Optimistic male, 39, WLTM floating voters

Whilst I was in CCHQ on Thursday I picked up a new Conservative campaign newsletter entitled 'change'.  A pdf copy of the four page newspaper can be accessed here.  [I was in CCHQ to meet Francis Maude about my US fact-finding trip - I thought FM handled his extensive range of interviews yesterday about the Tory lenders with great skill btw.]

I was impressed with the newspaper although it was, perhaps, a little wordy.  Some of the commitments were a refutation of the idea that the Tories had become a policy-free zone.  Here were five that - with fleshing out - could become important (although not uncontroversial) parts of the next Tory manifesto:

• Opposition to ID cards: "They do not prevent terrorist attacks and the £14 billion it will cost to introduce ID cards by 2013 could be better spent on things that we know will work, like boosting the police, security services and armed forces."
• Help for first-time buyers:  An "ambitious plan" is promised to young families who are stretched "to financial breaking point to get on the property ladder."
• No war without a vote: "Is it right that we go to war without Parliament voting on it?  Our new Democracy Task Force will consider whether the centuries-old power of the Royal Prerogative, used by ministers to declare war, sign international treaties and make public appointments, should be reformed to ensure MPs are consulted first."
• Police reform: New powers to "sack bad officers" and "real local accountability to give communities control over policing".
• Childcare: "I want to make the support provided by the childcare tax credit simpler and much more user-friendly.  Then we must expand the range of good, affordable childcare.  The government should not be seeking a monopoly in the provision of childcare or nursery places." (DC)

Also in the newspaper is a personals section:

I'm sure readers of this blog could come up with some alternative WLTMs...

Comments

[Buxtehude]

Let me get this straight, Mr Editor. You are now in the pay of Francis Maude. Very good. And you now think "FM handled his extensive range of interviews yesterday about the Tory lenders with great skill." Plus "I was impressed with the newspaper". Policies that you hand't noticed before suddenly strike you as destined to become "important". Hmmm... Makings of another scandal, possibly?

[Chad]

Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

Opposition to ID cards
Perhaps, but not to the central monster database, the heart of the whole system that you voted for this week.

The Tories have greenlighted the scheme. Only the LibDems can honestly claim to oppose ID cards. Just ask No2ID, the very campagain fighting against the ID card scheme if you don't want to believe me.

No-one who opposes a scheme, votes for it to become law. It really is that simple.

As Graeme Archer noted, no-one who has taken a principled stand against ID cards will be tempted to vote Tory as only the LibDems have been clear and consistent in their opposition.

No war without a vote
Well that is exactly what Blair offered last time. And you voted for war. Remember Blair might have ignored the UN, but he did offer Parliament a vote, and Labour and the Tories voted to march in all guns blazing.

So we have Labour and the Tories both supporting ID cards, and voting for war.

This is a strange pledge, as it doesn't matter whether you were for or against the Iraq war, the pledge is for a vote on war, which Blair has already put in place.

Here's a better pledge:
No war, without an international mandate

[Burke's ghost]

"Opposition to ID cards: "

Err, what opposition? We (or too many of our lot) voted for them in the end!

Looks like they'll have to start pulping that newspaper already!

[Editor]

Chad: "No war without an international mandate".

I would leave the Tory party if it made such a pledge, Chad. The first duty of any government is national defence. The UN Security Council - made up of a number of despots and bribed governments - should not have a veto on the Westminster Parliament's understanding of the British national interest.

[Editor]

"Let me get this straight, Mr Editor. You are now in the pay of Francis Maude. Very good. And you now think "FM handled his extensive range of interviews yesterday about the Tory lenders with great skill." Plus "I was impressed with the newspaper". Policies that you hand't noticed before suddenly strike you as destined to become "important". Hmmm... Makings of another scandal, possibly?"

I'm normally attacked for being too anti-Cameron! I think you would be on firmer ground, Bux, if this blog routinely acted like a lapdog to the Conservative Party but in the last few days I've been critical of the party's approach to state funding and housing.

My contract with CCHQ has also ended so I'm no longer "in the pay of Francis Maude".

I'll continue to write it as I see it - and yesterday I think Francis Maude did well... on a sticky wicket.

[chad]

Hi Tim,

I totally agree that major reform is needed of our international bodies. We should think like internationalists and get them working by addressing the very valid concerns you have.

Thinking in global terms too also helps to show up the eu as the private members club it is too. One that is open to a selected few members (see Morocco 1987).

I want to focus on rebuilding our international bodies to relect the world today, not a snapshot of world dominance in 1945, but it will take all our focus, whic is distracted by the regional power base that is the EU.

I don't think we disagree on this, as the current international situation is not ideal (understatement I know) but we must seek to operate within international law and reform our international bodies where necessary.

On the loans, I must agree with you Tim. Maude did fine, and there is little value in keep digging now. Mistakes were made, probably deliberate evasion, but let's move forward now.

[Buxtehude]

But Editor, you didn't even rage against the utterly dreadful "Cameron's Conservatives". Even if I adored the man, as we're supposed to, I'd still just be a Conservative, not anyone else's Conservative. I wasn't Maggie's Conservative, nor Major's, nor Hague's, nor IDS', nor Howard's.

I think this is quite important: Conservatism has been diminished into a support club for the boy. I don't think so.

I take it you will take no further paid employment with Mr Maude until your job here is done?

[Editor]

Chad: I agree with you, the whole issue of reform of international institutions is a fruitful subject for more discussion... Let's return to this soon.

Bux: ConservativeHome will remain independent of the party - championing members' rights and standing up for the politics of and.

[Derek]

I see that the paper has a section about increasing diversity. Page 3 "New Faces" has the following:-

"But the party has a much stronger appeal to the Indian community than to the Afro-Caribbeans or East Asians and is aiming to become more relevant to them, and to those from eastern Europe."

I find it strange that the party should state that it is trying to appeal to voters according to their race, rather than stating its policies and appealing to all who share the party's values.

This whole nonsense about diversity of candidates is of no relevance to voters who can only elect one MP, and that MP has to represent all his constituents from all backgrounds races etc.

[Buxtehude]

"ConservativeHome will remain independent of the party". Good. Not quite a straight answer - you're obviously learning your trade. But good anyway. It's so important that there's a place where one can be a conservative withgout having to act like a cheerleader. For those who think politics is all about getting oneself a job (and all others as being there to help you in your ambition), I have only a desire to oppose. For those who believe in something and actively fight for it, I have huge admiration.

[Chad]

Official LibDem campaign against ID cards

What is the url of the equivalent campaign on the official conservatives site? There must be one there surely if Cameron is so opposed?

(I'm not a libdem supporter)

[Buxtehude]

Chad, forget it. Don't bother looking. It's not even skin-deep. Everything they do is for the next 24 hours only. They don't understand anything else.

[Nelson, Norfolk]

I am not happy with the title of the paper. We are not Camerons Conservative. Perhaps it could be called Conservative News.

[AlwaysAmazed]

WLTM...
Youngish nearly-aristo, not attached to anything, seeks sugar-daddies and arm-candy. Just for fun, not interested in a serious relationship after disenchantment with previous flings.

[G-MaN]

Come off it Bux. Your moaning over nothing, or perhaps the fact that this Paper indicates that in fact Camerons team (contray to Cornerstone militant propaganda) has actually got direction and fresh, wide appealing ideas.

This editor is certainly not on Maudes pay roll, Ive been close to sending cursing emails to him because he doesnt back Cameron enough in my opinion.

And yes we are Conservatives, but for now we are also Camerons Conservatives. Adding Cameron in front of our name has been benificial also, its got a ring to it and is very catchy.

Stop your whining!

[Christina]

Chad wrote:

"No-one who opposes a scheme, votes for it to become law. It really is that simple."

No it isn't that simple. If the Lords did what Chad and others wanted, the Government would get the whole lot through before the next GE, by using the Parliament Act.

We now have a situation where people can vote Conservative in the next GE to get the ID scheme scrapped. We must remember that the Lib Dems have no chance of becoming the Government any time soon, and so can act 'according to principle' in such a way they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Donna, a former ProgCon member has decided to join the Conservative Party now over this issue.

[James Maskell]

I thought the Parliament Act could only be used for manifesto commitments, which was the issue behind the ping pong. Id much more have prefered seeing the Conservatives do what it really wanted to and voted against it. It would have at least have been principled.

In any case, I thought the Parliament Act could only be used to push through finance bills?

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't see how the national defences can function adequately if the Prime Minister's authority to take the country to parliament has to be referred to parliament.

Maybe if there was some kind of situation in which a majority of MP's could veto a decision to go to war, but in the event that they didn't then the Prime Minister's will would prevail - ultimately if a majority of MP's had decided it was of such vital importance then they could in the circumstances of the War in Iraq for example, even if a vote on it had not been called decide to stop it by passing a motion of No Confidence in the government.

As for a national ID scheme surely for Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Fraud and as part of Immigration Control to know exactly who is in the country at any one time and to render anyone without any status as accepted as being in the country at any one time as being automatically considered to be here without permission or to be using a false identity presumably with criminal intentions and thus who should be interrogated to establish their identity and to determine what should be done with them.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>In any case, I thought the Parliament Act could only be used to push through finance bills?<<<<
Money Bills cannot be vetoed or altered by the 2nd Chamber, this was a measure introduced under the original Parliament Act (1911 I think) introduced by David Lloyd George in what was still a Liberal Government albeit with Labour and Nationalist support.

The Parliament Act 1947 extended this allowing Government Bills passed by the House of Commons and rejected 3 times by the House of Lords passed again each time by the House of Commons to be passed unaltered bypassing the House of Lords.

[Yet Another Anon]

Presumably there would have to be exemptions anyway to the restrictions on the Prime Minister, what about a situation in which a Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike was neccessary in order to prevent a foreign power from launching a nuclear attack on the UK, could it really wait for a full debate and vote in parliament.

[Donna Kelly]

"In any case, I thought the Parliament Act could only be used to push through finance bills?"

The latter was a convention - no more - that was in place as a bulwark against frivolous use of such a legislative steamroller . . . a Parliamentary "nuclear deterrent" (as the BBC descibed it).

However, given that the Labour Government used it just two years ago, to push through a ban on fox hunting (of all things!), the chance of them not using it on the Identity Card Bill was precisely zero.

I believe that David Davis made the right call. In order to avoid the strategic defeat of having the entire issue put to bed right now, the Opposition has ensured that this vile and iniquitious measure will still be a hot political potato at the next General Election.

Indeed, David Davis' concluding statement (29 Mar, Col 1004 - 60329-47.htm) that "let there be no doubt that my first act when I take over as Home Secretary after the next election will be to do away with the Bill" was just great! In fact, the totality of his words in the House made excellent reading, and I heartily recommend them to all.

It seems to me that far from slagging off the current Conservative team on this issue, they should be praised most loudly for both their principled stand and their astute political tactics.

[James Maskell]

I read those last comments and he was right to say it. But the fact is that every time in the next 4-5 years we talk about ID cards, Labour will bring up the fact that we walked through the same lobby as them. The result is all that mattered with ID Cards.

[kingbongo]

OK - I'll live with what David Davis has done on the grounds that it stopped the government steamrollering it through and he has pledged we'll scrap this evil measure BUT why didn't we abstain?

I still don't understand why it was necessary to actually vote for the compromise - did the government threaten to defeat it if the tories didn't go through the lobby? Perhaps Labour Ministers now feel uncomfortable voting through leglisation unless there are loads of tories to protect them from their backbenchers?

[Donna Kelly]

"Labour will bring up the fact that we walked through the same lobby as them"

You know, that's a very fair comment, and it needs a response. As is . . .

"why didn't we abstain?"

To answer the first, it's like this: by the time the next General Election rolls around, several million people will have had their biometrics recorded (because Labour must do this to initialise the National Identy Register), and they will not like it. Not at all. Then we say: we will kill this ID card scheme dead. No ifs, no ands, no buts. Parliamentary shenanigans of several years previous will be completely lost in the signal/noise ratio.

The vote was Ayes won by 300 to 83 (majority 217). I counted 25 of our MPs who voted Aye, including David Davis. The party as a whole did abstain. This result is a substantially increased Aye vote over last year; but this actually represents (for us) a strategic win. Why? Because we got the necessary amendment to keep this issue alive. We voted as we did, because we needed to stop further tactical manoeuvering, put a stake in the ground and make out position clear - as Mr Davis most certainly did! - and left the pot simmering.

This is a long game. Public support for ID cards has slumped from 75% two years ago to 45% today, and the trend looks set to continue. We (and others) will keep this issue on the political radar, and we will be the winners in the long term because of that.

I belive that the Conservative leadership team has been politically most astute on ID cards. Especially when remembering that politics is the art of the possible, not fantasies about perfect solutions right this second.

[Chad]

No-one is likely to doubt that it was a political strategy by the Tories, but it will not benefit the Tories, because exactly that, it is a strategy, not values based.

The strategy seems to be simply this; The Tories are the second party, lots of people oppose ID cards, so if the Tories promise to scrap them, then people will vote Tory.

Unfortunately, people who oppose ID cards and the database, do so with a passion. They can see the Conservatives voting in favour, not for the first time either (the past two Tory leaders have now both voted in favour), flip-flopping, with only one party, the LibDems, consistently voting against.

Remember, the Tories have not opposed the core of this scheme, the national ID database. They have remained suspiciously quiet on the issue.

Then these people may look on the various party sites, and they will find an active campaign and petition against the cards on the LibDem site, but nothing, not a sausage of protest, not even a link to No2ID on the Tory site.

But there is an active campagin to keep a complicated tax break from the party that accuses Labour of complicating the tax system!

If you think these people will vote tory because the Tories 'have more chance of becoming a government' you are deceiving yourself. This is wishful thinking in the extreme.

The LibDems will be pushing for a hung parliament, where the small party will have a disproportionately large say. I don't think they will succeed but I don't think this issue will help the Tories either.

As Graeme noted, any 'anti-ID' campaigning by the Tories will be free advertising for the LibDems.

The cold hard fact that the LibDems can use is that:

1: The past two tories leaders have voted in favour of ID cards, showing consistent support for the project.
2: The Tories have been very ambiguous in their oppositin rhetoric, avoiding any mention of opposition to the core database scheme.
3: The LibDems have been actively campaiginng with a petition to fight ID cards, the Tories have done nothing.

I don't see anything astute or likely to sway voters with that approach.

[Rob G]

Chad: I've just checked with Hansard. David Cameron did not vote for the Bill. As Donna Kelly pointed out above--most Tory MPs abstained

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Thinking in global terms too also helps to show up the eu as the private members club it is too. One that is open to a selected few members (see Morocco 1987)."

Morocco wasn't in Europe the last time I checked. Leaving that simple geographical fact aside, you might like to consider that the addition of Morocco to the EU would prove to be yet another economic burden on the better-off areas of the EU, which already have to prop up too much of the rest of Europe. It's bad enough that Turkey is treated as a credible prospective member without people reheating a 20-year-old failed application from Morocco as well.

[Christina]

I don't see the strategy as being 'we'll get elected' nor do I see it as lacking principles. Principles have levels. There are higher principles.

What is the highest principle for a political party? I would say it is to do what is best for the people of this country.

What were the options? Was there an option to get the scheme scrapped and save lots of money? No! The Parliament Act would be used to railroad it through and Labour would get what they wanted. We would have ID cards before the next GE.

Liken it to Chess. A sacrifice has been made, according to the higher principle, to ensure a checkmate is possible.

If we did what the Lib Dems did, we would have conceded the game 'for our principles.'
Really, those 'principles' are about saving face.

Non-violence is a good principle, but if a man in particular stuck to it as a child was being beaten up next to him, no one would admire his principles.

[Chad]

Christina wrote:
PS I think you rate the influence of a blog called Conservative Home way too highly. You write as if the majority of Conservative members posted there. They don't. There is just a small number.

They have a community there, as you know, there are no women on it. That should tell you something.

Good to see you have made a u-turn on your opinion of this excellent blog since yesterday Christina, welcome.

What prompted the change the heart?

[greg]

"I thought the Parliament Act could only be used for manifesto commitments, which was the issue behind the ping pong. Id much more have prefered seeing the Conservatives do what it really wanted to and voted against it. It would have at least have been principled.

No, the only circumstances, I think, (outside of finance bills) where the Parliament Act cannot be used is

1) with a bill to extend the length of a Parliament
2) when the bill originates in the House of Lords.

The reason for the ping pong in this case is that the Government didn't ideally want to use the Parliament Act, therefore delaying the whole thing by a year.

[Chad]

The reason for the ping pong in this case is that the Government didn't ideally want to use the Parliament Act, therefore delaying the whole thing by a year.

I agree Greg, as the dispute was over the nature of how the bill matched the manifesto commitment.

Quote from Labour's previous white paper on Lord's reform:

"The House of Lords plays an important role in holding the Government to account."

On this particular issue, the scrutiny was the meaning of 'voluntary' as used in the 2005 Labour manifesto:

"We will introduce ID cards...initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."

Charles Clarke claimed that tacking a compulsory act onto a voluntary one, makes the complusory one voluntary. You don't need to have a passport, so choosing to have one, is choosing to have an ID card making ID cards voluntary.

This was disputed as a gross misrepresentation of the manifesto commitment, and so the Lords noted that they were simply seeking to ensure the bill matched the manifesto pledge.

For this reason, I find it highly unlikely that the government would have dared to use the Parliament Act.

Can anyone find a direct reference to any minister threatening in any form that they would force this bill through with the Parliament Act?

If no such threat existed, then the argument that compromise was needed to avoid the use of the PA it completely spurious.

[Chad]

Because the switch to compulsion will be secondary legislation, the government will not be able to use the Parliament Act of 1911 to force the change through the House of Lords.

Link

Is this true? Is there an expert out there?

[James Hellyer]

I liked this personal ad:

"Insipid opportunist seeks seat on Privy Council, Cabinet-level salary, index-linked pension, and swanky office behind the Speaker's chair."

[Rob G]

Chad: In the first debate on Wednesday, Clarke said it would be inappropriate and a waste of parliamentary time, in my opinion, for the Opposition in the other place to force the Government into using the Parliament Act to enact the proposed legislation. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion today. I have made it clear that the Government will listen and reflect on what is said both here and in the other place. I have to repeat that the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 22J and 22K.
That is not, of course, a statement that the Govt would definitely have used the Parliament Act. But it is a very firm indication in that direction.

[Christina]

"

Christina wrote:
PS I think you rate the influence of a blog called Conservative Home way too highly. You write as if the majority of Conservative members posted there. They don't. There is just a small number.

They have a community there, as you know, there are no women on it. That should tell you something.

Good to see you have made a u-turn on your opinion of this excellent blog since yesterday Christina, welcome.

What prompted the change the heart?"

Strange, I don't remember posting that here Chad. I thought I'd posted it on the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students forum.

I think to be fair that people here should be able to read the whole context, so here is the url link. I'm Politically Homeless there.

[url]http://www.ldys.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7874[/url]

I read this blog every day, and if people read the posts you have made on LDYD you write about this forum and blog as if it were Conservative Central Office. It is not. You are under the impression that because a few people who post here are negative about Cameron, that the majority of Conservative members are negative about him. I don't think I am the only person who has pointed out to you that you seem to get confused over numbers of your supporters.

I have posted here before, I backed you up about Tim being a member of ProgCon for example, then on LDYD you accused me of claiming I was the sister founder of ProgCon, something I never wrote.

Indeed, the term 'founding member' was first used by you to describe Tim Perkins when he was in the news, you hadn't used it before. He was just someone who joined ProgCon at the start, as I did. You were the sole founder, but 'founding member' is a term used for the first members.

Anyhoo, it is a fact that on the Community page, there is one woman, Annabel, and she is a recent addition. I had noticed that all the Community members were men not long ago, I know that a few women post, but none were community members.

People should know something about the Centre of Progressive Conservatism. There were 4 members. I am now a member of the Conservative Party, and Donna Kelly is joining, Tim Perkins is considering joining, and in a letter to his local paper, was praising Cameron's Conservatives.

Only Chad has left and insists on trying to attack the Conservative leaders. If David Davis or Liam Fox were disgruntled with Cameron, I would take notice, not with Chad, especially after reading his new Imagine website, which we have termed "Hippy Conservative".

It is galling to read ridiculous libellous claims against our leadership, by someone who claims to have left the party on principle.

Ever heard of the principle of innocence unless proven guilty? Why is every false and sinister motive being levelled against our leadership?

That is not the rhetoric of mainstream, it is conspiracy talk, rather like some people in UKIP use.

Chad, you are in the habit of telling people to play the ball not the man, and to deal with the issue of the thread. Practise what you preach please. Your post was not playing the ball.

[Chad]

:-)

Sorry - I have been on the tail end of your aggression since last week when you found out that ex-BNP are banned from my new party and have been chasing me across forums.

As I said on the other forum, get over it. To stop it ending in another endless rant here, I will not respond to you again. Hopefully you will bite your lip, move on, and do the same, for the sake of focussed discussions.

[Chad]

..back to the theme though
That is not, of course, a statement that the Govt would definitely have used the Parliament Act. But it is a very firm indication in that direction.

Hi Rob, Thanks for that. That is not bad but I wonder if anyone can confirm that article in the Register that suggests the Parliament Act could not be used in this case?

[Christina]

Chad,

I did stopped posting on the LDYS thread, at your request. I then came here and found you quoting me from there.

You accused me of being mentally ill right now on the LDYS thread, and threatened to explain my issues. You actually described them in your threat.

Now, I have been told that it is illegal to publicly tell people of another's medical condition, especially someone in your position who was my political leader, and I told you that information because I was helping a lot at the time, and I didn't want you expecting me to produce more as things were going to become very busy in the New Year.

Donna Kelly has started posting here now, that's what I did with my criticism, I invited another woman to join.

Now, what you do not know, is that Donna acts as a mentor, and she has read all our posts and thinks you are well out of order. I am not ill at the moment.

Donna also knows that your accusations made against me of being a Federalist and a liar, because I have denied it, are not true, because I discussed it with her at the time, and she read my posts, and was flabbergasted when you said I was a Federalist.

Donna was going to post on the thread about Europe but you decided to remove the forum without consulting us.

I couldn't give a toss about you banning the BNP, I give a toss because it is a personal insult to me, and you will not believe that you have misunderstand my argument, and insist and have posted publicly elsewhere that I am a Federalist.

What is getting my goat, is that I come on here and see posts by you calling people in my Party liars and sell-outs, etc, but I am someone you call a liar, when I know and Donna knows that I have never been a Federalist.

Chad, an argument can be understood in ways that were not intended by the author of it. It is a question of hermeneutics.

Both myself and Donna are shocked at the way you are behaving now, because ProgCon was a brilliant idea, and you were a brilliant guy, that's why we joined you.

Instead of trying to clear things up as rational adults, by private email or phone call, so we can clear up the misunderstanding about Federalism, you have resorted to outing me as a Federalist and calling me a liar when I have denied it.

Instead of sending me a private message asking about my health situation you decided to expose and threaten me.

This is what you said.

"Is this a good time to mention your 'issues' that cause your wild swings in judgement and posts? "

That was private medical information I gave to you, and I have been informed that it is illegal to do that.

Note to Editor: Chad Noble is still on the Community page, and I do not believe a person who was a party leader and given private medical information by a member, and has now used that information as a threat, and has disclosed symptoms (only when I am ill with it)on a Liberal Democrat forum, in a thread where he has mentioned ConHome, should remain on that Community page.

[Chad]

Christina,

Quote:
Well, you see Chad, I've already stated on this forum that I have Bipolar Disorder

So I was only commenting on your own public disclosure, not releasing new information.

Please can we keep the discussions on topic and move on?

[Christina]

Chad,

I did keep the topic on discussion, you took it off by quoting the LDYS forum. Don't make out that I started this, you did.

I will finish it though.

[Chad]

Christina,

So far you have accused me of releasing information that you have already accepted that you yourself put in the public arena, and you have also accused conhome of having no women, which Sam felt the need to defend and put out the inaccuracy of your claim. Sam has dealt with the latter accusation and I have now cleared up the former.

You've asked for me to be removed from a forum by claiming I have acted illegally which I have just disproved. Please would you retract that claim, so we can move on?

Thanks.

[a-tracy]

Christina - "Anyhoo, it is a fact that on the Community page, there is one woman, Annabel, and she is a recent addition. I had noticed that all the Community members were men not long ago, I know that a few women post, but none were community members."

I think your facts are a bit skewwhiff Christina, I was one of the first to post my profile on 7 Feb 06 and have been a member of this blog for a long time. I can assure you I'm no male :-). If you are a regular visitor you will also have noticed that a good number of women post on a regular basis, I have, and I believe this blog is very accommodating.

[Editor]

Chad, Christina: If either of you discuss your differences again you will be banned.

[Chad]

No problem Tim, but please would you remove the claim that I have been acting illegally? That is a serious claim that should not be left unresolved.

[Editor]

I think you have shown Chad that Christina referred to her own medical difficulties before you did. Let's close this exchange now.

[Christina]

Editor,

My apologies, won't happen again.

Tracy, your profile does not show up on the Community page on my browser. I did find it because Annabel has a link to it in her fave posters section. It is there, but doesn't appear when cicking on the Community link. Please could this be checked?

My response to what I thought was a problem, was to invite a woman friend who is about to join our Party, not to write ConHome off or anything, I did something constructive. She is Donna Kelly who has made a post on this thread.

My apologies again, and I will make a post on the LDYS forum to ensure there are no misunderstandings about ConHome because of me.