Cameron: BNP thrive on hatred

David Cameron demonstrated his energetic commitment to the looming local elections yesterday with multiple interventions on the broadcast airwaves yesterday...

• He was defending his decision to choose a Lexus instead of a Prius (because of the size of his entourage and the need to avoid, therefore, using two cars)...
• ...attacking Patricia Hewitt's claim that the NHS was enjoying its best year ever ('what planet is she on?', the Tory leader asked)...
• ...and calling for voters to support any party other than the British National Party.

"I hope nobody votes for the BNP. I would rather people voted for any other party," Mr Cameron told Sky News.  David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, will be visiting Barking today in a bid to face down the BNP threat there.

A second instalment of YouGov's latest poll for The Daily Telegraph suggests that 6% of respondents would like to see the BNP running their local council.  The Tories and Labour both had the support of 19% of voters - the LibDems 15% - and the Greens 6%.  19% said that they would prefer a coalition of two or more parties.

PS Andrew Lansley has written to The Telegraph defending his response to the NHS debt crisis (after some criticism from the newspaper's leader-writers last week).

Comments

[Tim Aker]

Oh dear, someone hasn't learned from Hodge's mistakes. Here we have an Etonian, establishment figure attacking a small protest party for being 'hateful' etc. It doesn't look well, also, when the tory party leader is urging people to vote for anyone else, including the government, to stop them. As long as people give the BNP free publicity, their polls will continue to rise.

Finally, i don't know why Davis is visiting Barking. The tory structure there is non-existent anyways and the tories haven't polled higher than the BNP at local level in years.

[James Maskell]

While Cameron makes a good point (attacking the BNP for hating minorities is an easier case to make than UKIP being closet racists) Id rather he wasnt asking people to vote for any Party and instead say they should be voting Tory. Camerons comments might force people into the arms of Labour (better the devil you know).

[Gareth]

He's entirely right to urge voters to vote for the party that can best defeat the BNP in seats where they have a serious chance of winning.

There are some issues where one simply has to put aside one's party loyalties and vote for the greater good, namely, ensuring that fascists are defeated wherever they have the nerve to raise their heads.

[Margaret]

An open letter to the Conservative leader

A leading Tory peer tells David Cameron that he should be restoring the party's traditional values on liberties

Lord Onslow
Sunday April 23, 2006
The Observer

Dear Mr Cameron,

You and I are Conservatives. It could even be said that we both had a traditional upbringing. I have always understood that we Conservatives have been at our best when we use conservative and traditional methods for constructive change. From our beginnings in the Restoration parliament as defenders of church and king, we have seen ancient liberties as the key to the advancement of our fellow citizens.

Throughout the centuries, that Conservative-Tory tradition has been used for the immense benefit of our people. Peel's Tamworth Manifesto stated that so clearly in 1834. That is why we have been the most successful and long-lasting political party in history. From the Stuart kings to the modern, mass-political democracy, our great party has defended our constitution and benefited our country.

Something is missing from our rhetoric. We have a government by a party that reinvented itself by being ashamed of its roots and determinedly betrayed the traditions and ideas of its founders. They may well have been right so to do, but they cannot be trusted to hold dear the traditions of others.

In no order of awfulness, this government has emasculated the House of Commons by the permanent use of guillotines. On the whim of the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellorship has been neutered, removing a voice of law from the cabinet.

Those instances are on the parliamentary front, but what the government has done to the liberty of the subject is far worse. Note that I say liberty of the subject, not the rights of the citizen. That is because liberties are boundless unless circumscribed by law and rights are, by their nature, circumscribed.

It has repealed the law on double jeopardy. With Asbos, it has sent to prison some of the young on hearsay evidence for things that are not even criminal. It has created a centralised register held by the government on all citizens and proposes to force them to have ID cards. It has formed a police force with unprecedented powers of arrest - the Serious Organised Crime Agency - over which the Home Secretary has authority no predecessor has previously enjoyed.

Through its control orders, it has introduced a system of deprivation of liberty without trial on the say-so of the executive. It has passed the Civil Contingencies Act that allows a minister to override any statute after the calling of a state of emergency and now there is the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been described as 'the abolition of parliament bill' and against which our party did not even vote at second reading. This gives gauleiter-like powers to ministers which we are blandly told will not be used.

The government has allowed the retention by the police of DNA details of thousands of innocents and it has given us section 81 (6) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claims) Act 2004 which amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylums Act 2002, creating a single-tier appeals procedure which Lord Steyn, in a recent lecture, described as, in effect, ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The government has introduced anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers that are constantly being misused, such as when the elderly Walter Wolfgang was ejected from the Labour conference.

This list is by no means comprehensive. What surprises, worries and depresses me is the apparent relative quietude on the part of the Conservative party on these issues. I repeat - it did not vote against the Regulatory Reform Bill on second reading. It has not remembered the great Edward Gibbon's comment on Augustus Caesar's Rome: 'The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the executive.'

It was dozy on the Civil Contingencies Act until the excellent Peta Buscombe in our house took it up; this from the party which, since the restoration of Charles II, has been so jealous of our constitution. Have we a guilty secret? Remember Burke saying: 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' Why are we not shouting from the hustings that we will return to the people their ancient liberties?

Why, Mr Cameron, is the Conservative party passing by on the other side while our old liberties fall among thieves?

Yours sincerely, Onslow

· The Earl of Onslow is one of the 92 hereditary peers and takes the Conservative whip.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1759443,00.html

[Mark Fulford]

Obviously I'd prefer people to vote Conservative, but it their personal choice is between Labour and BNP, I hope they vote Labour.

Cameron's words were very different and much better judged than Hodge's. Hodge presented the BNP as a credible threat - and it's the credibility that does the damage. Cameron by contrast is pointing out the depth of the BNP's unpleasantness.

[Mark Fulford]

Margaret, why is a UKIP supporter raising this OT letter on a BNP thread? Isn't it the case that you are quite sympathetic towards the BNP and therefore trying to deflect attention?

[James Maskell]

Margaret, the leter was linked in yesterdays newslinks.

[Puzzled]

He was defending his decision to choose a Lexus instead of a Prius (because of the size of his entourage and the need to avoid, therefore, using two cars)...

Despite them both being five seater cars.

[John Coles]

Well, Mr Fulford, that's Margaret successfully smeared. Do try to show a little more style than Mr Cameron and allow people to have a say without impugning their motives.

[Gareth]

Margaret,

Do you think it is their love of our ancient liberties which is causing people to vote BNP?

If not, what on earth was the point of reproducing that letter on this thread?

[Annabel Herriott]

I studied Lord Onslow's letter yesterday, but I did not think that much could be gained against this corrupt Government by merely shouting back at them, much as DC may have wanted to. Anyone who has observed TB turning puce and feverish at the dispatch box, clutching that HUGE pile of other peoples research to his bosom would have realised that. No. The way to go here, is "softly, softly, catchee monkey" My dear old grandma was always advocating this line of approach, and a wise woman was she! If you take the trouble to watch DC, instead of shoutins at him via a PC, you will notice, that quietly, he IS getting his points across. Like yesterday, via the media. "What planet does she think she is on?" reg the Saintly Hewitt. Think about it!

[Serf]

ensuring that fascists are defeated wherever they have the nerve to raise their heads.

The BNP is an odious little party that represents no threat to our nation at all.

The Labour party on the other hand has spent 9 years undermining everything that makes the UK special.
1) The list of their attacks on our civil liberties is endless and they are nowhere near losing their appetite.
2) They have destroyed the pensions of millions and completely wasted the fantastic economy that they inherited.
3)Their narrow ideological hatred of choice in the NHS lead them to reverse reforms that had benefitted the sick and then waste billions on trying to make up for this mistake. The elderly especially are paying a very personal price for this negligence.
4) Destructive class war mentality has cursed the poor to substandard education and violent schools, rather than admit that the system is broken.
5) Our very culture is being actively undermined by people who regards being British as something to be ashamed of.
6) The constitution has been completely vandalised in the name of modernisation.
7) All this from a party that quite frankly, to judge by the recent scandals, thinks it is above the rule of law.

In all honesty the BNP is far less dangerous than the current bunch of lunatics and incompetents that we call a government.

[Mark Fulford]

Well, Mr Fulford, that's Margaret successfully smeared.

If 'her say' had been relevant to the thread, I wouldn't have commented. As for destroying her reputation… that depends on what you think about UKIP and the BNP.

[Frank Young]

Danny Kruger addresses this issue well in today's Telegraph.

The "political class" should prepare for a collective biff on the nose and respond positively to it.

Depending on the size and profile of the BNP vote there are some serious political issues for the main parties to address.

Because of the "plague on all your houses" tendency of many BNP votes there is a danger in (effectively) telling voters they are wrong to vote BNP.

We all agree how odious they are as a party. The debate is really how we address this issue effectively.

[Margaret]

"I studied Lord Onslow's letter yesterday, but I did not think that much could be gained against this corrupt Government by merely shouting back at them, much as DC may have wanted to".

What Lord Onslow is pointing out, and quite rightly, that the Tories have singularly
failed to attack this Government, they sat back and allowed them to take away our civil liberties without a peep.

I find it strange that nobody even commented on this, perhaps you are all so enthralled with DC "green policy" that you don't want to admit that the Tories are not doing their job properly and opposing these draconian measures.

This is a comment on the letter in the Observer.

"My advice would be to dump the huskies and concentrate on matters that are more important to the man on the Clapham omnibus, for whom global warming, after one of the coldest winters in recent memory, is a sick joke. Talk incessantly about our loss of civil liberties, about New Labour's increasingly authoritarian approach, about the heavy-handed policing for reading out the names of dead British soldiers, while turning a blind eye to Muslim extremists. Talk about the latest plans to withdraw compensation from victims of miscarriages of justice. Appeal to the British sense of fair play, surely a watchword at Eton? Talk about the NHS and the redundancies. Remind people about the impossibility of getting an NHS dentist despite Blair's promises. Talk about the cost of fuel, and compare it to the cost of public transport. Ask the question, is there an alternative? Yes! Cheaper public transport. Global warming might give you the opportunity to stroke a few dogs in Lapland, but it really will cut no ice with the electorate. No wonder some (not me) are looking at the BNP, thoroughly disillusioned with all the mainstream parties."

[Editor]

Let's avoid this thread becoming personal please and focus on differences of substance. I'm keeping a close eye on this thread.

Thank you! Tim

[Margaret]

"Margaret, why is a UKIP supporter raising this OT letter on a BNP thread?"

Easy, because the Tories are not doing their job in defending our Civil Liberties, so people will turn to the BNP.

"Do you think it is their love of our ancient liberties which is causing people to vote BNP?"

In part yes. They have no hope of the Tories doing this. It seems to me that the BNP are the only party at present defending our Country.

What everyone fails to recognise is that UKIP would never have been born if the CP had been doing its job properly.

[TimC]

The sad thing is that many of the Labour heartlands do feel let down. The Labour attitude is that they can ignore the Labour strongholds as they will only ever vote Labour anyway.

As such, nuLab's rhetoric has been to target voters in the marginal seats and to ignore the people living in Labour's strongest areas.

To stop the likes of the BNP, we need to be able to provide a message that appeals to these areas, as well as to the marginals that we need to win at the next election.

[Ted]

"Well, Mr Fulford, that's Margaret successfully smeared."

So in Mr Coles view pointing out that someone is UKIP is "smearing" them - so despite his own comments seems to agree with DCs comments on UKIP? Mark fairly pointed out that a UKIP sympathiser has raised an irrelevant OT comment on a blog for Conservatives for her own purposes.

BNP is a nasty racist & socialist party. I'd prefer someone to vote for New Labour rather than give any credence to the BNP - however I also recognise that the better alternative would be to look at the causes and issues and see how these can be addressed in a more positive way than the solutions the BNP espouses.

That's why it's good that David Davis is getting out into East London - the issues that IDS has been raising for some time have conservative solutions and we should be giving those some greater focus and publicity. As the Editor pointed out a couple of days ago IDS was intending to bring these to the forefront before his loss of the leadership and it's time we added social justice to the green agenda.

I'd prefer our approach to be based around social cohesion, empowerment, voluntary & government working together than one solely based on immigration. Fair managed immigration has its part but it's more about the situation that Labour (and previous Tory) governments and councils have created.

Gordon Brown believes all solutions are about centralised direction, targetted funding and social interference lets go out and show why he's wrong and what positives we have to improve the lives of those who feel threatened by crime, bad housing, loss of jobs and loss of their local culture.

[Chad]

on a blog for Conservatives

No Ted, it is a blog for conservatives.

This is not a mouthpiece for members of the Tory Party nor a vehicle for the Tory Party to peddle its own propaganda. It is an independent blog open to conservatives no matter which party that have voted for in the past, or may vote for in the future.

If that changes, then the blog will become irrelevant. I'm sure that will not happen.

[Rob G]

Ted: I agree. There was, of course, much more about social action than about the environment in the much-derided "Be the change" leaflet.

[Rick]

The Earl of Onslow is one of the 92 hereditary peers and takes the Conservative whip

Yes and a credit to the nation he is too ! Why not abolish the House of Commons ? It has a complete disregard for the liberties of the citizen and acts in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the electorate.

It has devolved powers to Europe that were not its to devolve and sought to oppress the citizen with an authority which does not belong to Parliament.

Cameron is an affront to the function of Opposition and I cannot imagine for one minute Margaret Thatcher would have been quite as supine over the attempts to suppress free thought and speech which Labour is implementing.

As for the BNP - this group is a farce - it was probably concoted by MI5 as a foil to stop the Conservative Party losing support. It is frankly used as a bogeyman to justify the violence perpetrated by the SWP and its ilke in "fighting Fascism".

Cameron is a soundbite man who just got his commentary in for the news bulletins. Cameron can think of no convincing reason to vote Conservative because he has confused the voters as to what the Conservatives really are - from my perspective they are a Home Counties party irrelevant to the North of England..............Cameron has done nothing to dispel that notion.

[Rob G]

Chad: I would have no problem with that--except that Conservative Home gets quoted in the traditional media as an indicator of Conservative Party opinion. So Party members have a legitimate interest in pointing out where the views expressed are coming from outside the Party.

[Ted]

Chad its OT but I agree this is not a closed blog but one for people to discuss developments in the Conservative Party. However its reasonable to point out that comments are from people in UKIP (or BNP?) and don't reflect what Conservatives think or believe. To be told that the BNP (!) is the only party defending our Country deserves a response.

As has been pointed out by yourself the influence of the blogsphere is growing and I think that people should follow your example and clearly & explicitly state where their political allegiances lie.

[Chad]

Hi Rob G,

Yes I agree that it helps to understand regulars' political affiliation, and I would encourage regulars to submit their profile noting which party they usually vote for to the Community Blog.

This would I would hope end the witch-hunt every time a non-Tory conservative makes a criticism.

The Tory Party has no more right to claim to be the 'conservative' party as the LibDems have to claim ownership of being the 'liberal' party.

[Chad]

Hi Ted,
Cross-post. Yes I agree on transparency of political affiliation as we have both suggested.

[True Blue]

... and it has given us section 81 (6) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claims) Act 2004 which amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylums Act 2002, creating a single-tier appeals procedure which Lord Steyn, in a recent lecture, described as, in effect, ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Margaret,

At last! It's great to see you coming out in support of mistreated asylum seekers and immigrants who no longer have proper access to judicial process. I never thought I'd see the day.

The BNP might get a little bounce through ill-advised publicity, but giving their misinformation any credence, instead of dealing with the actual problems of the white working classes will allow them to set the agenda. You can't fight the far right by out-righting them. Their views are non-sensical and I don't think we should take any notice of them.

The actual grievances have been redirected into blaiming ethnic minorities for things that are not their fault. For example:

Real problem:
"I haven't got decent housing"
BNP view:
"Black people are stealing your houses"

Real problem:
"There is no work around here."
BNP spin:
"Black people are stealing your jobs"

Real problem:
"No one is listening to us."
BNP spin:
"Black people are getting preference."

Real problem:
"We are suffering from crime"
BNP spin:
"Asians are raping our women"

We must address the real problems and fight the misinformation. If we concede to any of this frightful nonsense, they will win. The idea that existing ethnic minority communities, current temporary immigrants and asylum seekers are all the same thing is poisonous.

I think Frank Field has a point with the housing issue. All councils have a housing policy, and that policy is, understandably that the homeless and the desititute, people with children and the sick get priority, even over those deserving people who have been on the waiting list longer. This is not a simple issue. Dispersal schemes have not worked well.

Usually, the problem is incredibly inefficient Labour councils not dealing with their own housing stock properly, mismanaging and delaying applications. These are issues on which we can fight, while challenging racist views on the door step in as polite a way as possible.

[Richard]

"There are some issues where one simply has to put aside one's party loyalties and vote for the greater good, namely, ensuring that fascists are defeated wherever they have the nerve to raise their heads."

Does that include voting for Far Left parties like Respect (Who it must be remembered are backed by the SWP and the CPGB)? These organisations believe in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the repression of the middle classes. Looking through the 2005 manifestos of the BNP and Respect the latter comes across as the more extreme, although I suspect the private views of some BNP members may be worse.

[Sean Fear]

Odious as the BNP are, I would hate to feel compelled to vote Labour in order to keep them out. If I lived in a ward where it was a clear fight between Labour and the BNP, I'd still vote Conservative (if a Conservative was standing) and spoil my ballot if there was no Conservative.

[Richard]

"Cameron is a soundbite man who just got his commentary in for the news bulletins."

One certainly does get the impression that this speech is little more than rhetoric. It doesn't really add anything more to what else has been said recently by mainstream politicians - The BNP are horrible, don't vote for them etc. That clearly hasn't worked.

If anything it allows the BNP to say "all the main parties are the same - look how they join together to stop you voting for someone else etc".

[Michael McGowan]

You beat me to it, Richard. Gareth, is your opinion that the BNP is somehow more repulsive than Respect and their bedfellows, the SWP? I would have said they were on a par.....but then I am not a left-leaning Tory and I already know your benevolent views on the subject of Sinn Fein. Incidentally, as a number of people have rightly pointed out, the BNP, like the Nazi Party, is in fact a party of the left with a racist ideology. There is nothing uniquely right wing about racism.

[Ted]

Richard

The BNP is far more a party of the far left than the far right (perhaps as has been pointed out as parties travel further from the centre they finally meet in a similar place). Respect is equally odious.

It is one of democracy's strengths that it provides a means of protesting. Respect provides an alienated community a voice, the BNP a different community a similar voice.

I would prefer though that an alienated voter in Bradford or the East of London gave their protest to another party rather than give credence to the fear and hatred that both these parties are built on.

I recognise that throwing out the incumbent - whether Labour or the Tories or the Lib Dems - doesn't guarantee that people will recognise your protest (would be misread as gosh Cameron has won Barking, the change agenda must be working) and voting BNP or Respect gets more notice but it doesn't mean I like it or view it with the relish some posters seem to.

[wasp]

I think you are all missing the point of WHY Hodge made the comments she did.

Having spent some time with hard-core lefties, they are OBSESSED with the BNP. Its like the EU with Tories, you start off with a normal debate about say health, within 10mins someone is berating Europe and you're never in it.

Lefties love attacking the BNP the ghost of "fascism" is manner from heaven for a card carrying socialist.

She made these comments to get the left-wing vote to turnout.

Cameron should never have responded he's doing Labour's job for them.

[Sean Fear]

"Having spent some time with hard-core lefties, they are OBSESSED with the BNP."

They would hate a rival totalitarian organisation.

[Michael McGowan]

The left always has a vested interest in resurrecting the ghost of fascism.....even though the left is now split because many of its adherents make common cause with Islamofascism. Thankfully, the mainland UK has never had an effective fascist party. The BNP are pathetic demagogues and are a pale shadow of even Mosley's Blackshirts who, however unpleasant, never developed real traction. The only effective fascist party in the British Isles is Sinn Fein, a violent, racist, collectivist organisation if ever there was one. Its armalite and ballot box strategy closely resembles Nazi strategy in the early 1930's. Just as Weimar Germany indulged the Nazis (e.g. by making Hitler Chancellor, when he lacked a majority), so the mainstream political parties in the UK and Ireland undulge Sinn Fein.

[True Blue]

It seems to me that the BNP are the only party at present defending our Country.

Margaret, are you a poor, white jobless working class person who feels disenfranchised by immigrants? What are the actual problems you personally are affected by that you think removing ethnic minorites from the country will solve?

In what way are they "defending our country"? Do you mean their protectionist economic policies, or is it the "England for the English" black repatration you think is "best for the country"? Perhaps it the so-called "biological" separatism you support? The abolition of the race relations act, or the laws against racial discrimination?

I don't understand how any intelligent, rational person could think that the BNP is "the only party defending our country" unless your definition of country means "white people of English origin." You are quite clearly a BNP sympathiser.

[Deputy Editor]

Has anyone not voted on Howard Flight?

[Gareth]

I'm amazed Margaret's comment, highlighted by True Blue above passed without comment for so long.

The very idea that the BNP are, in any conceivable sense , 'defending our country' is repellent beyond words. As any even moderately well informed person knows, they have an agenda of hatred and division which exploits genuine concerns rather than seeks to address them. They are parasites who prey on the legitimate grievances of many decent people for their own disgusting, hate-filled ends.

The last generation of Britons who really did 'defend our country' did so against the very ideology the BNP now espouses.

[True Blue]

I don't understand how any intelligent, rational person could think that the BNP is "the only party defending our country" unless your definition of country means "white people of English origin."

...and even then you'd be wrong.

[Richard]

"The last generation of Britons who really did 'defend our country' did so against the very ideology the BNP now espouses. "

Unfortunately there is no evidence in any of the BNP's policy documents or public pronouncements that they wish to set up an authoritarian state. When John Tyndall was running the circus it was much easier to use the charge of fascism because he genuinely did have fascist sympathies and had openly called for a political and economic system reminiscent of that advocated by Mosley.

Griffin on the other hand has emphasised the BNP's commitment to democracy and has adopted a policy of allowing people to initiate referendums under a BNP government. Whether Griffin really believes this or not is besides the point - people are willing to believe it and the more people shout "fascist" the easier it is for the BNP to say "look at our policies though - the mainstream politicians are lying!". The only effective way to beat the BNP is to take them on in open debate and expose any lies used in their campaigns as well as explain why they are unsuited to government.

[Richard]

While flicking through the Mail today (my mother reads it) I came across the following stories:

West Midlands police banned the BNP from playing Rule Britannia (a patriotic song that has exsited for centuries before the BNP) from their campaign van. An Asian MP has criticised this decision for playing into their hands.

Ministers consider extending blasphemy laws to Muslims (how about abolishing them altogether?!)

A senior race advisor to the Government claims that some British towns are "unhealthily white". David Davis pointed out that referring to a town as "unhealthily black" would create a storm of protest.

Now, regardless of what one thinks of the Daily Mail, these stories are factual. They may also help to explain why some people are sympathising with the BNP. Perhaps national politicians ought to address these issues if they want to undermine the BNP.

[William]

The Earl of Onslow is asking Cameron to represent the views of Conservatives. But is that Cameron's strategy? I don't think it is.

By using the EU Directive for the Funding of Political Parties, and EU Laws which remove freedom of speech, Cameron can assist the process of depriving so-called right-wingers of any other political home than the Conservative Party.

The BNP and UKIP can be banned under EU Law if he can make the charges of racism, xenophobia and hatred stick. The ECJ will be the judge and they are hardly likely to favour UKIP and the BNP with allowing them to continue.

It is important that Cameron doesn't win a large majority in Parliament or his and Blair's strategy of closing the door on British independent existence would be threatened. Lord Onslow and the Conservative viewpoint are seen as expendable, as is the continuation of British independence from Brussels.

[True Blue]

By using the EU Directive for the Funding of Political Parties, and EU Laws which remove freedom of speech, Cameron can assist the process of depriving so-called right-wingers of any other political home than the Conservative Party.

The BNP and UKIP can be banned under EU Law if he can make the charges of racism, xenophobia and hatred stick. The ECJ will be the judge and they are hardly likely to favour UKIP and the BNP with allowing them to continue.

...and your evidence for this bizarre accusation is?

[Chad]

Well if the Big 3 tried to get any party banned for 'racism' then I would simply throw the "No preference, No prejudice" test at them.

We wouldn't be left with many political parties if all racism was banned and that includes those pursuing positive discrimination.

[Ted]

Tory Blue - I think we need an EU Hazard! to come up everytime we get this conspiracy mentioned. Apparently Dave is part of the conspiracy....

[Ted]

and how has poor Lord Onslow become a UKIP/BNP role model?
His thoughtful column was asking for Cameron's Conservatives to take a bigger role in preservation of individual liberties including the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants to due process of law.

[Chad]

Ted,

What I find much more worrying is that any rational attempt to ask those within the Tory Party on this blog like TB who call themselves EU 'reformists' (and call on those who support EU withdrawal to leave the party) what reform they are seeking and when do they expect to see it delivered just results in silence.

For me, there seem to be 4 approaches:

1: Super pro-EU - love it - europhile
2: EU reform is needed and possible - eurosceptic
3: EU reform is needed but impossible so withdraw - eurosceptic
4: Yuk, hate it, get out no matter what - eurosceptic.

It therefore seems totally relevant and rational to ask those who claim to fall into camp '2' what reform they are seeking, when they would want to see delivery, and what they would do if this was rejected out of hand by the EU.

However, when I try, I get ridiculous responses like the one from TB where he refused to state what he wanted to reform as he wouldn't get into a hypothetical debate!

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I personally think that all patriots should be anti BNP. They are more interested in "preserving" the white, english "race" (they hate the scots, the welsh and especially the irish as much as anyone else) rather than the British nation-state. I use commas because I have no idea what those frequently used terms actually refer to. The BNP aren't democrats, even though they seek democratic election. To be a democrat it appears that you have to promise to faithfully represent each and every one of your constituents equally. Does anyone voting for these people seriously think they're voting for a democratic party? They make the Socialist Workers look like libertarians.

[True Blue]

Tory Blue - I think we need an EU Hazard! to come up everytime we get this conspiracy mentioned. Apparently Dave is part of the conspiracy....

I do sometimes feel like I am playing Daily Mail Bingo on this forum. I'm also a little confused about the purposes of this blog following the editor's comments on the Award thread - I thought it was primarily for Conservatives, rather than a disaffected rag-tag of UKIP'ers and other splinter groups.

I'm looking at my invitation and wondering if I'm at the right party.

[True Blue]

However, when I try, I get ridiculous responses like the one from TB where he refused to state what he wanted to reform as he wouldn't get into a hypothetical debate!

You didn't read my final post, then, or the manifesto.

[Ted]

Chad completely O/T it's because some of us don't see the EU as the most important matter - I know that saying this means being deluged in stats about 80% of legislation coming from EU but that's only in specific areas. I'm a 2 and I'd say 4 is europhobe not sceptic.

Running the economy sensibly, dealing with crime, cleaning our environment, educating our kids, getting a better health service, making sure our armed services are well equipped and trained, etc. matter more to me today than the EU.

[Chad]

Ted,

Sure I understand, but unhelpful comments like TB calling on those who support withdrawal (the 3's and 4's) to leave the party prevent meaningful discussion. For me, small government is the very core of conservatism, and see myself as a committed (small c) conservative.

I simply cannot understand how a project like the EU can possibly be compatible with conservatism which is why I wonder what reform the 2's want and what deadlines they would set.

For me, like you, EU withdrawal is not a core issue or priority, but for me it is a core process to facilitate the delivery of a (small c) conservative government.

Sure I agree 4 s/b europhobe. I'm a 3 btw.

[Gareth]

Richard wrote:

"Unfortunately there is no evidence in any of the BNP's policy documents or public pronouncements that they wish to set up an authoritarian state."

And the expulsion of all non-white UK citizens is to be achieved by non-authoritarian means is it? How about the ambition to overthrow the Jewish domination of our media? All by consent I suppose? And the banning of homosexuality? No coercion necessary there, I'm sure. How could one ever doubt that freedom of the press; of association; of religion; of speech etc. etc. would be kept safe by Griffin & Co.?

[Ted]

True Blue - stay on and it becomes the right party.

The Editor's guidance is that the conservative movement is bigger than the Conservative Party but the two are not opposed. In US it's easier as the two party establishment means the Rebublicans are forced to become a coalition of right wing parties to greater extent than is case in UK.

I'd absolutely reject the BNP and BNP suporters as fellow conservatives (they seem to be extreme nationalist xenophobes and socialists) and have my doubts about many in leadership of UKIP and some of its membership.

The point should be I think that there is a community of conservatives which seek to build a consensus of conservative principles which both inform debate within the prime vehicle of conservatism (the Conservative Party) and create within the country the conditions in which the Conservative Party can win and govern.

I personally think that if they have decided to form or join an opposition political party they have chosen to leave the supportive community served by this blog but don't think that this means they can't comment (as equally LDs or Labour visitors can - its a free country).

[True Blue]

Sure I understand, but unhelpful comments like TB calling on those who support withdrawal (the 3's and 4's) to leave the party prevent meaningful discussion.

I wasn't calling for such people to leave, I was suggesting it. If I thought there was the slightest chance that unconditional withdrawal from the EU was even the teeniest possibility in the next manifesto, I wouldn't have suggested this course of action. Don't support a party whose unchangeable policy conflicts with your most important core belief. You'll do yourself a mental injury.

As a general principle, if you believe A and A is very important to you, then don't support a party who advocates not-A as a core policy.

I also note that the two most vociferous proponents of EU withdrawal have either formed their own party, or run off to pastures extreme.

[Chad]

I personally think that if they have decided to form or join an opposition political party they have chosen to leave the supportive community served by this blog

Is this Tim's view that the Community is just for Tory Party members or did you just make that up to support your own view Ted?

[Rob G]

Chad: Here is what DC said about the EU in his leadership campaign document. That also means challenging the culture of the EU. Not just resisting new regulations, but fighting to end the EU’s damaging social role, leaving it to focus on its real job: making the single market work properly and championing free trade…the moment at which the centralising model has been rejected is precisely the time to press home the arguments for radical change: returning employment and social regulation to national control.”

Thats a pretty good description of the sort of reforms that I would like. I don't know whether they would be possible, since no-one has tried to achieve them. Given how little we know about the positions that might be taken by the new EU members, and the uncertainty about the consequences of withdrawal, I think that reform rather than withdrawal should be the first option of the next Conservative government.

[Chad]

Indeed Rob, along with his pledge to leave the EPP which is why I voted for him in the first place.

Unfortunately, the one pledge within those EU aims that Cameron can deliver now is still wanting.

Once(if) the EPP pledge is delivered, then I am sure many people, myself included, will (would) be more inclined to believe Cameron.

[True Blue]

Given how little we know about the positions that might be taken by the new EU members, and the uncertainty about the consequences of withdrawal, I think that reform rather than withdrawal should be the first option of the next Conservative government.

You put it much better than I did. I think this is something all Conservatives can and should support, even the pro-withdrawlists. I commend my honourable friend's suggestion to the blog.

[Mark Fulford]

Sure I understand, but unhelpful comments like TB calling on those who support withdrawal (the 3's and 4's) to leave the party prevent meaningful discussion. -- Chad

First, you keep repeating this distortion of what True Blue actually said. Either you are incapable of understanding the difference or you are being mischievous.

Second, when you published your resignation letter on this blog, I'm sure you hoped that some others might be inspired by your grand gesture to follow suit. So why have you got a bee in your bonnet about True Blue’s common sense advise WRT 'mental injury'?

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Finally, i don't know why Davis is visiting Barking. The tory structure there is non-existent anyways and the tories haven't polled higher than the BNP at local level in years.<<<<
Maybe he's hoping to convince many thinking of voting BNP that the Conservative Party can provide alternative solutions as well as pointing out that half the BNP Councillors that have been elected don't even turn up for council debates or votes and the BNP have an agenda that goes way beyond just cracking down on crime and a more centrally planned economy namely that the Nazi Party took a similar line in the early 1930's and initially had support by many Middle Class Jews who saw them as being going to sort out the Economy and deal with disorder in Germany, instead they introduced progressively harsher and wider ranging laws relating to ethnicity and race theory and ended up at war with much of the world and carrying out wholesale extermination of the Jews, Romani, Slavs and others considered undesirables.

[Ted]

Chad

I think "I personally" reflects that it's my view not Tim's.

[Chad]

Mark wrote:
Second, when you published your resignation letter on this blog,

No I didn't. In fact I made not one single reference to it as it will irrelevant to my views on conservatism.

Look back. You will find it was someone else.

Check your facts first please Mark.

[Chad]

I wrote:
Sure I understand, but unhelpful comments like TB calling on those who support withdrawal (the 3's and 4's) to leave the party prevent meaningful discussion. -- Chad

True Blue wrote
As an aside, if you want us to leave the EU, please, please join UKIP. It is not Conservative policy and never will be

What have I misunderstood Mark? That looks like an unambiguous statement for those who support EU withdrawal to leave the Tory Party. Doesn't it?

[Geoff]

That looks like an unambiguous statement for those who support EU withdrawal to leave the Tory Party.

If it is, I'll just get my coat.

[Chad]

:-)

Indeed Geoff, I think if TB's plea becomes party policy many thousands will be collecting their coats.

It is so frustrating as just the delivery of the single pledge Cameron made concerning EPP withdrawal would go a long way to disrupting UKIP. The failure to deliver that almost 6 months since being elected on a platform to deliver just that is fuelling UKIP and causing instability within the Tory Party.

Either deliver or U-turn please Mr Cameron, so we know where you stand.

[True Blue]

That looks like an unambiguous statement for those who support EU withdrawal to leave the Tory Party.

If taken out of context, and if you ignore all my other statements include that on this thread.

If it is, I'll just get my coat.

If leaving the EU is the prime reason for your existence, then I'll help you on with it. There's another party just down the road where you'll fit right it.

I suggest you take a look at Rob G's analysis of Tory party policy on Europe and see if you can live with it. Does anyone (other than Chad and Margaret) seriously object to that thoroughly sensible and unobjectionable statement?

I think only the most vehement Europhobe could disagree with an effort in government to reform the EU from within. I suppose you could then throw your toys out of the pram if it didn't work out.

[Chad]

TB,

I am pro-Europe. I am not a UKIP supporter, and have never voted for them and would never vote for them. I have only ever voted Conservative and was until Cameron seemed to divert from his leadership platform, a member of the party.

I voted for Cameron on the platform Rob details which included EPP withdrawal, therefore making it official party policy.

It's funny how calling for delivery of official party policy is seen as divisive!

[Chad]

Does anyone (other than Chad and Margaret) seriously object to that thoroughly sensible and unobjectionable statement?

But I don't disagree with it in the slightest. In fact I confirmed my agreement with it at 14:11
Indeed Rob, along with his pledge to leave the EPP which is why I voted for him in the first place.

I'm talking about delivery of those words, not disagreeing with the words themselves, as without delivery, they are meaninless or worse, deliberately deceptive.

[True Blue]

I voted for Cameron on the platform Rob details which included EPP withdrawal, therefore making it official party policy.

It's funny how calling for delivery of official party policy is seen as divisive!

You are conflating two issues, EU withdrawal (which is not and will not be party policy in the foreseeable future) and implementing the EPP pledge (which is).

No one has criticised for commenting the latter, so your statement is plain false.

[Mark Fulford]

Second, when you published your resignation letter on this blog,

No I didn't. In fact I made not one single reference to it as it will irrelevant to my views on conservatism.

Somehow I knew that you'd written a letter of resignation. I haven't got the time to trawl your posts and find out exactly what was said so I'll take you at your word and apologise for a technical error. Having said that, since you're a politician with a political party, I'll take your advice and treat your word sceptically ;-)

[Chad]

Mark,

I published the letter on my blog. I continued to comment here on other issues without reference to it.

Someone-else (one of the James' or DVA as I recall) posted the link to my blog and comment ensured. It was only when directly questioned that I answered and provided my reasons.

You should always treat my words with suspicion as I note in my Community Profile, but at least I base my assertions on facts!

[Chad]

First TB wrote:
It is not Conservative policy and never will be

Then he wrote:
You are conflating two issues, EU withdrawal (which is not and will not be party policy in the foreseeable future)

Aah, I can see you are softening your stance and warming to the idea TB! ;-)

OK, enough already! This is so far off topic apologies.

[Richard]

"They make the Socialist Workers look like libertarians."

The SWP want to ban the BNP. The BNP seek no such ban on a political party.

"And the expulsion of all non-white UK citizens is to be achieved by non-authoritarian means is it?"

The BNP claim that they will not compel non-whites to leave unless they are illegal immigrants. They favour a system of voluntary repatriation i.e. pay them to leave. Not very nice but not very authoritarian. No doubt some of their members would favour the compulsory policy but it's not official party policy.

"How about the ambition to overthrow the Jewish domination of our media?"

There's been no mention of that in official policy either. What party members privately think is, of course, another matter.

"And the banning of homosexuality?"

Where do they say that? That policy also went out with Tyndall. I accept it is entirely possible that leading party members want homosexuality outlawed. But we need proof of this.

[Richard]

Having read my previous post I realise it could be construed as somewhat sympathetic to the BNP. Let me emphasise that I am not trying to whitewash them, merely point out that if we want claims of "fascism" etc to stick, we need to find evidence of it. Unfortunately the BNP have been very clever at removing any unsavoury beliefs from their policy documents, except the voluntary repatriation policy.

[Gareth]

And obviously, the way one judges an organisation like the BNP is to take it completely at its own word ...

[John Hustings]

Personally, I'm not interested in what the nature of the BNP is.

The real question is over why people are willing to vote for them. Is it because these potential voters are "odious racists"? Or is it because they have concerns that the politically correct establishment won't even listen to?

[Graeme Archer]

From what I see of the BNP and their supporters, it would be a bit odd of them to sanction a ban on homosexuality. I wonder whose aesthetic derives from whom? There's quite a funny passage about this in Jake Arnott's last novel, can't remember what it's called, about a skinhead just out of jail being followed by what he thinks is another skinhead looking for a fight. Ah no! Sir, he doesn't wish to FIGHT you, as that famous boxer once said.

[Gareth]

JH - Please elaborate on how 'political correctness' prevents the 'establishment' from listening to these 'concerns'.

[Sean Fear]

"From what I see of the BNP and their supporters, it would be a bit odd of them to sanction a ban on homosexuality."

Or as they used to say in 1930's Germany "Out of every Hitler Youth - a Stormtrooper will emerge."

[Gareth]

It's certainly an odd coincidence of aesthetics that the standard dress for a Nuremberg rally is pretty much what you'd see in Subway South on a Saturday night (without the Nazi logos etc. of course).

[John Hustings]

"JH - Please elaborate on how 'political correctness' prevents the 'establishment' from listening to these 'concerns'."

I said that the politically correct establishment won't listen to their concerns. And that's true. Just look at David Cameron's reaction today.

[Gareth]

What are these concerns that the 'PC establishment' is failing to listen to? What ought they to be doing?

[William]

True Blue asks for evidence. There is sadly no shortage. The problem is that it never makes the media, so everyone thinks the abolition of UKIP, BNP etc is conspiracy.

Roger Helmer MEP (see his website) was one of 25 MP's who brought a case to the ECJ to decide whether the Directive on the Funding of Political Parties was undemocratic and outside EU principles, as it would deprive eurosceptic parties of funding. Not surprisingly the ECJ found against the appeal.

go to rightlinks.co.uk and follow the thread
'Blair backs down over regulatory reform bill'.

I put together a lot of evidence for DIZZY who challenged me in similar vein to True Blue above. The Maastricht Treaty, Helmer, Hannan in Telegraph, and an explanation of the Connolly case where 'criticising the EU' was announced as a crime by the advocate general of the ECJ.

There is without doubt a programme within the EU to abolish 'undesirable' political parties. Belgium and Holland have alreday had parties banned. Cameron, I am sure cannot be unaware of the law, and his commenst show that he is keen to push UKIP and the BNP into banishment.

[Richard]

"And obviously, the way one judges an organisation like the BNP is to take it completely at its own word ... "

I don't. The problem is that many people do. And many who don't like the BNP will still vote for them as a protest vote.

[John Hustings]

"What are these concerns that the 'PC establishment' is failing to listen to? What ought they to be doing? "

Concerns over immigration, welfare, housing, community tensions, political correctness in the police force, political correctness in employment etc etc etc.

[Richard]

"What are these concerns that the 'PC establishment' is failing to listen to? What ought they to be doing?"

Well, to give some trivial examples I shall re-paste my post above:

West Midlands police banned the BNP from playing Rule Britannia (a patriotic song that has exsited for centuries before the BNP) from their campaign van. An Asian MP has criticised this decision for playing into their hands.

Ministers consider extending blasphemy laws to Muslims (how about abolishing them altogether?!)

A senior race advisor to the Government claims that some British towns are "unhealthily white". David Davis pointed out that referring to a town as "unhealthily black" would create a storm of protest.

[Richard]

The point of my post is that those in the "establishment" seem to go out of their way to antagonise people with absurd decisions.

[John Hustings]

"The point of my post is that those in the "establishment" seem to go out of their way to antagonise people with absurd decisions."

And further, they openly show their contempt for the white working classes. Contrast the way they deal with the grievances of the "muslim community" with the way they totally dismiss the grievances of the working classes.

[Richard]

"Concerns over immigration, welfare, housing, community tensions, political correctness in the police force, political correctness in employment etc etc etc"

To elaborate on this point I think I should give a couple of specific examples before Gareth asks for some.

Immigration - while people may be sympathetic towards asylum seekers they want the level of immigration reduced.

Political correctness in the police force - the police going round the house of an elderly couple and lecturing them on "homophobia" because they wanted to put Christian literature on display next to pro-homosexual literature. Also the investigation into Anne Robinson for her comments on the Welsh.

[Ted]

From the studies made and referenced in recent articles on the subject it is more about the unforseen consequences of a move from a benefits, health & housing system based on contribution to that based on need than about political correctness.

So for example people on housing waiting lists see newcomers, homeless or the feckless get housing ahead of them or even just first choice of housing. People who have paid NI & tax see people who haven't get benefit.

Both are deserving, the contributors & the needy but the system is seen as unfair because it favours the homeless (including refugees & those seeking refuge)over those locals who may have been listed for years. That was a central government decision driven by charities such as Shelter.

It's possible to look at the issues and define action without reference to political correctness or without finding scapegoats in the immigrant population.

It may well be that, as in Glasgow (where Labour was the Catholic Party), the new commonwealth electorate has been given undue preference as a mainly Labour supporting group by some councils eager to re-inforce this allegiance, while the white working class votes have been taken for granted. We see echoes of this in our Foreign Secretary's inability to condemn outright islamic extremists demonstrating against the cartoons.

Is the response though to talk in the same terms as the BNP or to look as IDS has done at the whole inter-relationship of problems and try to find solutions that don't introduce new unfairnesses or talk the language of bigots?

[Gareth]

JH_ - you've still not told me what these 'concerns' are and how they ought to be remedied?

Richard - are you seriously suggesting that this little Daily Mail litany of 'political correctness gone mad' (what a tedious term) is sufficient to drive voters into the hands of the BNP or, indeed, are the type of concerns that a major political party can or ought to do anything about?

[John Hustings]

"JH_ - you've still not told me what these 'concerns' are and how they ought to be remedied?"

I have told you *some* of the *possible* concerns driving people to the BNP (I am unaware of all of them).

There is no *one* way to remedy these issues, but *to be seen to be listening* I think is the most important thing we can do.

[Richard]

"Richard - are you seriously suggesting that this little Daily Mail litany of 'political correctness gone mad' (what a tedious term) is sufficient to drive voters into the hands of the BNP or, indeed, are the type of concerns that a major political party can or ought to do anything about?"

Not on their own but there are so many stories along those lines (some of which are admittedly taken out of context) that it creates a general narrative of the establishment being out of touch.

Can a political party do anything about it? They could abolish blasphemy laws, abolish "race advisors" (yet another unnecessary non-job) and get a grip of the police and tell them to catch criminals instead of indulging in gesture politics.

[Gareth]

"Political correctness in the police force - the police going round the house of an elderly couple and lecturing them on "homophobia" because they wanted to put Christian literature on display next to pro-homosexual literature. Also the investigation into Anne Robinson for her comments on the Welsh."

What makes me think these are your burning issues Richard rather than the average disillusioned white working class voter in Dagenham?

Your comment about 'pro-homosexual literature' is really very revealing. Your comment about 'Rule Britannia', which, by the way, is not 'centuries old', just made me laugh out loud.

[John Hustings]

"What makes me think these are your burning issues Richard rather than the average disillusioned white working class voter in Dagenham?

Your comment about 'pro-homosexual literature' is really very revealing. Your comment about 'Rule Britannia', which, by the way, is not 'centuries old', just made me laugh out loud. "

Here we see Gareth's only debating tactic:

Draw someone out with loaded questions, then accuse them of being a racist or a homophobe (in this case both).

Pretty tiresome.

[Richard]

"What makes me think these are your burning issues Richard rather than the average disillusioned white working class voter in Dagenham?"

Perhaps because I live in a pleasant area I accept I can afford to

"Your comment about 'pro-homosexual literature' is really very revealing."

The reason I put that in was because I thought you'd accuse me of missing out a key fact! If I'd only mentioned that they wanted to put up Christian literature I thought you'd accuse me of failing to point that that it was in opposition to literature sympathetic to homosexuality. I accept that "pro-homosexual" was a rather sloppy term but I was trying to contrast the two forms of literature just to be fair.

"Your comment about 'Rule Britannia', which, by the way, is not 'centuries old', just made me laugh out loud."

OK so it's only about 2 centuries old but it's still plural! Anyway, surely you agree that it was a stupid decision by the police?

[Richard]

Oops, didn't finish what I was writing above:

Perhaps because I live in a pleasant area I can afford to worry more about those issues than local housing problems etc. But that doesn't mean those in disadvantaged areas don't get annoyed by things going on outside their local area.

[William]

If the BNP and UKIP are to be abolished, Cameron has no concerns in ignoring their supporters and potential supporters.

He can safely cooperate with Blair over EU programmes such as the Regulatory Reform Bill, and throw away our liberty to resist absoption into the EU.

To maintain a europhile position within the Conservative Party Cameron would not wish to have a large majority, when a eurosceptic faction would be more likely to break loose. He has no doubt calculated that he can afford to lose the 'right-wing'as he is showing no interest in representing it.

He would be assured of support from Labour in pushing through europhile measures, and so would not fear a small majority from that viewpoint. He is already showing Labour what a compliant opposition looks like.

Dumping the 'right-wing' so called, and rebuilding the Party on the basis of support from environmentalists, litter-gatherers etc, selecting MP's on the basis of their willingness to keep silent and collect their pay cheques will position the Conservatives as one of Britain's three europhile major parties.

The Conservative Party needs to resolve its European stance. There seems little doubt that Cameron has decided on Europhilia and cooperation with Blair. He will be assured of full media backing if this is correct, and an easy run at 10 Downing St.

The price to be paid by us all will be our liberty. No different to Blair. Few in the Conservative Party can admit to themselves the situation that has been created by the media push that enabled Cameron to grab the leadership out of the blue.

[Suggestion]

Dear Members of the Media,

Chad is not a Conservative and is against the Conservative party. He has founded his own party.

Margaret is also not a member of the Conservative party and votes for UKIP.

Chad, it is not nearly enough to say that because your profile states you are an anti-Tory we should leave it at that. Media journos do not go trawling through the small print of CHome looking at the profiles of members. They just click on and read the threads. Then they report in their papers your (plural) views as though you were hardcore Tory activists.

And on this thread and others, this member of the Conservative party sees your views and Margaret's views as pure poison. On this thread, Margaret defends the indefensible BNP. On another, you sneered about "picking up litter".

Well here's MY freedom of speech. The Conservative party, unlike and in opposition to you and to Margaret's fringe fruitcake parties (UKIP and Imagine) - stands for meritocracy, plurality, diversity, and conservation. It stands for opportunity for all. It's a party full of people that hate to see litter on the streets and in hedgerows and who care about conservation - hence the name of our party. We protect; we conserve; we are proud of the values of good stewardship.

My father is a countryman. He would never pass a piece of ugly litter in the woods and hedgerows without picking it up.

I repeat, unless specfically told to desist by the editors, I will keep remining people that you are NOT a Tory and that your views are NOT ours. I don't want any more maligning of my party by attributing sympathy for the BNP/scorn on conservation to Conservatives.

You may regard yourself as the opposition, loyal or not, to Cameron. Well I and others regard ourselves as the mainstream Tory, Cameron supporting, opposition to you and the vocal minority who occupy the comments columns on this site.

I firmly believe blog owners have the right to set the ground rules and have them adhered to. So, John Hustings, if told to stop by Tim I will. Otherwise I regard it as a positive duty to point out to the opinion formers who read CH daily that Chad and Margaret are not in our party.

Sympathy for the BNP is utterly repulsive. End of story.