« Nominations for Best Writing | Main | David Cameron's cheerleaders in the press (and the lack of them) »

Comments

Sympathy for violent extremism is ugly. Eliminating freedom of speech is equally ugly, and that seems to be a platform of Cameron.

William: where is the evidence that the Regulatory Reform Bill is anything to do with an EU programme? Can you point to any authoritative information (not just some anti-EU blog or website)?

In any event, the Conservative Party opposed the Regulatory Reform Bill and welcomed the Government's recent U-turn (press release 13th April).

William: Eliminating freedom of speech is equally ugly, and that seems to be a platform of Cameron.
That is nonsense. I don't think you can point to anything that he has said or done that indicates any desire to eliminate freedom of speech.

"political correctness in employment" - This is the typical afternoon pub muttering. Political correctness = NO DISCRIMINATION, ie no discrimination, as in, no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender or disability. It does not, as you imply, mean a favoring of candidates who are not white, male, able bodied and straight. It is not a conspiracy, it is a measure against the conspiracy. If that is political correctness then I for one am for it. Now, where's the nearest wine bar with a polish barmaid and God help you if there's not a wheelchair ramp...

David Cameron says what?:

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.”

A conspiracy theorist says what?

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

I look forward to him storming into No 10 with the backing of our notoriously Europhilic press, supported by the rest of the great left-wing conspiracy.

"Political correctness = NO DISCRIMINATION"

That might be your personal definition but to everyone else political correctness is a hypersensitive overreaction reaction to the perceived (and often mythical) grievences of minorities.

And where has Cameron advocated eliminating freedom of speech?

I believe Chad has a right to post his repellent anti-conservation views and Margaret her ideas that only the BNP is defending this country.

I don't believe they have any right to purport to be Tories on a site about the Tory party, and I don't think Chad and his supporters have the right to say "check my profile" as though that could undo the damage caused by the perception. Journalists have zero interest in looking up the profiles on individual members.

I'm a Tory. I support David Cameron. I think it's moral to try to conserve. I think the BNP are vile racists and I would a million times rather a waverer voted NuLab than BNP. I think the comments on CH are hugely skewed towards a right-wing rump of this party. I think the media makes hay out of the comments of that same, small, vocal, but absolutely minor group.

I want to see David Cameron as Prime Minister with all that goes with that. And to that end, despite misgivings, I came out of lurking, dismayed at the stories attacking the leadership I read in the national press taken from CH.

Chad posts tons of comments in every thread. He dishes it out. So I hope that he can take it.

He is against the Tory party and insofar as his many comments on CH contribute to an inaccurate media view that the party is discontent with Cameron, I think he succeeds in damaging the party. I support the party. I intend to fight that damage.

I intend to keep saying he's not Tory, unless and until asked to stop.

I was so glad that Cameron pointed out that the cry of "no political correctness" is often used to defend a right to be offensive - that he didn't want anybody calling his son a spastic.

To defend the BNP is not "politically incorrect". It is ugly, offensive and immoral.

"To defend the BNP is not "politically incorrect". It is ugly, offensive and immoral."

And the use of multiple negative words has done nothing to stop the BNP's advance no matter how good it might make you feel.

To stop the BNP we need to highlight any lies in their campaign and obtain evidence of any unpleasant viewpoints expressed by their candidates.

I have a suggestion for Suggestion:

Stop bullying other visitors to this site, and keep your comments on topic.

John H: I have a suggestion for Suggestion: Stop bullying other visitors to this site, and keep your comments on topic.

You cannot be serious! How on earth could you describe anything in Suggestion's recent posts as bullying?

""political correctness in employment" - This is the typical afternoon pub muttering. Political correctness = NO DISCRIMINATION, ie no discrimination, as in, no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender or disability."

Is that why Gloucestershire police force turned down white male applicants to "boost diversity"?

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/02/07/33759/Discriminating+forces+at+work+across+the+UK.htm

Aside from this, there is a widespread perception that -- at least in the public sector -- white males are discriminated against. Whether you dismiss this or not, the perception certainly plays into the hands of the BNP.

"You cannot be serious! How on earth could you describe anything in Suggestion's recent posts as bullying?"

My understanding of his posts is that he wants Chad and Margaret to go away.

John H: My understanding of his posts is that he wants Chad and Margaret to go away.
Actually he said that they have a right to post their views. Suggestion merely believes--as I do--that passing journalists need to be aware that many of the people posting here are not Conservative Party members or supporters.

We had a debate about this transparency earlier today and Chad seemed to agree that we should be open about people's political affiliation. I don't recall any comment from Margaret on the issue.

John, I would be delighted if they "went away" since I think the comments of these non-Conservatives reflect incredibly badly on the Conservative party.

But I completely support their right to free expression, including the free exprssion of noxious views on the BNP and on the environment.

And I am excercising MY right to free expression by continuing to point out that Chad especially, who makes so many posts, is 100% against the Conservative party, has his own party, doesn't represent us, left the party...etc etc etc.

You need more than a "check my profile" with prolific anti-Cameron posts from him.

Meanwhile, I've written to the Editor to ask if it is permissible to keep correcting the false impression given by the sheer number of Chad's posts that he is a Tory. Our party is seriously damaged when people come away with the impression that support for the BNP is acceptable in the Conservative party.

I make no apologies for being a strong pro-Cameron, pro-majority, anti Chad's/Margaret's/similar views poster. Of course if the Editor tells me to stop, I will. That's netiquette.

Your disapproval, however, tells me I'm on the right track. Your views are ones I generally oppose and I believe it is self-evident that they are minority views in the Conservative party.

I have grave reservations about "face time", air time, blog time or whatever being taken up on a site called Conservatve Home by an avowed anti-Conservative who detests our leader. I support Chad's right to fight his corner but I'm going to fight mine. And I see him as an enemy of this party and its message of change.

Suggestion

You really need to grow up.

And in case that wasn't clear, I'd be delighted if anti-Cameron anti-Conservative Party types stopped posting - but I am not in any way asking that they do so or denying them their right to comment.

"And in case that wasn't clear, I'd be delighted if anti-Cameron anti-Conservative Party types stopped posting - but I am not in any way asking that they do so or denying them their right to comment."

But you're trying to harrass them into stopping.

And you somehow think your bullying behaviour enhances the reputation of the Conservative Party?

Not in my eyes.

I think Chad's endless anti-Cameron comments on multiple threads are far more bullying than simply pointing out to the media he's not one of us.

You disagree. But then you and I disagree on many things. As I recall you saw no discrimination in the fact that our MPs were over 90% male.

"As I recall you saw no discrimination in the fact that our MPs were over 90% male."

Possibly because the majority of candidates who apply are male? Possibly because they just happened to be the best candidates?

Anyway, this is off-topic. How do we stop the BNP?

"I don't recall any comment from Margaret on the issue".

I have a life outside this blog;-)

"Some of those regularly writing in favour of Cameron are actually left-wing commentators, like Steve Richards and Andrew Rawnsley."

I wonder why??

"I look forward to him storming into No 10".

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Just watched the Green PP Broadcast. People will vote Green to get Green, not blue. It is interesting that the "green" agenda is a left-wing policy!!

Until Cameron starts putting the country before the party, he won't get anywhere. Whilst he is perceived as "heir to Blair", he hasn't a chance. He needs to put some clear blue water between NuLab and Conservatives, and I DO mean "Blue".

Blair is the most unpopular PM we have had, if the Tories can't breakthrough now, they never will.

I was a member of the Conservative Party for years, I would like to think I could support it again, but not if this blog is anything to go by.

The media regard Cameron as a joke. It is interesting that the "green" agenda is a left-wing policy. Say it all really.

"Anyway, this is off-topic. How do we stop the BNP?"

By putting forward a true "Tory" Agenda, and stop messing about with side issues like climate change.

Rob G asks for evidence that the Reg Reform Bill is a European programme. It permits the passing of EU Regulations into law without their being debated or approved by parliament. To me that reads as passing power to Brussels to ignore Parliament.

Cameron did not even take part in this key debate, and no COnservative opposed the 2nd reading. See Lord Onslow above.

When Cameron refers to UKIP as racist, and BNP as thriving on hatred, he must be aware that there are EU laws which can be used to abolish political parties which are not approved, and there is a Directive to deprive them of funds.

These laws state clearly that any party that stands to withdraw from the EU cannot be funded.

Cameron has cooperated with Blair to move to State Funding of Political Parties, which is merely complying with the Directive, which squashes freedom of speech.

The connection with the EU is not mentioned in the Press and the Media. I don't know why. This programme to control speech and political parties originates in the Maastricht Treaty. The Directive has been challenged in the ECJ. The case lasted 18 months, but received not one word of reporting over here.

News is controlled tightly in the UK. Freedom of Speech is clearly threatened. Cameron seems to wish to use the laws to abolish UKIP and BNP, not stand against them in any way.

"You disagree. But then you and I disagree on many things. As I recall you saw no discrimination in the fact that our MPs were over 90% male."

Believing in quotas for minorities is not a conservative idea.

I don't care what the race or gender of my MP is. I care if they have the right ideas and are competent in their job. Sadly, 95% of the current crop of MPs aren't.

I was a member of the Conservative Party for years, I would like to think I could support it again, but not if this blog is anything to go by.

It's good that people with opinions like yours no longer consider the Conservative Party their home.

"A friend who is on the murder squad in London said that if it wasn't for the black community, there would hardly be any crime. But try saying that outside this blog and you will probably be arrested for being racist." -- Margaret 'Bluemerle'

I don't think I want your "blue water".

by an avowed anti-Conservative who detests our leader.

Hi Suggestion, I don't detest Cameron in any way. I voted for him and consider his work that led to him winning the 2004 epolitix award for work with the disabled particularly admirable. I have defended him many times when people have claimed his work with the disabled is exploiting his son, when he has clearly been working hard as a champion of the diasabled through his own experience for a long time.

As I have stated many times, I would support the Conservative Party again if:

a: Delivered the EPP withdrawal pledge which is official policy
b: Dropped the big government proposals for state funding of political parties
c: Dropped the big government bloated national ID database scheme.

I disagree in lots of other areas, agree in many too. That seems perfectly reasonable. It also make sense, as in our own lives to focus on the issues that need changing, rather than pat ourselves on the back for
the things that are going OK.

As a committed small-c conservative, with 'small government' as my core interpretation of conservatism, I loathe Labour, simply cannot understand how the LibDems can be for small government but completely for the EU project, but seek to promote conservatism.

Cameron is not offering conservatism or any material difference from New Labour. As a conservative who isn't tied to the colour of a rosette but values, I see the Tory Party as the best change of change, but will not blindly vote for the wrong agenda.

Yes, if State Funding of political parties goes live and Cameron accepts it, I will oppose the party and put up candidates against them to protest and offer a free-vote option, but I would much rather that Cameron addressed those points a,b and c.

I've got a feeling you are my favourite Salford Councillor who has been pursuing me since I resigned from the party. Perhaps you should focus your energy on campaigning for the locals?

Please, get used to it. This site is open to all conservatives, and many of us oppose the current direction of the Tory Party.

The aim is to widen your appeal, and seek to engage with those outside the party, not become ever narrower and intolerant to criticism, surely?

I disagree with Cameron's strategy as I see it as prfoundly unconservative. That is all.

p.s. I'm not currently a member of the Tory Party ;-)

I really wish personal disputes wouldn't gum up these threads. I'm not blaming anyone in particular - I'm aware how tempting it is to accuse people and to respond to those accusations. Perhaps we could have a thread for personal disputes?

I agree Richard. I left it for several hours, but there didn't seem to be any moderation so I did feel the need to respond.

I kept it polite. If the aim is to drive me off the site, or to get me banned, then that will reflect badly on the independence of this site.

Suggestion continues to hide under anonymity, but I have a feeling he is Iain Lindley who has been attacking me off topic since I resigned from the party.

I am 100% for full transparency. It seems it is only the cloak of anonymity that enables opaque agendas.

I can only try to keep on topic, Suggestion will have to answer for his extremely childish 'mission'

Mark,

how do you know Margaret and "blumerle" are one and the same? Or have I missed something?

James - her email address shows as mbluemerle.

James, Mark first brought this up on April 20 at 21:17 on this thread:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/04/tory_chairman_a.html#comments

There is a reason why I'm not James Hellyer P.I.

"Political correctness = NO DISCRIMINATION"

Not really. It's all about awarding special privileges to favoured interest groups. The Somerset and Avon police case cited above is one example; the report carried out by Bill Morris into the Met provided other examples - for example, white police officers will be informally disciplined for behaivour which is ignored in black police officers. The requirment under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 for public bodies to have targets for the employment of ethnic minorities, and the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases are other examples of statutory favouritism.

How anyone who calls himself a Conservative can regard this kind of thing as beneficial frankly beggars belief.

What most of you seem to be after is a sterile blog, agreeing with everything you say. No discussions. No alternative views.

You don't win elections talking to yourself.

I've banned Margaret's IP address as Mark Fulford's detective work does suggest her views border on the racist and I can't accept that on this site.

I cannot agree with the objections to Chad's participation on ConservativeHome. This is a site for big C and little c conservatives. I think Chad's Imagine Party is not something I could support but I think he routinely adds to the conversation here and is a challenging voice.

Editor

I think a number of us had become concerned that elements from outside conservatism had started to hijack this site (and that doesn't include Chad or others with a real interest in challenging & stimulating debate).

I understand that Ted and please email me ([email protected]) or/ and Sam ([email protected]) if you think there are particularly serious offenders. We will ban the IP addresses of people who break the comments policy but I want to long delay the day when all comments have to be moderated as happens on the GoldList blog.

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.

Posted by: Ted | April 24, 2006 at 10:52

Well, Ted, I am a Conservative with a big "C". Unfortunately, I regard the present party led by Mr Cameron has having a small "c" - which stands for "cameron the confused".
I will only vote for Mr Cameron if I think he is lying (it would n't seem to be a sound policy; voting for a party because you believed its leader was lying).
There are some on this blog that believe that unless you support Cameron then you cannot be a Conservative. So where does that reasoning leave all those that supported the last leader-"Something of the Night" I think his name was" (should have been "Sunset")?. Cameron was said to be responsible for formulating his policies, but has since rejected the same. You True Blue Conservatives do like to chop and change at the mere smell of media dissent or approval.

"A friend who is on the murder squad in London said that if it wasn't for the black community, there would hardly be any crime. But try saying that outside this blog and you will probably be arrested for being racist." -- Margaret 'Bluemerle'

I don't think I want your "blue water". Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 24, 2006 at 20:26

In defence of Margaret I believe the last commissioner of the MET, Paul Condom, said that muggings in London were mainly perpetrated by black criminals. As I remember I believe this caused quite a lot of controversy in the press and on the BBC comment programmes (can't think why, can you? After all is said and done the chief of police is supposed to be the expert).

I do like that Chad, William and Margaret (I did like her new name for the Party, the ALLMODCON'S, sounds just right) - there is hope for the Tories yet with such stout people in it (well ok, not in it if you want to be pedantic). Margret is a name to conjure with. I seem to remember another Margaret in the distant past - can't remember her surname now. If only Dave would call himself "Margaret". Margaret Cameron has a ring about it - what do you think?. Somehow "Dave" does n't quite project. Still, he is very young, is n't he and we were all young once (but once was enough).


"How anyone who calls himself a Conservative can regard this kind of thing as beneficial frankly beggars belief." I am sorry, but I refuse to respond to these kinds of arguments because I refuse to accept your initial premise. Discrimination of all kinds is fundamentally wrong. I did not say that positive discrimination was right, so your point is spurious at best. Just as I recognise that artificial targets have been posted for government departments and public services, so too are married women of child bearing age discriminated against because they are thought to be "unreliable". In fact, I have a greater dislike for the cases you highlight, since they provide all the cover (unfortunately) necessary to allow such discrimination to continue unchecked.

Everyone, be they black, white or whatever is equal before the law and the ballot box. The BNP deny this, the ultimate foundation of our democracy, society, legal system and sense of justice. I believe that everyone in our society is free to pursue good ends, but people, political parties included cannot be permitted to continue in henious error. As "c"onservatives, we are surely not supposed to permit shades of moral relativism. Racism is a moral wrong and we cannot advocate an agnostic stance towards it.

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

I do not know what to say to that. All I can say is that the Conservative Party stands fundamentally opposed to the views which are routinely aired and alluded to on this site by many of its regular contributors, when it is not simply used as a means to covertly attack it under the guise of being a "loyal conservative." On the one hand, this blog tries to have an input into the Conservative party, on the other it stresses its independence. Sometimes, the relationship is not equal, and unprincipled people are apt to exploit it for all it is worth.

If Chad were not the founder and leader of a political party I would indeed argue that his views be treated in the same way as those of any other contributor. However, he is not like any other contributor. He is a politician and should be treated as such when he posts here. If he does not want to be treated in that manner then perhaps he should wind up his political party. Would a UKIP candidate recieve similar treatment?

*heinous

"receive"

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. <\i>


Absolute drivel. When did the Conservatives last conserve anything ?

We are dependent upon LNG from Russia and Algeria because Conservative policy was to burn off North Sea gas reserves producing electricity and we now depende on imports to produce heat and light.

Coal, Railways, BT were privatised leaving the taxpayer underwriting the pension plans to the tune of £40-50 billion when private company schemes get a pitiful insurance cover.

Councils lost the power to prohibit development by appeal to Whitehall with the Council to bear the appeal costs

You "Suggestion" may be a dyed-in-the-wool Tory but those who are not ideological fanatics cannot see why you are.

As for BNP, Respect, Greens, etc they are competing parties in our democracy - England is the only nation in the UK without a geographically-based nationalist party - ban the BNP by banning SNP and PC and Sinn Fein - but in the interim let voters decide who they want to vote for - and don't waste money on imported pollsters, make-up queens, or silly posters for the kindergarten

If Chad were not the founder and leader of a political party I would indeed argue that his views be treated in the same way as those of any other contributor.

Just so we can move on. This line of attack is as misleading as Labour and the LibDems keep repeating that Cameron was the architect of the Tory manifesto.

I am a committed (small c) conservative, and many of us are operating outside the Tory Party, seeking to influence it to operate in a conservative way.

I can't have made it clearer that I have only ever voted Conservative, would never vote Labour (big government), LibDem (big government effectively through europhile beliefs) or UKIP (organisational joke) but I strongly disagree with the current direction of the Tory Party under Cameron.

I want a conservative government that will rule for decades, not to hoodwink the public and end up with a single-term mistake that could backfire and damage conservatism for generations to come.

I personally don't have the slightest interest in becoming an MP, I am happy with my life but not happy with the way Britain is being governed.

Faced with emigrating again or standing up and fighting for a Britain that I want for my kids, I have decided to fight.

For me, blue labour is not a lesser evil to new labour for the simple reason that I believe it will be rumbled and as I have noted as keep conservatism out of power.

I am thinking in terms of decades not just winning the next election and the five years after that.

Imagine is effectively a pressure group on the Tory Party, it is just that I believe that this vehicle is a far better method of incluencing the Tory Party as rather than just filling in petitions or moaning it has the potential to cost the party votes, offering (small c) conservatives a safe, moderate protest on a conservative platform.

I believe that it is only the fear of loss of votes that can seriously impact direction, hence the strategy I have chosen.

What is my goal? For a conservative party to rule for years, not another big government Labour clone.

I am an optimist, but can see that the CamCom project will fail, and I really hope I can be part of a genuine project to rebuild the Tory Party with a foundation of small government conservatism fused with other wider conversion issues.

Getting it right is not easy and will not be achieved by wishful thinking. For the Tory Party to win election after election, imho, its policies must be conservative, small government.

I cannot repeat enough that I would join the Tory Party again and actively campaign within it and for it if:

a: The EPP withdrawal pledge is delivered.
b: State funding of political parties is droppped.
c: The Party opposes the central national id database.

Sure, my "No Preference, No Prejudice" approach opposes all forms of positive discrimination, but fortunately my reasons for resigning have been vindicated:

1: I resigned over the ersatz and dvisive Built To Last vote. This very site has since campaigned to drop this vote.

2: I resigned over the 50-50 A-list as positive discrimination is just discrimination. The wheels of this idea now seem to be falling off.

I'm not looking for friends, and I am more than happy for you to think that I am a total w****r, if it means I am helping to build a modern conservative party with a conservative small government foundation.

I'm sure there are few conservatives who would disagree with my core issues with the camcom project (points a,b,c) or my opposition to positive discrimination.

The real enemies of conservatism are those who naively believe that wishful thinking, ignoring the discussion of real issues and just nodding heads will make Britain better.

Those who are slamming me now could just as easily be praising me in five years time. I don't mind your attacks, and I don't want your praise. I'm doing this for my family, and really don't care if everyone else hates me!

I am an optimist, but can see that the CamCom project will fail

That's where we differ. I'm an optimist and, the more I see of Cameron, the more encouraged I am. How are you sure you weren't right then and wrong now?

Cameron is bound to make errors, but he's pragmatic and sensible enough not to get locked into a bad decision. Take your resignation issue, the 50:50 A list, as an example:

The low number of Conservative female MPs is, I believe, a result of discrimination over many years. To simply say that we recognise that we have been discriminating and will do better now is not enough. It’s like cheating at cricket and then, when you’re caught, expecting an apology to be enough (while your opponent is mortally wounded behind). To make up for the negative discrimination we need some positive discrimination now - quality candidates won’t come forward until they can see that they’ll be treated fairly. Staged targets towards 50:50 sounds very feeble and doesn’t get the message out.

Cameron went for a 50:50 A list and got the message out that discrimination against women candidates is over. But in the absence of sufficient candidates, he’s pragmatic enough not to remain fixed on a set target. We end up with the message out and the best of the available candidates – which was possibly the original plan.

On the party funding issue, Cameron misjudged feeling on that, but who’s right the whole time? I’m sure that Cameron has the sense to listen and u-turn. State funding of political parties won’t go ahead with Conservative support. Chad, I’m sure you’ll accept £20 to the TPA as the standard wager.

Hi Mark,

Disagreement on ideas in good!

How are you sure you weren't right then and wrong now?

Because what was promised is not what is being delivered. My view seems well supported by the way th epolls jumped up but have been heading steadily down since.

Why is this?

a: Proposing state funding of politica parties. See the other thread today for the wide opposition to this from both within the party and the public.

b: Opposing ID cards but not the core of this big government project, the central national id database.

c: Still waiting for delivery of EPP pledge. I base my opinion here on the delivery not the promise.

d: Positive discrimination = discrimination. Trying to correct prejudice by adding new layers of prejudice is a house of cards.

Smash down the walls of prejudice (ie address and resolve the core issues) do not create superficial 'equality' by offering ladders of preference to a selected few.

discrimination against women candidates is over
No-one and I hope Cameron swiftly changes direction and opposes all forms of political funding. If he doesn't, is it not an error, it is abandoning conservatism.

State funding of political parties won’t go ahead with Conservative support. Chad, I’m sure you’ll accept £20 to the TPA as the standard wager.

I will happily donate £20 to the TPA if Cameron drops support for state funding of political parties.

In fact, if he does this, delivers the EPP withdrawal pledge and opposes the national id database project (and scraps all work to date), I'll donate £250 to the Tory Party itself, and actively work online for a Tory victory.

I will happily donate £20 to the TPA if Cameron drops support for state funding of political parties.

Too much of a politician to oppose something that’s not going to happen anyway. So I’ll leave my terms as they are: it won’t go ahead with his support!

Sorry, that was a premature click.

I will happily donate £20 to the TPA if Cameron drops support for state funding of political parties.

Cameron is too much of a politician to oppose something that’s not going to happen anyway. So I’ll leave my terms as they are: it won’t go ahead with his support!

Mark,

May I ask why you believe Cameron won't support a scheme that he has actually proposed?

Are you suggesting the Cameron proposals were not actually an honest proposal but a strategy to fool Blair?

Are you suggesting the Cameron proposals were not actually an honest proposal but a strategy to fool Blair?

No, I'm suggesting the funding proposals were a mistake that he will realise. It’s unlikely that he will openly admit to a mistake, but I’m sure he’ll find a way of changing heart and not supporting the proposal.

I agree.

I think though that it would be enormously to his credit to put his hands up and admit it was a mistake. That is not a sign of weakness, but that he is a real person like the rest of us.

That is not a sign of weakness, but that he is a real person like the rest of us.

If only it would play out that way with the media and his critics. Possibly it would, but an unnecessary gamble.

From UKIP

UKIP Leader Roger Knapman MEP said that the media hype surrounding a relatively small number of BNP candidates was in danger of giving them a credibility which they did not deserve.

He continued: “There appears to be a media obsession with the BNP in local elections which is not warranted. In 2003, UKIP, the Greens and the Socialist Alliance contested 2,500 wards between them, and yet this went unremarked while considerable coverage was devoted to the BNP, who had 96 candidates.

“If we are to stop the rise of the far-right, this can only be done with fair, reasoned coverage, not hysterical over-reaction.”

Gareth said on 24th April: "and of course the way one judges an organisation like the BNP is to take it at its own word....."

So is Gareth then denouncing the approach which he and Chris Patten have taken to Sinn Fein then?

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker