeKey but if it does I am an American who favours close relations with Britain, and while I think that the grievances brought up in this thread should be dealt with justly.

However while I believe your complaints should be dealt with I think you should also deal with my complaints.

Demonization of the "neo-con" by the BBC, and demonization of another close ally of ours Israel by the BBC, and while this my seem hypocritical of me because I know the situation is no better in America but I will say it anyway, Universities rejecting pro-American, pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, and pro-West speakers while allowing radicals free riegn to go on speaking tours.

However despite the three things I brought up, and what guys have said I think that the relationship between the US and UK is still strong and will stay strong for many years to come.


On the topic of will Cameron be welcome in the White House should he become Prime Minister, my answer is of course, but he is has not been invited now because he is just an opposition leader, it would be like if Tony Blair invited Pelosi to 10 Downing street.

Kevin Sampson

“The way the so-called American "right" were, in fact, quite happy to abandon the British to years of cod-socialist Eurocrat rule under Tony Blair”

What do you think we should have done, assassinated him?

This is equivalent to claiming the Torys “abandoned” the US to two terms of President Bubba. Grow up, accept responsibility for your mistakes, and move on.


Dan, I am an American and agree with everything you said. But the Conservatives hold a double standard, and bridle at the perceived subservience to Blair, but demand American subservience (contract, trade policy, etc). I would also ask the Conservatives to judge the US-UK relationship in the context of the broader sweep of history. Wilson tried to dismantle the British Empire in the wake of WWI, FDR basically succeeded in doing so in WWII. There is an irrational latent British anger at the US for ousting the PRG in Grenada, but so be it. As far as I'm aware, Bush hasn't interfered in internal UK affairs to nearly the degree these former presidents have, but the British reserve a special fury for Bush.

We will have our disagreements over contracts and steel tariffs, but we must agree on the bigger war on terror, or the alliance is worth nothing. The Conservatives see how unpopular the war on terror is, and are declining to support it or its adjuncts rather than fight against the propaganda put out by the BBC.

Ultimately, what do the British get from the special relationship? Unmatched levels of intelligence sharing (Echelon, etc.), unmatched access to classified defense technology (source code access to the joint strike fighter, etc.), and influence over our foreign policy (forcing us to deal with the terrorist leaders in Iran, North Korea, and the PLO).

I would just ask the Conservatives, what more do you want? You can't have everything, of course, but let's see what issues remain and whether they justify the level of vitriol flowing from your party members.

Tory T

JF, please don't blame us for the US govt's cowardly refusal to stop N Korea or Iran. It was Clinton and Albright (Halfwit) who bent over backwards for N Korea and allowed them to do whatever they wanted, nothing to do with us. Clinton let N Korea get its nuke program so far advanced it was already a done deal. As to Iran, I recall Bush saying "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon". But after he failed in Iraq - yes, he failed, by not sending enough troops - his approval ratings in the US, never mind the UK, are in the tank and he cannot get it done.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker