"The party has gone to war with ConservativeHome"

The headline of this post is taken from an article in today's Times by Sam Coates (not ConservativeHome's Samuel Coates!).  It'll give ConservativeHome's Sam and I plenty to talk to him about when the three of us have lunch together next week.

I know that there are a fair number of people in CCHQ who would prefer that this website did not exist but it is wrong to suggest that many high-ups want "war" with this site.  David Cameron and Steve Hilton were very warm when I chatted with them in Nottingham.  Members of the shadow cabinet and their staff are in touch with me on a daily basis - sharing news and offering comments.  An MP writes for this site most weeks.  I'm having lunch with Francis Maude next week for a catch-up.  The Times' Sam Coates quotes one "senior Tory close to Mr Cameron" as saying about ConservativeHome that “it’s 30 people talking to 30 people."  The party leadership knows that that isn't true.  Many thousands of activists, parliamentarians and journalists visit this site every week because it offers the most comprehensive account of developments in the Conservative Party.  At Nottingham I lost count of the number of people who came up to me to say how much they valued this website.  'It's the only way I find out what's really going on,' was the most frequently-made comment.  The blog threads aren't representative - and I have never suggested that they are - but the monthly survey is a fair insight into the mood of the Tory grassroots.

Given what The Times has written today I thought I'd recap on the main purposes of this website - as Sam and I see it:

1. To provide a one-stop guide to all major developments in the Conservative Party.  The front page is the guide to all of those developments and it is what David Cameron told me he found most useful.
2. To contend for the 'And theory of Conservatism.'  I advocated this 'And theory' well before Mr Cameron became Tory leader - it is, in fact, the inspiration for the masthead of this site.  The eleven shields represent eleven great components of the conservative movement (from left to right): home and family, prosperity, personal compassion, law and order, the worth of every human life, faith, conservation, the power of culture, patriotism, internationalism and political participation.  I believe that the Conservative Party is at its politically most potent when it is not narrowly focused on a few issues but determined to be a government-in-waiting - blending a familar focus on tax and crime, for example, with a passion for social justice and a cleaner environment.  As I wrote recently - for The Guardian - that balance is beginning to emerge more clearly and is driving the party's improved opinion poll performance.
3. To give party members a voice.  There are still too many people in the Conservative Party with a we-know-best attitude.  John Maples' weekend remarks to ToryRadio that he could get "the right candidates in the right seats" with "the right percentages of women and ethnic minority candidates" were very unfortunate and revealed an anti-grassroots mindset that sits at odds with the party's emphasis on localism.  ConservativeHome's traffic first started to rise when we campaigned against Michael Howard's attempts to take the vote away from members in the election of his successor.  This site covered that story when the national newspapers largely ignored it.  We'll continue to champion a more democratic, open party and are ready to defend members' voting rights in the selection of European Parliamentary candidates.

ConservativeHome is, of course, far from perfect and I know you won't hesitate to use the thread below to tell me where we're going wrong.  All comments - particularly constructive ones (!) are always very welcome...

PS The ConservativeHome masthead appears on the mug that you receive if you donate £35 or more to the CH Appeal.

Comments

[Umbrella man]

One of the funniest moments in Nottingham was when ConHome's Sam Coates asked a question from the back of the hall. Almost every face turned to see him when he said he was from ConservativeHome. People are fascinated by this site.

[E, Justice]

You must be doing somthing right,to get mentioned in "dispatches" keep on doing it!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

For CH to work, you need to introduce a registration mechanism to weed out the nutters and trolls from other parties (esp. UKIP). This site is supposed to be for the "grassroots", but every Tom, Dick and Harry posts here espousing embarrassing comments. Come on, Ed, charge people to register and post here - I'll even send you a fiver!

[David Belchamber]

Tim: I will criticise only one thing you said in your article:

"It'll give ConservativeHome's Sam and I..."

[malcolm]

Perhaps you should send an email to the Times with your readership stats. To write a piece like that without checking them is scandalous. The 'other' Sam Coates should be ashamed of himself and the least he can do is pay for the lunch you're having!

[Paul Oakley]

If the party's own website wasn't so dire then perhaps we wouldn't resort to using this one.

[Richard]

"This site is supposed to be for the "grassroots", but every Tom, Dick and Harry posts here espousing embarrassing comments"

True although there are some on the "modernising" wing of the party who sometimes come across as OTT. *Cough* Jack Stone *cough*.

[William Heathcote]

Constructive Comment.

Stop publishing lists of people to be interviewed for seats. By all means publish the lists of those in open primary finals, but the publishing of long lists does nothing except give the opportunity for our opponents to gain ammunition.

I heard that your deputy editor was slapped down on this at a meeting in Nottingham to the delight of the same self grassroots you profess to be representing.

[James Maskell]

This is a very strong site but its depressing whenever someone makes a critical comment on this site against a policy, one of the pro-Cameron faction kick up a stink on this site. You get the taunts, which ruins the debate and does the Party no good.

There is a point on the whole Party vs CH debate. Ch has been more open minded over policy and because of its being distant from CCO, its able to make its own mind about issues. We use "groupthink" which as we all know can work really well. CCo seems more insular.

[Jennifer Wells]

An attack on this site is an attack on debate and openness. Imagine if CH ceased to exist tomorrow? I suspect it would be replaced by something much less responsible than that operated by Tim Montgomery.

[Chris Palmer]

The site, comment wise, used to be very good over a year ago. There used to be some informed and enjoyable debates on various topics between a core number of commentators.

Since that point however, the comments section has rapidly deteriorated - but then perhaps that is the price to be paid for increasing popularity and renown.

[John Coles]

This is the only sensible forum for those of a conservative outlook and I think, Editor, that you do a splendid job by providing this platform. Pace the oft-repeated censorious ravings of Justin Hinchcliffe, the more open the debate the better for conservative democracy, of which there is precious little amongst the patrician autocrats at CCHQ.

[Robert McIlveen]

The quality of debate on CH is more variable than a lot of comments above suggest, and it seems to vary by subject. On polling there tends to be a decent level of debate, when it came to gay adoption it was vicious. Registration might be the answer, or more pro-active moderation on contentious issues.

[Editor]

Thanks for the comments so far - please keep them coming. I tend to agree that the quality of comments has deteriorated although Robert M is right - there are still times when the quality of debate is high and we certainly never fall as low as sites like Comment is free. Any advice on platforms where moderation/ registration works best (of the kind Justin H suggests) would be gratefully received...

[Umbrella Man]

Just donated £35 so that I can get a mug with the shields. It is an inspired design.

[Adrian Owens]

This site definitely performs a useful function otherwise why would people "vote with their mouse"?

The threads on many topics though have deteriorated over the past year. People will always want to rant about politics, but we need more initiatives such as 100policies and broader agenda-setting Conservative philosophy type discussions.

Keep up the good work.

[malcolm]

I don't mind the commentators from other parties posting here or those who disagree with the leadership on virtually every issue. Those I do object to however are those who seek time and again to be gratuitously offensive to those who disagree with them. These people generally don't have the courage to post under their real names either. Whether registration is a good idea or not I'm not sure, if it meant that far fewer people post that would be a shame.

[Jake]

This site " offers the most comprehensive account of developments in the Conservative Party. - --
At Nottingham I lost count of the number of people who came up to me to say how much they valued this website. 'It's the only way I find out what's really going on,' was the most frequently-made comment. "

Quite . This is a tremendous site . Perhaps not for the narrow minded control freaks present in all parties - though perhaps even for them ! It certainly expands the level of participation and connects the leadership with the grass roots .

If they are getting edgy about it you know it is working .

[aristeides]

Editor, you are absolutely correct in your response. However, the idea from the "senior Tory close to Mr Cameron" that the site "represents a specific strand of thinking" is particularly risible, and no one who had spent more than five minutes on the site could possibly make such an absurd assertion. How ironical that this site is about the only platform in the Conservative sphere where if you disagree with something, you can say so right there and then.

I am pretty relaxed about dodgy commenters. You tend to see them more on the main thread and in Tory Diary but much less in 100policies, Your Platform, etc.

[Will East]

Tim,

I agree with all those people who came up to you in Nottingham, this is a fantastic site and you should be congratulated for keeping it up. In contrast to some of those above, I think that having a wide range of views posted is a good thing and refreshing for politics these days. Who knows, there may be extremists or people who refuse to toe the party line who post on here, but the best way to take them on is in debate rather than to shut them out through a registration process.

I agree with much of what Cameron has done since he became leader and in fact it's the reason I recently joined the Conservatives having voted Labour in previous elections. However, I don't think the leadership should have a monopoly over ideas or debate - that's the situation in the Labour party. Open debate is a strength as it allows more people to contribute than a stifled process where the only people speaking are puppets being pulled by strings from above.

Well done Tim and keep it up!

[Michael McGowan]

I don't take too seriously an article like this in the Times....a newspaper whose loyalties are notoriously fickle and which has spent most of the last ten years supporting the Labour Party. Having said that, if the closed ingrown elite running the Tory Party is a bit rattled, that is a good sign. People are no longer prepared to pay up and shut up as they would have done in the fifties. Keep up the good work, Tim. There has always been a vocal section of the Tory modernising tendency whose approach amounts to Stalinism with aromatherapy. They see the Tory Party as a machine, to be seized by coup d'etat, for promoting their personal ambitions. Their mentality is authoritarian. Some of them seem to admire Blairite character assassination techniques. Hence we get standard Alastair Campbellesque abuse of dissenters: weird, talking to themselves, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc etc etc. We have heard it all before and it is all sounding distinctly passe. Besides, the more that these sort of people go on in this vein, you really do have to ask yourselves whether they would be an improvement on New Labour.

[Umbrella Man]

Michael McGowan: "There has always been a vocal section of the Tory modernising tendency whose approach amounts to Stalinism with aromatherapy." Very funny!

[Stand up for Conservative Home]

It would be quite simple for CCHQ to start its own discussion forum. Party members can apply for passwords to the conservatives.com extranet. Those passwords could be used to access such a forum.

So why does the Party not do it? It would be relatively cheap to set up, e.g. added on to the Conservative Policy Forum site. My guess is that CCHQ does not want discussion and debate. It really wants unquestioning support for whatever Cameron and team say.

Of course, CCHQ is hypocritical. Some posters have noted that some A listers only visit this site to post supportive comments when one of their fellow A listers has been selected. The romour mill says that the Candidates Department sent out instructions to post to its "trusted" email list.

Conservative Home is the only forum where those do not agree with Cameron agenda can engage with other.

It is the only site that tells us what is really going on inside the party. John Strafford of "Conservative One Person One Vote" used to be source of information and perceptive comment. But John has muted his criticism of CCHQ in recent months. That may be related to him participating, at the invitation of Francis Maude, in the meaningless review of candidate selection.

This is probably part of a CCHQ campaign to discredit and smear Conservative Home. It will be the Sunday Telegraph or the Spectator who will carry the next attack.

[Reagan Fan]

I would counsel against a restrictive "register to post" system as suggested by Justin Hinchcliffe. We all know that some posts can be discounted as soon as you see who has written them, but to require registration for all will stop the irregular poster inspired to post on a specific topic of interest to him from doing so. This would be a loss.

Also, this site shouldn't just be for party members and active supporters, it must be open to the wider constituent groups of the conservative coalition or risk becoming introspective. After all we do want UKIP voters and members to vote Conservative at elections don't we?

But here's a suggestion - why not have some public ConHome meetings, or conference fringe events (maybe you do already and I've missed them)?

[Matt Davis]

Sadly any desire on the part of the Party's Leadershin to silence or tone down CH just goes to show how little they care about the views, hopes or motivations of their own membership. Very little shows more clearly how contemptuous they are becoming of the people they need to win elections.

[Sally Roberts]

Conservative Home is read with interest throughout the Party and contributed to by many MPs, Councillors and activists - not least from my own Hammersmith Association!
The problem arises in that there have been a number of highly unpleasant personal attacks on people and numerous incidences of "trolling" - mainly instigated it has to be said by people from other parties.
I don't think the "higher ups" regard CH with suspicion on the whole and believe that many of them regard it as a bellwether of opinion in the Party. As the personal attacks and trolling decreases, the regard in which CH is held will certainly increase.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

There is no doubt the Conservative Party would be significantly the less were it not for the existence of this high quality site. The fact that it provides a much needed platform for discussion between different tendencies within the Party is to be applauded, especially when despite the efforts of some, constituency Parties often discourage such debate.

Despite the often fiercely expressed differences posted here, very few who use the site resort to the foul and inappropriate language frequently found on other blogs.

I congratulate Tim & (our) Sam on maintaining these high standards for us who use the site and for our Conservative Party. I'm confident that CCHQ monitors what goes on here and sometimes enters the discussion, usually under anonymity. Perhaps a paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson's statement will resonate with some, "When CCHQ fears the members, there is liberty. When the members fear CCHQ, there is tyranny"

LONG MAY CH CONTINUE TO MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO OUR PARTY!

[Sally Roberts]

"These people generally don't have the courage to post under their real names either."

Its good to know that both you and do, Malcolm!!

[Londoner]

If it were technically possible I would support the following form of registration - you would have to register a profile on the site before you could post comments. This would have a very few mandatory fields - principally about party membership and voting habits/intentions, with other fields on things such as part of the country, age etc if people want to include them. Vitally it would not require the revelation of names and would just maintain the need for a link to a real email address - albeit that could be an anonymous one. The reason for this is that you get less inhibited comments from people involved in elective office in the Party, or with professional profiles in non-political fields, by allowing this.

This scheme would not prevent political opponents from contributing but would tell people where posters are coming from - you could introduce an ikon for party membership etc in due course and one could jump from any post to the poster's profile. You could also allow, say, 6 free posts a month but, if you wanted to do more than that you had to pay a modest min subscription. This might pay at least for the marginal cost of setting up what I propose. As paying this would usually require ones real name through a credit card etc, there would be an agreement whereby ConHome did not reveal subscribers' identities under Data Protection unless ever required to by law (criminal libel or whatever).

After all that, obviously I appreciate the site and I think I may donate £35 to get one of your mugs.

[Sally Roberts]

Sorry - I meant "that both you and I do..."!!

[A H Matlock]

I certainly agree with much of what you say, Tim, and I do think that ConservativeHome provides an invaluable service to the Party and to grassroots Party members in particular as a conduit for information. However, your words might carry more weight in CCHQ if not quite so many threads were allowed to be commandeered by posters who are clearly Agents Provocateurs for other parties, here only to create havoc and have a go at David Cameron. Let them contribute here as often as they like if they want to discuss issues of substance in a reasoned manner, but too often they do nothing but post one attack after another and are rarely disciplined for it. This all feeds the media perception that Sam Coates writes about in The Times today.

[Toryboy]

This site is the best political site i've seen and may it long continue to be so,

i met sam coates at the cf party in the church hall on friday and had a bit of a chat about it and i tried to meet tim at the bbc reception but had to settle for a chat with the excellent jason mccartney and a picture with dave cameron!

keep up the good work and hopefully one day i will get to tell you in person how great this site is

[Graeme Archer]

I hope you know how much I love this site - this is in the spirit of the constructive thoughts requested - and some feedback. In contrast to your experience, I was struck by the number of people I talked to in Nottingham who are not fans of CH. NOT CCHQ people - activists from London mainly. They felt very strongly that it is wrong to publish longlists in the constituency candidate selection process. I said to one woman I couldn't see the problem with that, to which she responded "how would you feel if you applied for a job, and your name was posted on a public website?" -- I can definitely see her point. Maybe worth reconsidering?

I also agree with the introduction of either registration (Google do something like this I think) or, even better, more proactive editorial moderation of the comments posted. There is no doubt that the content of most TD "debates" has declined, and at times is downright harmful to the party's prospects. Anyone who wants complete freedom to write whatever they wish, regardless of the electoral damage it may cause, is free to start their own website, but this site is owned by someone who wants the best for the party. You should delete anything malicious, personal or non-thread oriented as soon as it appears, and bar the IP addresses of repeat offenders.

[Stand Up for Conservative Home]

From the Times article "those close to Mr Cameron responded by pointing out that the Conservative membership was not representative of the country as a whole. A quarter of a million people are members of the Tory party."

That suggests that membership is still dropping. You would expect it, given the opinion polls, to be increasing as happened with New Labour.

The party members are either dying off or leaving. Perhaps they feel that they are not valued, especially non-members have a right to participate in open primaries. Membership benefits are non-existent - despite Francis Maude claiming on this site that he wanted to improve them.

In a private business, declining sales would lead to a change in management. Party politics is now different with the taxpayer being being asked to pick up the tab.

Several friends (with many years experience as activists, councillors and candidates) have walked away from the Party in disgust. I am considering joining the exodus. Enough is enough.

[bill1215]

Prdeictably well said Michael McGowan at 10.44. I also agree with Regan Fan and Matt Davis. Tim (and Sam)continue to deserve our thanks for running this site which serves as an excellent place for conservative minded individuals to debate politics. Critics of this site would be mistaken to downplay views aired on here. FWIW the comments on the Telegraph website are also well worth reading for those of a conservative disposition.

[Tam Large]

Well done Tim, it shows you are doing it right. Free speech will always annoy someone, but it is essential for democracy, and to ensure politics does not become the sterile monoculture of ideas some would like. This site is a breath of fresh air, and the Cameroons should regard it is a vauable resource and sounding-board.

As for "UKIP trolls", of which I am one, those (normally cravenly anonymous) who grumble should ask themselves why we are no longer in Dave's Party. Many of us are life-long grass-roots tories, who can no longer accept what is being done to the Party. Many are conservatives, although no longer Conservatives of the Cameroon kind.

[Bill Melotti]

The Times' Sam Coates quotes one "senior Tory close to Mr Cameron" as saying about ConservativeHome that “it’s 30 people talking to 30 people."

Well there's another one I know who I reckon would say the site is on the cutting edge. So what?

I don't go looking for New Labour sites, but it seems to me Conservatives are leading the debate within new media at the moment, (unless someone tells me otherwise) and CH is a key part of that.

Tim, your lengthy post suggests you feel a need to perhaps apologise or explain your actions.

Don't. People vote with their mouse as suggested, your clearly doing a lot right and the thinking behind the site ('and theory', 'crowd wisdom' etc) as well as some of the great writing shows it has depth as well as the breadth that is obvious from the front page.

The parts of the site that encourage new and serious ideas are the best.

As for changes, registration could be good, but probably not necessary yet

I never put my real E-Mail address on posts not because I'm a coward, but that I get enough spam.

[Stand Up for Conservative Home]

Londoner should donate to this site. If you donate £35 to Conservative Home you receive a mug. If you donate to the Party, you are treated like a mug.

[Stand Up for Conservative Home]

Bill Melotti makes a valid point. I know several posters that have experienced significant increases in spam after posting on this site.

[Paul Oakley]

"Stand Up For Conservative Home" makes a good point. CCO should consider setting up its own discusion forum. At present, the official website is all proclamation and no interaction. One of the great advantages of the internet is that it creates a community. This is not something we've run away from in other areas: open primaries for candidate selection as a case in point.

I can understand that the leadership might be concerned about the allegiance of some of those who post on the site, swivel-eyed europhile trolls being the prime example. But let them speak!

[bill1215]

Good point, Paul Oakley at 11.21. Just like the old media, the extant political are still having to come to terms with the internet and the freeing up of debate. Of course there will always be those who wat to narrow debate for one reason or another.

[David Belchamber]

"Without the right to criticise, there can be no flattering praise".
ConHome does a marvellous job, though I agree that it can deteriorate occasionally into a personal vendetta that is a waste of everybody's time.
I welcome visitors from other political persuasions, as long as they put forward a genuinely held point of view and do not merely try to disrupt the thread.
Items such as the 100 Policies are very valuable but I would like to suggest that we occasionally try to formulate positive suggestions towards the end of a particular topic e.g. specific proposals for improving state schools or the management of NHS hospitals or the funding of the NHS to avoid the farcical situation that confronts us at the moment.
I tend to believe that much of government is really about process and I would like to see more thought given to how we as a party can improve on what has become a quite disastrous legacy from the Blair/Brown duo.

[Stand Up for Conservative Home]

I thank Paul Oakley for his kind remark. CCHQ does not engage with the members directly. We do not even get a magazine like we used to. My constituency, a target seat, does not even have a Conservative Political Forum group. The Deputy Chairman (Political) is hopeless.

I remain, however, opposed to open primaries. Jonathan Isaby (I think) commented that Richmond Park turned away applicants for seats at the open primary because the venue was full. This meant that party members were disenfranchised because non-members had taken up valuable places. (The organisers shoud have booked a bigger venue though.)

The right of members to select the Parliamentary candidate is a membership right or benefit that should be protected. There are other ways of engaging with the local community.

[Sean Fear]

I find ConHome invaluable. I get about three communications a year from CCHQ, in my role as Constituency Chairman, and this is the best way of finding out what's going on in, and around, the Conservative Party.

[Ash Faulkner]

Bring it on, Dave. Bring it on.

[Stand Up for Conservative Home]

Sean Fear says that constituency chairmen receive three communications a year. If that is typical, it is an utter disgrace.

I used to receive the Campaign Bulletin and other emails and electronic documents from CCHQ. They seem to have stopped or perhaps I have removed from the email lists.

[TomTom]

City Region

Now that William Hague is in charge of revitalising Conservatives in the North does he or the Conservative Party have anything to say on this latest bit of Anti-democratic Corporatism by the New Gulag Party in Westminster ?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"Sean Fear says that constituency chairmen receive three communications a year"

As a Constituency Chairman, I receive a regular update from Jeremy Middleton (National Convention), Francis Maude (Party Chairman), the Campaign Bulletin, press releases from our MEPs and countless emails from other bodies - such as the Candidates' Deaprtment and Assn. of Con Cllrs. That said, I don not receive anything from the "Area" - the first I know about its officers is when they post here on ConHome. My counterpart in the neighbouring constituency pointed out to me that no Area officer has visited the borough in three years - not even for AGMs. No doubt I'll get some abused for writing this post, but it's absolutely true! What should are Area 'Management Teams' do - should they keep in touch with the local Assns? Are they actually even worth having?

[Peter Hatchet]

Conservativehome is an excellent website. Tim and Sam do an excellent job and should be commended for their hard work.

I do have some criticisms of the website; including my desire for a strictly neutral editoral line, the fact that anonymous commenting is permitted on candidate selection boards "in-play" and the scepticism displayed towards "project cameron", but ConservativeHomes positives far outweigh the negatives.

For me, ConservativeHome has many strengths. But it's main strength is that it is considered important enough to be taken seriously by the parliamentary party - and, yes, even some of the posted comments are too.

There is always an outside chance that an MP, or shadow cabinet member, will read your post, maybe take heed of your argument and might, just might, be influenced by it enough to change their minds.

A fantastic feature which just simply isn't possible anywhere else.

[malcolm]

Apart from a few angry emails from Christina Speight I've never had any spams from posting on Conhome as far as I'm aware. Generally I think it much better to post under a real name.