« Adam Kellett: From the frontline in Croydon | Main | The Independent's politics of hypocrisy »


ANYONE with ANY experience of the Lib Dems campaigning locally, being wicked and acting shamelessly will know who the nasty campaigners are. After weeks of anonymity for Ming to come out with this must have some of his own MPs thinking is this the best he can do?

What is "PLEASANT" about spinning one yarn at street A, then running along to street B and spinning the diametrically opposite?? For that is what our friends in the North do! By the COACHLOAD.

This coming from the party whos activists still use the straight choice campaigning methods. If this is the best Ming can come up with, he would be better sticking to his policy of anonymity.

Classic example of that Annabel, was when they had a petition on one side of a town to close the local mosque, and one on the other side to keep it open!

Well I think Ming Campbell is a boring old fart. Does that make me "unpleasant and right wing"?

Those pesky LD's are very difficult knock off their "pleasant" perch. But in the last election- on our Home Counties doorsteps- they were certainly vulnerable on Local Income Tax and crime. We just need to make sure voters understand what the LDs are actually saying, as opposed to that fuzzy aura of pleasantness.

Indeed Wat, campaigners of all parties often find the best tactic against LibDems is to publicise their policies!

I'll forgive Voice for his intelligent contribution as coming from the South West he probably has to experience all this more than most.

Oh, and we mustn't forget to mention the famous bar charts! "Winning here" ...

For Ming to attack the Tories in this way must really mean that the polling on the doorstep is finding ex-tories who have voted LibDem for the last few elections returning home? Why else would he want to paint them as 'unpleasant'. As for the often repeated 'myth' of Cameroon writing the whole of the tory manifesto - wasn't he just one of many authors to various chapters?

May I recommend this article as an *ahem* excellent hatchet job, sorry, case study of the dangers posed by Liberal Democrats in power?

Lib Dems are completely and utterly morally corrupt. They care only about getting into office (for the sake of being in office and keeping the Conservative party out) and they have no solutions to the daily problems that people face in this country.

The only people that vote for them are the cretinous young who have no idea about anything (except perhaps vomitting and drinking in excess) and the old Liberals who claim to remember the last Liberal administration. I met a women once. A Lib Dem voter and completely mad, of course, who said (in very many more words than this) that she voted Lib Dem because her father had been great friends with Lloyd George...

Putting my slightly more serious hat on...

Chris - there is still quite a lot of support for the Lib Dems in the South West which comes from Methodism, non-conformists and other Celtic fringe types. You'll often find a rural parish or ward with a large Methodist community will still often come out and vote Lib Dem through a sense of tradition, even though these days the gulf between the Lib Dems brand of liberalism and Methodism could not be greater.

Then there's the "I've/my family's always voted Liberal all my life," brigade which again is due in part to the Celtic-fringe/Methodist hangover.

Generally however the Lib Dems do well in the South West because they are the protest party against the Tories. In the South West outside the urban areas the Labour Party simply doesn't exist as a credible or viable alternative. Therefore whenever the voters want to give the Tories a kicking, they put their cross down on the Lib Dem box in the polling booth.

The upshot of this though is that when the tide switches back to the Tories, it’s the Lib Dems who tend to find themselves with the kicking instead. If Cameron does, and I hope he does, lead us to the promised land of political revival; the Lib Dems will find themselves in particular difficulty, especially in Conservative-Lib Dem areas.

Indeed Chris I find the whole concept that anyone came into active politics to simply deny opportunities to another party rather sad and negative. The best way to beat the Lib Dems is at their own game. Take the moral high ground, ignore their unpleasant comments and fight for every vote along every street.

And yet and yet, here in Haringey, we have a LibDem MP and no Conservatives on the council. I don't blame our local party who soldier on but it's very difficult to fight a chameleon in a colour changing contest. I am challenged by my neighbours to tell them how a Conservative Haringey Council would differ from the present Labour one (or an incipient LibDem) one: unfortunately, and given our leader's pronouncements on policy so far I cannot give them a clear answer: the schools will not be improved, council tax will not reduce, the remaining open spaces will not be safe from development etc etc. My neighbours' response is not necessarily a determination to vote LibDem but a weary resignation not to vote.

My occasional visit to Cloud9 aka ConservativeHome often brings amusement. I hope you will keep it up!

For the record:

Nobody has ever suggested I buy, read or work to any "Winning Elections" or whatever pamphlet it was. Until Mr Pickles picked up his 12 year old copy and started to read it again (needing tips on how to run a local election campaign no doubt) I had never heard of the "Freitag Method" and if you bother to read even the snippet posted on Guido Fawkes' blog it is very clear to me that it's written in a "how to-how not to" style. If the party could afford sweets, I'd have eaten them by the time I got out to deliver any leaflets anyway (well you've got to keep your strength up!).

On saying one thing somewhere and another somewhere else - certainly local politics is about representing local people. I was sitting in a SEERA planning consultation a few months ago at a table full of rural Tories who told me they liked the fact that the Lib Dems would fight for their issues locally and someone else's issues in the next village, instead of trying to push a one size fits all policy on all villages. They liked it. They thought it was the job of local politicians. I guess if they had the choice they would perhaps have voted for an independent on the same basis. These semi-independents are what is needed in local politics, not rule from Old Queen Street or Cowley Street by proxy. It is how differences are resolved as the issues go higher up the political ladder and further away from localities that matters.

Out canvassing - in a constituency the Tories held until 1987 and in a city they ruled full time for twenty odd years until twenty years ago - no, there doesn't appear to be any great numbers (none at all in fact) of Tory votes hardening. And I'm standing in one of the few wards in which you've actually put up a candidate - no full slate in a potentially very conservative city like Oxford? Astonishing. Indeed on a very small sample we've started to find former Tory voters going to UKIP even with no candidate - although my Tory opponent is a former Referendum Party parliamentary candidate here.

Oh, and once upon a time, not so long ago, there would have been no Easter recess for Tory students here - they would all be out fighting for a Conservative Oxford. Where has that sort of organisation gone, eh Sam? :)

Oh, and in ten years, I've never knowingly done or said anything in any campaigns that could possibly be described as "nasty" or "opportunist", though I have had that done to me by both other main parties.

I had a feeling you might comment Jock!

Re: young Conservatives in Oxford, the two uni's do need to get their act together and as Area Chairman of CF I'm going to do my best to give you some competition, don't worry about that.

p.s. This is usually a non-Conservative free zone, it's interesting to hear things from your side. Any more heretical comments though and I'll be knocking on your door ;)

One problem with the Lib/Dems is that liberals vote for them, not realising that they are not the true Liberal Party.

I think Margaret's comment is piercingly correct. I find it hard to comment on LibDems because I have antibodies to them, the sight of any of them makes me want to vomit. No doubt a sign of an unpleasant right-winger; except of course I'm not right-wing at all, just attached to freedom and truth. The antibodies are formed in response to their blend of student political leftwing guff married to the timid refusal of the intelligent libdems, who are of the centre-right, to do anything about getting their ideas into action by leaving their somewhat stained (no Oaten jokes please) party and joining forces with the centre-right Conservatives to remove the Labour government.

If we need sanctimony, we look to Simon Hughes. If we want blustering irrelevance, we look to Ming the, err, Irrelevant. If we want squeaky sloppy thinking, we look to that teenager in Brent. If we need to understand how to juggle a role as a millionaire with being an MP, we look to the voice of the Overlooked One in Hornsey. If I want to understand anything about making this a more liberal and better country, I look to the Conservative Party.

The Liberal party aka The Steve Radford party
I worked briefly for the Conservative campaign in their strongest constituency, West Derby.
Some Liverpool Conservatives have a lot of time for them, what with their EU views, although their policies are very eclectic.

Some Tories in the South West too seem to have warm feelings about the Liberals, probably in that they might suck a few votes away from the Lib Dems rather than policy agreements, though the anti-EU views go down very well understandably.

I think Margaret's comment is piercingly correct. I find it hard to comment on LibDems because I have antibodies to them, the sight of any of them makes me want to vomit.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Revelation 3:16

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made All things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Corinthians 9:22

I met a women once. A Lib Dem voter and completely mad, of course, who said (in very many more words than this) that she voted Lib Dem because her father had been great friends with Lloyd George...

A university friend of mine, (a ahem.... Labour Supporter) during a general election, got into a conversation with an elderly lady. The lady said she was voting for Labour, with made my friend happy. Her reason, however was less pleasing.

She was voting for Labour because her father always had done.

My friend who was a bit of a political anorak, was mortified.

Personally I'd rather have a Labour Government than a Lib Dem Government. The Lib Dems are clearly to the Left of Labour at the moment.

So a political party can be a belief system? Tribal? Like supporting Man U. Or Arsenal? And get just as worked up about it, without the slightest idea as to what the chosen one is on about???? HMMMMM!!!!

Hey Sam - is someone who is going to talk to your dear leader and his housing policy man about his Community Land Trusts project truly a "non-Conservative" - after all, I might be shaping your rural affordable housing policies in the near future...I hope!

( http://tinyurl.com/htpto )

Personally I'd rather have a Labour Government than a Lib Dem Government. The Lib Dems are clearly to the Left of Labour at the moment.

Now to me, what makes me a liberal is that I too would rather not see even my own party in government. My first question at any party hustings or whatnot is "if you ever achieve a majority in parliament will you abolish it and give us back our freedom and democracy?" And the same applies to Oxford Town Hall:


Jock said..

"one size fits all policy" - Otherwise known as telling everyone the same thing. Otherwise known as the truth.

His comments do however give insight for the Cameron team as to what the plan of attack is from the Lib-Dems. And it is exactly the same as Labour. It is that the party haven’t changed, just put a different spin on things. I think that this line of attack will be very effective against us given the Shadow Team Cameron has assembled.

It appears that we have recognised and accepted that elections are won in the centre ground, but are trying to find a way of doing that whilst still remaining firmly on the Right. This seems to have manifested itself with the sudden resurgence of one-nation conservatism. The electorate, in the current climate at least, are demanding a centrist Government, and that is what Labour are giving them. We, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that it is just a question of selling that we need to solve.

Personally, I don’t think that simply making ourselves more ‘attractive’ (losing the unpleasant bit) whilst retaining such up-front right-wing leanings will work and we will either see a Labour majority at the next general election or, as in Scotland, a Lab-Lib coalition government. Either outcome is extremely regrettable.

We'll be vulnerable to the charge of not having changed... so long as we lack policies to substantiate change. Leaflets encouraging people not to overfill their kettles will convince no-one that we're serious about the environment. I happen to believe that Iran is a much bigger threat than global warming but if voters are to take our compassionate and green words seriously... they'll need to be backed up.... ideally sooner rather than later.

You raise an interesting point. It is difficult to really gauge the electorates reaction to us until we have a firmer grip of policy. In this respect, I may be jumping the gun - however if we find that our polls performance is still poor after this, then we will really need to consider if we are gaining on the trust issue or not.

Iran is postentially a big problem down the road, however Joe Bloggs in the street won't recognise it as such when considering who to vote for until it's too late. Essentially the encumbant Government of the day has the remit to handle foreign policy almost by default of being elected on Domestic Policy. A dissapointing reality when one looks at Labours record, especially wrt Iraq, which in my view, has largely contributed to the current situation in Iran.

Otherwise known as telling everyone the same thing. Otherwise known as the truth.

No, it's not.

An example, one that came from that very meeting and which I hear repeated time and again from Parish Councils, CPRE groups and the like all across Oxfordshire:

"In my village we know of dozens of grown up children of local residents who cannot move out of the family home because there's nowhere for them to be able to afford".

Result - fight for community controlled local affordable housing to meet identified local needs.

Whereas..."This town is being over-developed and all the affordable housing for the district is being dumped here regardless of the need"

Result - fight against affordable housing in that town.

Both statements are the truth, both "campaigns" are respresenting those local truths.

Both are inevitably spun (by people outside of the two areas usually) as schizophrenic opportunism.

If every person, every community was exactly the same, had exactly the same needs, yes, have one policy, one campaign. But to pretend that they are is giving in to centralism and ignoring the thing our democracy is supposed to be achieving - representation of the people.

If it were two "independent" councillors fighting their respective corners you'd call them great local campaigners. With a party label on they have somehow to conform to one policy. It's complete bunkum. The preamble to the Lib Dem party consitituion says, inter alia, that we "seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity". Rule from the centre, one-size-fits-all, pretending there is only one "truth" is enslavement by conformity.

One of the problems is that no-one actually knows what LibDem policiies are. I spoke a lady in super-marginal seat in Sussex who said she was definately going to vote LD (even though the LDs were nowhere in that constituency and it really was a "two horse race" between us and Labour).

Just out of interest, I asked her why (she was a previous Conservative on the canvass card) and she said "because you lot aren't tough enough on Europe".

I couldn't believe my ears - and once I'd explained that the LDs were the most Europhile party around, I managed to win her over.

As someone said on here - the best way to fight the LDs is not to attack them (because they love underdog status) but actually to publicise their real policies.

Having attended their annual conference with work it is interesting to hear some of their more sensible MPs who have stated that if they are ever to be seen as an alternative they have to stop being a franchise party. At thats what they are at the moment. You could publicise their policy on congestion charging for example - but it really would be differnt from constituency to constituency - and indeed street to street.

What is an "occasional Presbyterian"? Does he rent religious faiths?

Of course if you publicised our real policies most people would see how eminently sensible they are.

Headline - Lib Dems europhiles.

Real policy - Lib Dems want to see a democratically accountable Europe as part of a philosophical basis that internationalism is crucial in a global village and that individual nation states are fundamentally incapable of creating "level playing fields" in a world where business has gone trans-national and defense is not simply a national issue any more.

In the first Euro-elections, and ever since, the Liberal Party and its successors have campaigned for fundamental reform of CAP. We don't flit between Euro-parl groups on a knee-jerk but use what strength they have to hold the Commission to account - not just walk away from it.

On the other hand you've got a problem of wanting to appear Eurosceptic to the population because you think that's what they want (and may be right) but for much of big business that wants to support you they actively want the advantage that pan-European open borders and trade agreements gives them against local competition. Our "nation of shopkeepers" is indeed threatened by the very big business interests you do want to promote and that is a problem for you.

Blairbour want centralised authority in Europe, but his left see the issues with transnational businesses greater clout against local competition.

This member will be the first out the door if we stop being what you termed a "franchise party" because that, to my mind, is exactly what a political party should be (if we need parties at all).

You could publicise their policy on congestion charging for example - but it really would be differnt from constituency to constituency - and indeed street to street.

Ah yes, the Edinburgh bunkum. "Representing the people" is about fighting their particular corner. Street to street where necessary. I have examples locally where one street desperately wants residents parking and the next desperately doesn't. What am I supposed to do about that? Take a position that they should all either be in the scheme or not? Or worse, ask Cowley Street for a policy steer developed by someone without that local understanding of the two positions? No, I would want to help enunciate both positions, having listened to them, and try to reach agreement or compromise. Is there something wrong with that?

One can have an overall policy that congestion charging is a good idea, for where there is congestion, and for where there are good alternatives, but to impose that where there isn't congestion or where it would leave people stranded because of not having those alternatives would be authoritarian centralist rubbish and good for nobody.

Maybe this is just where we will never meet eye-to-eye. I simply cannot understand why you think it is a good thing to impose one solution, one policy on everyone, everywhere. Or a bad thing to try to represent and reconcile different interests. And it has little basis in British political history either in my opinion.

The party have never I think taken the threat the Lib/Dems pose to it seriously enougth.
The growth in the number of seats the Lib/Dems have had in recent elections as been largely at the expense of the Conservatives.
I believe we need to be far more agressive towards them and expose what they really believe in.
We need to spotlight the extremism of many in the Lib/Dems who have views on crime, on Europe, on the environment and on terrorism and foreign policy that are just not mad they are downright dangerous.

If you dont have a cohesive policy platform then why not just disband the party and all be independents then Jock?

"Otherwise known as telling everyone the same thing. Otherwise known as the truth.

No, it's not. "

The Lib Dems are post-modernists.

They don't *believe* in truth. Truth is relative.

Because people don't know what they're voting for. How can voters in Hereford and voters in London know what they're voting for if the candidates run on radically different policy platforms, but are members of the same party?

McDonalds and Starbucks are a franchise, but they're all the same. You know what you're going to get when you go it. What you're suggesting is that the party label should be meaningless, vague and empty. Why don't you all just run as independents?

Right, since we are on the subject of Lib-Dems - why not take a moment to read this Simon Jenkins article. It sums up the Lib-Dems to a tee...


If you dont have a cohesive policy platform then why not just disband the party and all be independents then Jock?

A good question, Jonathan. May you could show how to do it? Why on earth do we want some kind of mega-party politics anyway? Isn't that also at the heart of your party's struggles - you can almost hear at times the foundations of the edifice creaking like warping steel as the new upper storeys try to go where they will not be led.

After all, surely a cohesive philosophical/ideological platform must underpin a cohesive policy platform - you've got to agree where you want to go before you can discuss how you want to get there. And the battle between economic liberalism and social conservatism in the Conservative Party as proven a particularly difficult one to reconcile surely?

It seems to me to be a twentieth century thing in British politics that has given rise to the need to fight elections as big groups. The belief that more power belongs locally (I loathe the Westminster/Whitehall centralist model of government with a passion) was successful in the Liberal/Whig/Tory days of civic pre-eminence. I wish that we could all go back to that. As it is, it has become a self-serving, and not people serving "game" that feeds on itself. Surely not a "c"onservative philosophy?

Party politics exist because it works. You can have a broad church with a shared policy platform. A parliament full of independents would continually fail to fin agreement on anything.

You may care to try to solve the creaking in your own party Jock rather than spend time worrying about the Conservatives.

Power can exist locally - but if you are standing under a Lib Dem banner you really should be honest and support a Lib Dem manifesto. If you can't then you could resign. I'd be happy to let the Lid Dem party Chairman know who lives just up the road.

One short passage from that article sums it all up for me absolutely - thank you Oberon:

No one becomes a Liberal Democrat MP to rule the country. (I should hope not - every time I see one I ask if they will abolish themselves if they ever get into a position to do it!) Though effective in local government, the party is sustained nationally by the conventions and perks of Westminster and by the media’s love of triangulation.

And there's the rub - the "game" of politics at Westminster is so divorced from what it is meant to achieve in my opinion. Local is best, people operating in their own interests as far as possible. Who wants to lump everyone together and try to eradicate subsidiarity in some centralist model?

Though I would agree with Simon Jenkins to the extent that in order to achieve that abolition of centralist power they/we have to be more effective at playing your silly game and gaining the power to dismantle it...:) And in that, they/we have failed for the best part of a century.

Jock, the Lib Dems are in no position to talk about internal contradictions. Half of you are sandal wearing SDP the other half are economic neoliberals who make John Redwood sound like an economic girlie man. Whether you people like it or not, politics is national and if you run on the ticket of a national party then everyone should be singing from the same hymn sheet. Higher taxes, a federal europe and the legalisation of class A drugs. Yes, I can see why lib dem candiates want an opt out on any policy they choose when it comes to the doorstep.

I think you relaise only too well that if Jesus Christ were to stand as an independent for Galilee-on-Sea Borough Council nowadays in the UK, he would be beaten by a monkey with a blue/red/yellow rosette.

I do not deny internal contradictions. You just need to read my blog to see where I stand as a pretty fundamental liberal in a party that sometimes appears neo-socialist.

My point is that I don't see why we need to have a "national ticket". I rather like Hume's Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth as a model where the Co-operative Commonwealth of Oxfordshire would send its representatives to fight Oxfordshire's corner and not Tony Blair/David Cameron/Ming Campbell's one.

And to get back to it, what we need is a fundamental review of what government needs to do and at what level, and I'll bet we would not conclude that Patricia Hewitt and some civil servants in the heart of London know what the heart patients of Oxfordshire need or want any better than they themselves. So why do we all collude in that chimera?

Power for its own sake is all I can conclude, and fundamentally at odds it is with empowering and representing real people. IMHO.

So why are you a member of the Liberal Democrats?

Mind you - why would anyone want to be.

So why are you a member of the Liberal Democrats?

I don't think I'll try and give a glib, simple answer to that. But suffice it to say that I think you'll find that my view of where the balance lies between party, power and people is quite widespread, nay mainstream, within the party, and that's probably why, in essence, I believe it is the only mainstream properly liberal party across the UK.

To which chairman do you think you might want to "report" me? I know of no chairman who can chuck me out of the party for anything I've said here. Indeed I know of no "party chairman" except that of my local party, and maybe the chairs of each of several federal, national or regional committees, and I would not fear any one of them as having any power over me one way or another.

Our chairs are our servants, not our masters or thought police, AFAIK.

Now - much as it has been very enjoyable fraternising I have to go canvassing!

an occasional Presbyterian

Just what is one of those Campbell ? You pick and choose there as well ?

I dislike the priggish tone of this Scottish barrister mixed with pomposity and a supercilious attitude to those around him. Charles Kennedy was the best asset the LibDems had, Campbell is a bore and frankly devoid of human warmth. With him as leader the LibDems are going to have to work much harder for votes - he is simply so calculating and distant, and so far extremely weak in the Commons.

Campbell will bleat on about the Tories but in doing so he has to explain if he is campaigning for his Fellow Scot Gordon Brown, for only in England are LibDems not in coalition with Labour.

Party politics exist because it works.

All human activity tends towards formation of cartels.

Go read Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy 1912


First, there is always a rather small number of persons in the organization who actually make decisions, even if authority is vested in the body of the membership. This is a purely functional, if decisions are left to the vulgar masses then nothing get done. The decisions go on at great length without getting to the necessary issues, until either people leave or keep quite. Second, the leaders who have this delegated authority tend to take on more power than the members who selected them do. Once in power they tend to remain there for a long time and are not influenced by the opinions from below. Reasons for this is partly functional, but more so because of the way resources of power are distributed in an organization. The leaders are a much smaller group than the body of the organization; therefore they have the advantage of being better organized. The members, as a whole, come together infrequently if at all; but the leadership is in constant contact with each other. The leadership tends to form a united, behind-the-scenes, informal group, this way making it much easier for them to make plans, carry out programs, etc. Third, the leaders gradually develop values that are at odds with those of the members. That is to say that peoples outlooks are determined by their social positions. For the ordinary member, the organization is something he or she belongs to and participates in from time to time, but it is not usually the center of his or her life. The leader's position is different; the organization is usually a full-time job, or at least a major part of their life. The leader becomes less interest in the concerns of the rank and file or the ideology of the group, and more concerned with staying in power.

One problem with the Lib/Dems is that liberals vote for them, not realising that they are not the true Liberal Party.

One problem with the Conservative Party is that conservatives vote for them, not realising that they are not the true conservative Party.

Ming insults the Tories as he fears losing votes to them.

Cameron insults the UKIP as he fears losing votes to them.

While Ming, Blair and Dave are busy insulting each other in the press for superficial media affect, they all seem very happy to agree to state funding of political parties whilst ignoring Darfur and Iran.

Rick...sorry to let you down but I beat you to that one. It seems a strange term... I reckon Campbell knows Rent-A-Faith, a subsidiary of Rent-A-Car, recently bought by Blockbusters!

Interesting that he doesnt like parties but is a member of one. So logical. So Lib Dem.

Its amusing that Flash Gordon is currently playing on ITV1 - Its the most we've seen of Ming in weeks!

I guess all three leaders will happily continue to trade insults up to the locals in May.

Two questions though:

1: How many more people will have died in Darfur by then?
2: How many centrifuges will Iran have by then?

Curiously Jonathan, Godzilla's on as well. An old monster that just wont go away and wants to destroy the world as we know it.

Something even William Norton couldnt make up!

Good to see where your priorities are Jonathan. You must have breezed your a-list interview.

Have you picked today's piece of litter yet?

Im a big believe in the concept of work life balance. And if Flash Gordon is on, who can turn off a classic like that.

Havent picked up any litter but Ive put my new green wheelie bin to good use. Unfortunately Chesterfield doesnt recycle plastic in any shape or form yet!

A letter in the local paper today:-

Appropriate party name

It is always interesting to be present at the birth of a new political party. I wonder what name Mr. Cameron and Mr. Maude will choose for their new baby.

It cannot, of course, be "Conservative", for that is already taken.

Perhaps "Allmodcon" might be appropriate.

Unfortunately Chesterfield doesnt recycle plastic in any shape or form yet!

Well then you'll have to just be content with recycling Labour policies! ;-)

Not me Chad - being brought up in the Socialist Republic of Chesterfield one became aware of the failing of Labour long before they came to power nationally!


Don't be concerned with Jonathan's A list interview. Let's remind all readers of this blog that you are a non-Conservative, in fact an anti-Conservative, poster. A man who has started his own political party. (Is it techincally a party if only the host attends?)

You usually reply to CH posters pointing this fact out with 'don't make it about me, keep on topic'. This is utter nonsense, of course, because it is about you. About your rejection of the Conservative party and its principles, and about the fact that you founded your own, non-Tory party. Yet you continue on CH taking up space and air. And in your comments you endeavour, at least by omission, to convince readers you are a Tory.

Which is fine, in that the owner of the blog promotes free expression. But it is important to point out to lurkers, many of whom work for the media, that you, Chad, are not a Conservative. Your sneers on picking up litter and caring for the environment do not respresent Conservatism. As I've said before, we Conservatives believe in conserving. Like Kilroy-Silk, you have started your own party. A non-Tory party. You deserve to be regarded as mini-Kilroy. I say 'mini', for at least he had a national reputation before starting his own political shop.

It's important, since you post 20 comments a day, to remind people in every thread that you appear that you are a person who stands against the Conservatives.


Which of these are CamCon policies (which you want to stand on) and which are Labour's? (Just so I can understand the key differences)

1: Big government State funding of political parties
2: No plans for coalition action for Darfur.
3: National id database (not cards!)
4: No referendum on EU.
5: No more grammar schools.
6: No action on Iran.
7: Don't overfill your kettle.


But I am a conservative.

Look at today's news. I won't apologise about highlighting the way the big parties are spending their time insulting each other rather than taking action on Darfur and Iran.

And what is your "party" doing? And you as its leader seems content to criticise pretty much everything. How can an opposition party take action on Iran or Darfur - if they are in opposition? Governments take action - so why not aim your criticism there?

Im very happy with DCs leadership. And I actually would love to see the reality of a Conservative Government in the near future -
Thats something I dont just what to "imagine" - I'll leave that to you Chad.

No Chad,

You are not. You are the founder of your own political party. You stand against the Conservative party.

Of course, your joke party will never actually do the Tories any damage (party of one, table six!). My concern, rather, is with the opinion formers who read this blog, journalists etc. They all need to be made aware that you are not a Tory and that your comments (your contempt for picking up litter, for example) stand against the Tory party, which you are not part of.

The only way you can damage the Conservatives is if readers of CH form the impression that you are one of us. You're not. Hope that's all clear to everybody.

I don't think there's a rule that you have to support the Tory party to comment here. If there is I am not aware of it. Chad has made clear that he is a small "c" conservative and that explains his interest in visiting here.

Since there are no such rules, people should be free to make their comments free from hounding or intimidation. I find it frankly insidious of you to intimate that you will follow up all Chad's posts with a disclaimer telling everyone about his party affiliation.

Chad tries to convince people he is part of this party. He posts endless detailerd critiques of Cameron, of Tory environment and diversity policy, etc, without any disclaimer, as though he were a disgruntled activist.

But in fact, he stared a party to work against the interests of the Conservative party.

His latest sally is having a go at the man who started Tory Radio - a genuine attempt to contribute to Tory debate.

"Did you pick up your piece of litter today yet?" - yeah, that's it - Conservatives don't give a monkey's about their local environment.

It has become painfully clear in recent weeks that the media follows this blog and loves to quote folks like you, John, as evidence of imaginary Tory discontent. But as I understand it you are actually a Tory.

When somebody who posts prolifically attacking the party does not make it clear he isn't a Tory, that to me is not right.

Chad has a perfect right to post. And I have a perfect right to remind the reading media that disdain for picking up litter comes from an anti-Tory, not an actual Tory. That Chad, far from being representative, is actually against the Tory party to the point of founding his own rival body.

I'm sure Chad can comment away. Tory or not. I never said he had to support this party to comment. He's free to do so. And equally, I can always make it clear that Chad founded an anti-Tory party. One line will do.

I daresay the Imagine party will appreciate the free publicity!

Suggestion is out of order. Chad posts using his own name and doesnt hide behind anonymity. You shouldnt criticise until you start posting your actual name.

That will teach me to mention that I was watching Flash Gordon while doing the garden. Look what Ive started!

Just for the record, not only do I not hide under an alias and do comment under my real name, but I also submitted this update to my community profile on the 11th which Tim is due to add:

"I am a committed (small c) conservative, but it should be noted that I am
not a current member of the Tory Party, having left to form the Imagine
Party, a moderately centre-left party with a base of small-government
conservative values and core aim to oppose all forms of state funding of
political parties.
Please treat everything I say with extreme suspicion! ;-)"

I have nothing to hide nor seek to mask my small c conservatism and opposition to the current direction of the Tory Party under Cameron.

Doing the garden as well? Hope you arent using a hosepipe!

If you could see the size of my garden you could tell that one watering can could pretty much cover it all (though ooops North we dont have a shortage of water) I was actually trying to come up with a way of keeping neighbourhood cats out - but I really wouldnt want to start a thread on that.

One word: Catnip.

But, Suggestion, since Chad has been as open as he can be about *not* belonging to the party (and he really doesn't need a disclaimer on every thread), the only possible interpretation of your comments is that you wish to hound him from the site.

He is also not unconnected to the party, since he recently left it because he was unhappy at the recent direction it has taken (something I myself have thought about). His views about the direction of the party are, thus, more than a little relevant.

OK you asked for it... I have the blue crystal looking stinky stuff, cat pepper, netting over my whole lawn so it might re-grow, and a sonic cat repeller! All environmentally friendly I might add!

Chad, your profile has been duly amended.

Dear Jonathan, your solution is simple.

Thanks Sam.

Tempting - though a bit cruel as I am out at work all day!

How about this one?

SHANE Ref 1231

1½ - 2 year old. Cream German Shepherd.

Friendly dog.

Not good with cats. Not to be homed with children under 12.

Needs some house training.

Oops, I'm straying from this thread as much as this dog has from its previous owner!

His latest sally is having a go at the man who started Tory Radio - a genuine attempt to contribute to Tory debate.

But p.s., I love ToryRadio and was one of the first people to advertise it. I also provide free advertising for Big C Tories under coolservative (take a look at satiresearch.com's prominent ad which get 10k visitors a day so lots of clicks through).

Not really the actions of someone trying to harm the party is it?

AS long as someone is tuning in!

Well I'm not so keen on the presenter... ;-)

Mt wife says that sometimes - and weve only been married a matter of weeks!

Mt wife says that sometimes - and weve only been married a matter of weeks!

She even says it twice :o)

lol. You'll have to release an edition in south-of-england English so we can understand what you are saying. ;-)

Thank you for steering me towards Peter Hitchen's blog. His take on the 3 main parties is spot on.

And bananas to you too, Dave

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Dave Cameron, the self-styled heir to Blair, continues to do my job for me, alienating and exasperating even the most loyal Tories as if he were deliberately trying to destroy his doomed party.

He sneers at opponents of new housing estates as 'bananas' - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone'. Well, I'm afraid he has no idea what he is saying. People who have grown up as rich as Mr Cameron have very little idea of how much those who must buy their own houses with their own hard-earned money treasure any patch of green space nearby.

This is his problem, that he simply does not understand the middle class. He seems to think everyone can afford spacious homes, a neighbourhood of ordered peace, and either private schools or select, untypical state schools in nice areas.

He doesn't know how hard they have to work simply to stay in the same place. He doesn't know about the crime and the disorder that follow the drugs he is so soft on. He speaks for sheltered London toffs with second homes, but not for the great millions of people with just one home.

Each week that passes, I suspect that he is losing another few thousand voters forever. Meanwhile his silly green and pink flirtations win him the good opinions of the sort of people who would rather gulp a pint of strychnine than vote Tory. Brilliant strategy, Dave. Keep it up.

Do I sound right northern? I always thought I sounded very posh dont you know!

I grew up in Southend, so can only understand Estuary English.

So living in Suffolk now, I don't understand them and they don't understand me. Perfect!

Well, if you call yourself "right northern", yes... Though if you called yourself "like, northern", I guess we'd assume you were a chav!

Im confused by all this southern talk. You will be able to amuse yourself with the difference between my accent and Zac Goldsmiths in 10 days

Well, with the lack of real policy coming through, we need to find ways of amusing ourselves. Its a shame it has to be at your expense.

As long as you keep listening and get others to I can cope.

Rick...sorry to let you down but I beat you to that one

James - you did !

Frankly I was just shocked that Campbell could say anything so stupid ! When we live in an era of corroding values he chooses Easter to say something so inanely stupid.

Have any of these people any connection with reality or do they just read whatever script they are handed ?

Maybe hes occasionally intelligent?

I've always wondered about this right-wing=unpleasant rubbish.

What is pleasant about being left wing and promising people a welfare state from cradle to grave and then reneging on those promises half a century later because it's not been thought through properly long term?

Just look at the state pension, at 16 years of age I was told that I would draw a state pension at 60 it's now 65 (possibly 68,69 or 70 who knows!) What's fair about introducing a minimum wage and then not increasing the basic state pension by the same %increase of the NMW (if they had at least a basic pension would be just over £100). It's all well and good to be 'left' minded but making promises with other people's money that you can't keep, like the current government, in order to keep their own jobs today without considering the consequences tomorrow are no better than credit card companies that just allow people to take on more credit than they could ever repay and then forcing those more cautious amongst us to pay for their errors.

You see I think of right wing people as those that save, live by the rules (however much they disagree with them), that have aspiration, have no desire to survive off the state, independent in action and thought but caring in their families and their community and most importantly pay their way - if that makes them unpleasant then it's a funny old world.

The comments to this entry are closed.



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:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker