A leader in The Daily Telegraph admits that it does not know if yesterday's attack on UKIP from the Tory leader was a "spur-of-the-moment remark or part of a considered strategy". Either way, it writes, "it was a mistake". Today's Sun describes it as a "rare show of temper".
UKIP has certainly won lots of coverage from the dispute and is threatening to sue Mr Cameron if he does not apologise. UKIP claims that Conservative members resent David Cameron's attack. A UKIP press release referred to the debate that took place on this site yesterday. The Telegraph does the same: "There appeared to be mixed reactions last night on the ConservativeHome.com website, with one applauding Mr Cameron for "showing some edge"." ConservativeHome knows of at least one constituency office which received a constant stream of phone calls from outraged Tory members. Conservatives have long been subject to incendiary charges of racism from left-of-centre parties. Offended by those accusations themselves, Conservatives should be cautious about accusing others of such a serious vice.
The Telegraph notes that the Conservative party has lost many voters to UKIP in recent years because such voters "feel the party has been insufficiently true" to the "self-government of Britain". These voters "deserve solicitation, not scorn," the newspaper concludes.
David Cameron refuses to apologise, however. Local government spokesman Eric Pickles, who has been charged with defending the remarks, has certainly been unapologetic. The Guardian quotes him as saying that "a number of organisations ... accuse UKIP of spreading hate and bigotry and they say it's not just anti-Europe, it's anti-black, it's anti-minority, anti-immigrants, anti-asylum seekers." Some Tory modernisers believe that the row underlines that David Cameron is a different kind of Tory without a racist bone in his body. They have long been anxious for a row to dramatise the change that he represents. They relish this debate.
Related link: The Conservative leader can move his party towards the centre without fear of a right wing challenge (Peter Franklin in The Guardian).
This is a really difficult one. I lost the Parliamentary election in Harlow (by 97 votes) thanks to UKIP and Veritas who between them got nearly 2,000 votes. For some strange reason UKIP/Veritas preferred electing a pro federalist MP Bill Rammell. So, I certainly have no love for UKIP. But, at the same time as neutralising UKIP, we must make certain that we reassure many of our party activists many of who feel unnsettled at present. Some of these activists who hold decent Eurosceptic views may see the attack on UKIP as an attack on them. They should be told otherwise.
Posted by: Robert Halfon | April 05, 2006 at 08:26
Whether planned or otherwise it was a mistake compounded by the attempts to justify the comments for the simple reason that it leaves UKIP in an excellent position to compile their own dossier of racists and racism within the Tory Party and to release it just before the local elections.
It could borrow the title of the Tory election posters and be entitled "It's not racist.."
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 08:30
Surely the question should be "was Cameron inaccurate?", which he wasn't. Sod apologising.
Posted by: philhuk | April 05, 2006 at 08:43
David Cameron was probably right in his description of (most) UKIP members. But small parties - Dim Lebs included - thrive on us and Labour 'having a go' at them. I've never understood why the Left goes out of its way to give the BNP a 'name check' at every opportunity - perhaps it gives them a 'sense of purpose'?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | April 05, 2006 at 08:44
Once again, the doom-mongers on this site have provided fuel for the opposition. Well done!
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | April 05, 2006 at 08:48
David Cameron was probably right in his description of (most) UKIP members
What do you base that statement on Justin?
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 08:50
The issue is surely one of policy. And there David Cameron has not yet come up with a coherent believable strategy for dealing with the EU. Repatriating social policy and/or fishing is a drop in the ocean of the independence this country has already handed over to Brussels. Overwhelmingly the Commons merely rubber-stamps Brussels directives. Until we have a policy to deal with this then UKIP will cause us constant problems. Calling people childish names doesn’t get us anywhere.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | April 05, 2006 at 09:02
Have you ever met any of them, Chad?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | April 05, 2006 at 09:03
Justin, I have spent a lot of time discussing many issues with many of them.
I am not a UKIP supporter, they have many issues organisationally that are worthy of criticism, but Tories like yourself are happily calling people racist online without feeling any obligation to support what is a very serious claim.
If you could just detail your concerns, which could be perfectly valid, then we can all seperate the fact from the smear.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 09:07
Justin: You may have met UKIP people with racist views. You, more than most, will also appreciate that there are many Tories with very prejudiced views. I've met LibDems who are hateful towards evangelical Christians. I've met Labour supporters who are anti-Semitic and hate America with a passion. Every party has its undesirable elements. Politics attracts people with strong views and sometimes those strong views are repugnant. I'm not sure trading these anecdotal attacks helps any particular party. It certainly doesn't help the overall reputation of politics.
Posted by: Editor | April 05, 2006 at 09:12
On this occasion I side with Cameron. I think he made a mistake to say what he did, but I do feel racism is one of the truly ugly aspects of our lives and it's worth taking almost any opportunity to denounce it and to show our party as leaving all that behind. No, it's not fair to say that most UKIP members are racists, clearly that's wrong. I would have chosen my words and indeed my target differently. But if Cameron breaks a few eggs making this particular omlette, then so be it.
Posted by: Buxtehude | April 05, 2006 at 09:17
Yes, all parties have 'bigots' and 'loonies' - but I think the point DC was making is that UKIP has more than the other paries (bar the BNP). Just heard Dr. Alan Sked, founder of UKIP, on the Today programme who seemed to be making similar comments.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | April 05, 2006 at 09:20
But as I said (see above), small parties like UKIP thrive on attacks from the bigger parties....
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | April 05, 2006 at 09:21
I remember when John Major said that the thing that most upset him was racism. Several Tory commentators, while saying that racism was wrong, thought JM's remark was just tokenism - that no-one who wasn't a direct recipient of racial abuse could really be personally upset in that way. I even think the much-admired Charles Moore wrote something like that (I may be remembering wrongly). But racism is a profound affront to our humanity, it should be personally upsetting, and I'm so glad that Cameron's instinctive reaction is to attack it where he sees it. As I acknowledge, it may be unfair in this case, but the instinct is good. If we can't distinguish love of country and love of independence from suspicion of foreigners, for example (and UKIPers often can't), then there's something really wrong.
Posted by: Buxtehude | April 05, 2006 at 09:23
"Once again, the doom-mongers on this site have provided fuel for the opposition. Well done!"
I think you'll find that's Cameron's statement (and I do not consider mself a doom monger).
Instead of alienating potential voters we should be trying to attract them but without doing so in a way that will repel other voters. To attract UKIP voters, for example, we should emphasise our belief that the EU should not have a say over "social" legislation or anything unrelated to free movement of goods for that matter.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 09:33
Robert's quite right. UKIP's position commands a certain sympathy with a lot of Conservatives, especially in the parts of the party least enamoured with the Cameron agenda. Given the problems with that wing of the party this could serve to exacerbate them.
It's also unlikely that calling people closet racists will serve to draw them back into the fold.
I doubt intemperate language will do much to reassure europhiles either, especially when withdrawal from the EPP is supposedly in the works.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 05, 2006 at 09:39
"But racism is a profound affront to our humanity, it should be personally upsetting, and I'm so glad that Cameron's instinctive reaction is to attack it where he sees it."
The problem is that the word "racism" is so overused nowadays that it is beginning to lose its effect. When the Left began to attack those who were anti-EU or anti-immigration as racist it just began to antagonise people who were genuinely outraged at the suggestion. People were constantly told the BNP were racist but it didn't stop 800,000 of them voting BNP in the European Elections (probably as a protest vote).
While I don't doubt the unpleasantness of racism, we shouldn't lose site of the Left's own set of hatreds - class hatred for example. Or our age old friend religious hatred.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 09:39
Today programme was interesting - you could see a conflict between the desire to embarrass DC versus desire to accuse UKIP of proto NF views.
Sked started UKIP as a vehicle against closer European integration; his successors have used a number of issues to attract support and in my opinion UKIP have tended towards xenophobia in the way they use immigration as an example of EU failings. The highlighting of the colour and religion of immigrants, the bias in discussions on multiculturalism carry an ugly undertone.
Our problem as a party is that in many people's minds UKIP is the virtual right wing of the conservative party. The cross over of Tory eurosceptism into UKIP europhobia and the downplaying of our eurosceptic instincts since IDS has left those who want Europe to play as a major issue in British politics look to the more extreme UKIP as a way of getting Europe more centre stage.
It's important that this party does show it is Eurosceptic, does come out against further EU integration, back door implementation of the constitution because otherwise UKIP will be the only real force for those who share those views, and it isn't a nice party, it's Britain would be a different and IMHO worse country to live in.
Posted by: Ted | April 05, 2006 at 09:40
Alan Sked left UKIP a bitter man. He wanted it to be nothing more than a Tory pressure group.
I had a phone call this morning from a Tory friend who is furious with Cameron, he reckons Cameron will have lost the tories a lot of supporters, said he was the "fruitcake", and called him "a crass idiot".
Posted by: Margaret | April 05, 2006 at 09:40
I hope it was a "throwaway" remark, demonstrating inexperience, rather than a considered remark, demonstrating poor judgement.
So much for an end to "punch and judy" - another example of a pointless soundbite already proven empty.
I know this has been discussed already, but the sight of Cameron setting off to meet with Blair to conspire to introduce state funding of parties sickens me more than I can properly express.
The biggest disappointment of his disappointing first 100 days...
Posted by: Chris | April 05, 2006 at 09:41
Racism is about prejudice and preference.
My core value is "No Preference, No Prejudice" and many seem to understand only half the issue, and think that racism is just about prejudice.
It is racist to offer preference or apply prejudice based on race.
The ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) defines racism as follows:
“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”
Offering preference based on race is as racist as being prejudiced against someone based on their race. Each is as bad as the other, as both involve prejudice against one group based on race (the one not receiving the preference, or the one at the end of the prejudice)
I would suggest that Cameron's planned A-List with ersatz-diversity could be a clearly racist policy if it offer any preference based on race.
No talk of "increasing minorities" etc excuses the fracism of preference. Equlaity means just that, the playing field should be level for all, with the walls of prejudices smashed down, not offering ladders to a selected few.
There are racist elements in all parties, but I fear the CamCons could be about to institutionalise racism with their a-list.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 09:48
Most people are not racist, but they are against multiculturalism, simply because it doesn't work.
Our country is changing, there are cities now which have more Asian people than ethnic British, Leicester is one that comes to mind.
I for one do not want to see Britain become the first Islamic country in the west, but this is what a lot of people are prophesying.
The last General Election was the first one I did not vote Tory. I had it straight from my "supposed" eurosceptic MP that he liked the EU single market. That is one of the problems the Tories have, they talk eurosceptic, but that is all, when push comes to shove they will do nothing about controlling the dead hand of the EU.
Chad is right, the choice of parliamentary candidate should be the best person for the job, regardless of gender, religion or colour, anything else could be construed as racist.
Posted by: Margaret | April 05, 2006 at 09:54
Margaret - Alan Sked did not want UKIP to be a Tory pressure group. He wanted an organisation that brought together the anti-EEC views across the spectrum.
It's his successors who have moved it towards an agenda based on the right - targeting this party and our supporters. UKIP has become the safe protest vote party in Euro elections for Tory eurosceptics and in general elections when its obvious the Tories haven't a chance of winning.
I thought DC was wrong with his charges but the more outrage I've read the more I am pleased that he said it - perhaps people will look more closely at what an unpleasant party UKIP has become since Sked left and it will lose the aura of a plucky little party fighting for our rights and be seen as what it really is.
Posted by: Ted | April 05, 2006 at 09:55
Unpleasant in what way Ted?
Posted by: Margaret | April 05, 2006 at 09:56
I'm liking this Mr. Cameron more and more everyday.
He's DEFINITELY got MY vote!
Posted by: A Floating Voter who recently stumbled on Conservative Home | April 05, 2006 at 09:57
Europe has two islamic countries already - Albania, Bosnia and Turkey (Europe & Asia) as a member of NATO has been politically in the West for decades.
Talk of Islamic Britain is propaganda from the NF, UKIP and certain Islamic parties. As UKIP is now fearful of Catholic Polish, Calvanist Latvian, Orthodax Romanian etc immigration perhaps it is xenophobia not racism - after all 300,000 christian East and Central Europeans must start to balance the "threat".
Posted by: Ted | April 05, 2006 at 10:02
"I had it straight from my "supposed" eurosceptic MP that he liked the EU single market."
By that I expect he meant EU free trade. Free trade within the EU is not an issue to most Tories except for a minority of protectionists. It is when the EU attempts to introduce "social" legislation such as the social chapter or working time directive that displeases Conservatives. That said there are some "single market" measures such as metrification that are also unnecessary. Those who go on about this issue are sometimes perceived as bores. It will be interesting to see what happens when selling in imperial measurements becomes a criminal offence.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 10:02
Continued from my above post:
Which I believe kicks in from 2009. It could help boost UKIP support due to the obvious absurdity of facing imprisonment for not using metric. I jope the Tories have a plan to meet this challenge.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 10:05
What strikes me as absolutely astounding is the fact that the same people who applauded loudest when David Cameron publicly eschewed 'Punch and Judy politics' are the same people who defend this bout of childish name-calling most strongly now.
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | April 05, 2006 at 10:08
Like Robert I write as someone who didn't win my seat in Torbay because it was a UKIp target seat and they increased their vote there.
I agree with Cameron and although the language was unusually intemperate the sentiment was spot on.
From my experience there is not chance whatsoever of UKip people voting Conservative again - I think that is a prospect we would be foolish to imagine (I was told on the doorstep by a UKIP supporter during the election that he would die before voting Conservative because Heath took us in to Europe. )
UKIp have become an extreme right wing fringe party and the best thing we have ever done is to turn out backs on them and focus instead on the several millions of disatisfied, disaffected and disenfranchised voters from Labour, Lib dem and above all 'none of the above' parties who want a reasonable alternative to Blairs Britain.
Posted by: Marcus Wood | April 05, 2006 at 10:11
The Conservative Party will do nothing to stem the flow of directives coming from the EU. Lord Pearson told us years ago that they were coming so thick and fast that they hadn't time to read them, let alone debate them, so they were just rubber stamped through.
Whilst Blair was EU President last year, a total of 4,183 directives were rubber stamped, I didn't hear any Tory voices raised against them.
Posted by: Margaret | April 05, 2006 at 10:13
I for one do not want to see Britain become the first Islamic country in the west, but this is what a lot of people are prophesying.
Who exactly is prophesying this? Nostradamus? The BNP? What a load of nonsense.
Posted by: True Blue | April 05, 2006 at 10:22
Daniel wrote:
"
What strikes me as absolutely astounding is the fact that the same people who applauded loudest when David Cameron publicly eschewed 'Punch and Judy politics' are the same people who defend this bout of childish name-calling most strongly now.
Unbelievable."
I understand Punch and Judy politics to be when the Opposition opposes the Government even when the Government are proposing measures that the Opposition agree with or are close to. It is the politics of trying to do down the Government on everything, and has nothing to do with heated exchanges, or Cameron's latest attack on UKIP. You should see what they say about him and the CP as a whole.
I think it is much ado about nothing (though I think he shouldn't have said it) and has helped UKIP hit the headlines again.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 10:24
Eurosceptism is not the same as europhobia - there are europhobes in our party who believe the UK would do better outside the EU, and they have good reasons for believing that. In the end the power to leave is the final support to sovereignty and if the EU project continues towards greater centralisation of powers in EU institutions I'd move over to that camp.
There are others, including me, who think that free movement of goods, services and people across boundaries is a benefit to this country economically and that a degree of trans-european co-operation to achieve this is worth the loss of soveriegnty that entails. I think our country benefits from the enhanced security that a loose confederation of European states brings and I think the financial support we give to help build strong economies in central and east Europe is worth it - I don't like CAP, think the Common Fisheries Policy has failed, don't want a European Army or Foreign Secretariat. I think the Euro is a bad idea. I'd like to see the European Commission reduced in size and powers.
and I agree with Richard that enforced metrication will be a major issue. Why is it that everything this government brings in has associated with it large fines or threats of imprisonment? OK anyone wanting to trade goods across European borders should use a standard set of measures but what difference does it make to a german if a trader in Leeds sells potatoes in pounds?
Posted by: Ted | April 05, 2006 at 10:25
David Cameron is stupid in attacking UKIP, I was tempted to vote for them in the E.U. elections but stayed at home, missing the chance to vote Conservative for the first time in over 45 years.I think Cameron is a poor leader, the best thing he has done is to persuade Hauge to return to the front bench, he should sack Boris Johnstone, the man is an idiot.
Posted by: William Kellaway | April 05, 2006 at 10:27
I think it was an off-the-cuff remark. If it had been a considered remark he might have said "There is evidence of racism amongst senior UKIP members and in their policies."
That I don't think could be libellous - they would have sued the Sunday Mail already if it was. To say that majority of a party are closet racists, basically racists who don't want to admit it is ill-advised. It's like Freuds theories on repressed homosexuality - unfalsifiable.
Call me a vulture but I would be fascinated to see the libel trial, particularly if Cameron pleads "fair comment". I can't imagine that UKIP would come out of it smelling sweetly, although Cameron might look a bit foolish, too.
It would be interesting to see if Labour duck the question when asked if UKIP is a racist party.
Posted by: True Blue | April 05, 2006 at 10:34
So many people tell me that joining Europe was the worst thing this country ever did. I agree with them. What always makes it worse for me, who voted to stay in Europe at the subsequent referendum, was that it was Ted Heath who led the campaign, which, as we now know, was one long lie from start to finish. Heath was quite convincing when he said that we would not lose one whit of nationhood by being 'European', any more than a Cornishman feels less Cornish by being English. Rubbish! We have had over thirty years of being conned but I think it was really brought home to me last Saturday when I saw the French Tricoloeur flying over the winner's podium at the Boat Race (sponsored by Electricitie de France).
There is not a spoon long enough for us to sup with the EU devil; we should pull out and I suspect I am not the only card-carrying Conservative member to say so.
UKIP at least express this honestly, but are, for all their protestations to the opposite a 'one-trick pony'. They gain protest votes but not votes when it counts - to gain real power from a General Election. The racist thing is nothing more than a smoke screen - just go down the Con Club any lunchtime! (I suspect it's the same in any Working Man's Club, too! And in any local!)
Dave could easily have drawn attention to 'fruit cakery', while at the same time expressing any other concerns (UKIP do not have a monopoly on fruit cakes, of course) but he has now made people like me consider the Conservative position vis-a-vis Europe. What is happening with the withdrawal from the EPP/ED? That seems to have been an empty promise. Will a Conservative Government REALLY abolish the hated regions?
Robert Halford has got it right - an attack on UKIP is, by implication, an attack on the Eurosceptic views held within the Conservative Party and possibly heralds a move towards Europhilia. In which case, the ranks of UKIP may start to swell.
Posted by: Don Hoyle | April 05, 2006 at 10:44
"Eurosceptism is not the same as europhobia"
The problem I have with the term europhobia is that it suggests an irrational fear of Europe. This may be true for many people but personally I oppose the concept of the EU on a simple matter of democracy - the wishes of the British electorate and the legislative power of the government shouldn't be overruled by a European government with minimal legitimacy.
I do accept that at the moment, turning the EU into a free trade is not on the horizon. The best we can do is to keep fighting until gradually we have come to an arrangement where we have free trade with Europe without having to put up with the social legislation.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 10:44
Memo to Marcus Wood: I am one of the disaffected voters who would like a reasonable alternative to Blair's Britain. The problem is that I don't believe David Cameron is up to the job of providing it. Instead of indulging in pre-pubescent abuse, he should have been smart and stolen UKIP's clothes for the local elections: i.e. reinvigorating local government. The catch is that he doesn't believe in localism. He and Maude are every bit as centralising as Blair: witness their attempts to disenfranchise their rank and file members; stitch up the candidates list and now it appears, to exclude anyone but their cronies from the candidacy for Mayor of London. They will say anything but their actions speak louder than their ritualised utterances.
Top of their agenda for today of course is to agree with Blair a funding formula for political parties which forces the taxpayer to pay through the nose to shore up the vested interests at Westminster.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | April 05, 2006 at 10:46
In reply to Don Hoyle.
I don't see why Cameron is getting flack with regard to the EPP. He has done the right thing, he has delegated the task to William Hague.
Why isn't Hague being questioned about it? Why is it always Cameron?
The best case scenario for me would be withdrawal from the EPP before the end of this year and a good explanation of the time taken to negotiate with fellow conservatives in Europe to form the new group of considerable size.
I don't see Roger Helmer complaining.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 10:53
DC has done the seemingly impossible. Right in the middle of Labour's darkest moments since 1997 he has diverted all attention to a useless spat with UKIP and offended 2-3 million UKIP (and potentially Conservative) voters into the bargain. Using the all-purpose PC insult ("racist") underlines the sheer vacuity of DC's thinking and leadership. It's early but I think that now would be a good time to start thinking about the next Conservative leader. If we stay with this one then the next general election will not see the party as HM Opposition let alone as HMG.
BTW this isn't doom-mongering it's realism: we have to realise that a very big mistake was made in selecting DC as leader: a bigger mistake is soldiering on with him at the front.
Posted by: Umbongo | April 05, 2006 at 10:58
Why isn't Hague being questioned about it? Why is it always Cameron?
Because it was Cameron's personal pledge.
I don't see Roger Helmer complaining.
No, but you can hear him complaining in his interview with ToryRadio where he repeats that Cameron's pledge was immediate withdrawal.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 11:05
I accept Christina's remarks.
Before I take any flak about possible comments about what is said down the Con Club, the WM Clubs or the local, may I just say that most people, whatever they might say in unguarded moments, accept meritocracy before racism.
There is no evidence linking UKIP to the BNP, by the way and the CP have tried to find it. Dave should apologise for his 'closet racist' remarks.
Posted by: Don Hoyle | April 05, 2006 at 11:08
Umbongo,
If the majority of CP members agree with you then they can vote against his Built to Last program.
Chad,
Yes it was Cameron's personal pledge to leave the EPP group, and he has delegated it to William Hague straight away. Leaders have to delegate, and Helmer mentioned that Hague is being quiet about the details of his negotiations with our European allies and potential new group members.
You say that Roger Helmer was complaining in the podcast. I didn't hear him complaining. I did hear him mention he was promised immediate withdrawal and that hadn't happened, but he wasn't complaining.
What could have possibly happened for an immediate withdrawl pledge to Helmer (if Helmer is accurate, we all make mistakes) to change to this addition of building a new group?
If Helmer is right, I think the idea of building the group first came after Cameron's talks with Helmer, and it may have been Hague who wanted to negotiate a new grouping.
Certainly, Helmer is still backing Cameron and Hague and is more aware of what Hague is doing than we are, which is appropriate for such negotiations.
When I made a bet with a UKIP member about EPP withdrawal, I bet by 9 Dec 2006, and am a bit perplexed about all the 'he's never going to withdraw' talk.
Let me ask those who doubt the pledge something. Do you think William Hague doesn't want us out of the EPP? It's his task you see.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 11:16
By raising the pledge in the interview, do you think Roger made the point to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the delay?
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 11:22
I thought Roger was very positive about the way things are going with regard to the EPP in his interview. I meant to write 'Helmer is more aware of what Hague is doing' by the way.
His mentioning of Cameron was just a mention to my ears. He complained about Beasley.
It comes down to this for me.
I would prefer the Conservative MEPs to have a strong group by September or even December, than to withdraw tomorrow to make a point, but in a weak group.
The former position would be best for Britain and the rest of Europe, the latter would not be best.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 11:27
PS The former is a 'country before Party' position, IMO.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 11:28
Sure Christina, we'll leave it there, I appreciate your different viewpoint.
I just wondered whether you feel Roger is satisfied or dissatisfied with the delay, as I have always understood expressions of dissatisfaction to be 'complaining'
However, it is a semantic point and not worth delving into any further. I'm just too pedenatic sometimes.
Back on the thread though.
Do you agree that offering preference based on race is also racist? If Cameron forces an ethnic candidate on a constituency, does that not go beyond "a few bad apples" into party-sanctioned racism?
I'm am not mentioning this in a bad way, but you have clear views, are a current Tory and ex-BNP and ex-UKIP and you are clearly (from my experience) not a closet-racist.
Surely Cameron's insult must annoy you, as it implies that you are a closet racist when you clearly are not.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 11:35
Although, not pedantic with my spelling... :-)
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 11:36
Christina
It concerns me that the one stone-bonker promise, nicked from Dr Fox, was the pledge to pull out of EPP. This was something he could do straight away and would actually 'make a difference'.
Too many MEPs are so far into the Euro-trough that that all you can see is the soles of their shoes above the surface, so I do not have any sympathy whatsoever for those objecting to the withdrawal of Conservative MEPs from the EPP - they have obviously acquired a cosy little billet in Brussels, whatever their news letters, say.
To be fair to our local MEP (no names, no pack drill) he is openly fighting his corner to stay in, but what benefit have we got in return for the trail of gravy he leaves in his wake? £200 per month fuel bills (were £70.00) thanks to EU competition policy to name but one (out of hundreds of other benefits to choose from).
Posted by: Don Hoyle | April 05, 2006 at 11:41
I have a lot of sympathy for Robert Halfon here. Back in the days of yore I had some first hand experience of trying to encourage key UKIP figures not to fight Conservatives who had a demonstrable track record in defending the nation state. It may at the time - I am told - have had results in a score of seats, including a tiny handful of marginals. It certainly didn't help me - I was stood against twice! But the Patrick Nicholls case has always haunted me. Here was a bloke who stuck to his guns and got the Repatriate the CFP policy through Shadow Cabinet, despite huge personal pressure. Against him Viscount Exmouth stood for UKIP, an immensely able and patriotic man, who felt that in years to come he could never look his grandchildren in the eyes when asked "what did you do to stop the loss of our country". We tragically then lost Teignmouth, and Patrick as an MP. But these are sentiments that are too powerful to be simply ridiculed as gadflyism. We dismiss voters' concerns to our discredit, however you might yourself in this thread judge UKIP as politicians.
Cameron has received some very poor advice. It looks like someone in his team saw an easy target and thought: He'll look big if he kicks away the crutch. It is a crude move and one that had best not be repeated in other areas of similar passion and complexity. Thank heavens he wasn't in Gaza.
Posted by: Lee Rotherham | April 05, 2006 at 11:42
Editor - Have you noticed the names and comments are out of kilter?
Posted by: Out of Kilter | April 05, 2006 at 11:49
"Do you agree that offering preference based on race is also racist? If Cameron forces an ethnic candidate on a constituency, does that not go beyond "a few bad apples" into party-sanctioned racism?
I'm am not mentioning this in a bad way, but you have clear views, are a current Tory and ex-BNP and ex-UKIP and you are clearly (from my experience) not a closet-racist."
Surely Cameron's insult must annoy you, as it implies that you are a closet racist when you clearly are not."
Thank you for saying the last thing because your mentioning of the BNP to me, was interpreted by me as you calling me racist, that is why I was so angry, so it is good to have things cleared up.
I think you are forgetting something Chad. I didn't join UKIP to be a sole UKIP member. I joined UKIP as a ProgCon member under dual membership to try and show some UKIP members of the Lechlade Group about Lakoff and communication. Before I joined UKIP under our (ProgCon) dual membership scheme, I discussed my reasons with you and asked your permission (as my leader) to join UKIP.
You agreed and thought it was a good move.
It fell apart because some UKIP members were accusing me of bad motives in private, which I found out about.
You then backed me up about my good motives, later.
So, UKIP is irrelevent to me.
I have seen UKIP members post about racism in their own party. I could post a UKIP members website which would be described as racist, I believe, in a court of law, as it is very similar to the BNP. I will let Cameron have the url if UKIP sue him, because the website owner is a candidate for UKIP.
If Powellite is considered racist, we have a 'mutual friend' who describes himself as that, and is a candidate too. :-)
I think UKIP are quite irrelevent and those of us who wish for a looser EU or even withdrawal are better off in the Conservative Party, as Helmer and Hannon are.
We both believe in No Preference, No Prejudice, but we disagree on certain applications of that value and approach.
What you need to understand, IMO, Chad, is that there are certain situations where a No Preference, No Prejudice approach will actually support misogyny and racism.
If a local association would not have a woman or a person from an ethnic community as a candidate, then NP, NP will not solve the problem. It is like a small firm getting away with only employing white people, or only employing people from the same ethnic minority or religion, etc.
There are times when central measures are needed to overcome such prejudices.
Here in Oldham we are between 22 and 25% ethnic minorities, mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi but others too. My local candidate for the May elections is called Choudary.
Now, suppose an association is in a near all-white area. What are the chances of them selecting an ethnic minority candidate? I would say they would be lower than in Oldham. It may not be because of racism in the association, but the association may 'know' that many constituents would be put off from voting for an ethnic minority candidate. They may hear racist comments in pubs, etc.
My approach is that we are far from where we want to be in this Country.
Where we want to be is at the top of the stairs. We are near the bottom. We cannot leap to the top of the stairs, we have to climb. Those who want to be further to the right, as I do, want the top of the stairs. I think we have to work towards that.
It is like expecting an injured man to walk when he needs physiotherapy first.
This is what I see in Cameron. We need a gradual approach in tax relief, for example, not a sudden one as Davis wanted, but we can move towards that as the Country gets stronger under a Conservative Government.
We could get NP, NP in all things, but it won't be sudden, it will take time. We need to work towards it. The more people we have in the CP with these views, the better the CP can do.
I regard myself as a Progressive Conservative, which means I take the 'thesis' of the pure conservative, with the 'antithesis' of the liberal and seek to synthesise them.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 12:02
Christina, really I am in no way criticising you, just making the point that Cameron's ill-judges comments impact current Tory party members.
Someone noted above that it is one-way traffic from the Tories to UKIP or BNP but you are just the example I know of someone coming from the other direction.
Clearly there is an overlap in the right-wing parties values base and to call Ukipper's closes racists, bounces straight back.
For me, I 100% agree with the ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination). Race-based preference is as racist as race-based prejudice.
You can't be half-racist in your approach to policy.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 12:08
Perhaps, the Torygraph can apologise for its poor coverage of the news, not so journalistic, but more BBC approach they've taken recently. Futhermore, they're more concerned about the comments section than the actual news they have.
I've switched from the Telegraph to the Times.
Cameron should not apologise because its true, their are loonies in UKIP that is clear. And conservative voters who think they can abandon their Tory votes for UKIP are simply wrong - this party is extremist and based upon one target foreigners, european or no. How can people believe that this party will prove benificial to the european parliament or our local council?
Posted by: Jaz | April 05, 2006 at 12:08
Hi Don,
For reasons mentioned earlier, I want a withdrawal of optimum effectiveness, not a rushed one. We need power, and that will come from a new conservative grouping. As soon as I heard that a new group was the aim, I gave it until 9 Dec 2006, for a bet I have. :-)
Negotiations take time and I think we need a little patience, and the understanding that William Hague is at the helm for this one. If he doesn't deliver, then Cameron will have to choose someone else to deliver it.
I didn't get the impression from Roger Helmer on the Tory Radio podcast, that he was being negative about the EPP withdrawl pledge, he was describing how the negotiations take time and how Hague is keeping quiet, as he needs to do.
What I would say to those who doubt Cameron is this. Try and put a bit of trust in the likes of Hague, Davis, Fox and Helmer. They aren't saying he won't pull out of the EPP.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 12:11
Cameron's punch and judy pledge was just silly. It's like volunteering to wear a straight jacket. UKIP are a joke. No mainstream party is ever going to remove itself entirely from the EU. Ever. This is 2006 and we're dependent on pan-european cooperation more than ever. This is nothing but little englander nationalism with a dream. Can we get back to the real world? You remember, its the one UKIP don't inhabit. Whilst we're there we might also encounter the balance of public opinion, something this party hasn't seen for about a decade now.
Posted by: Henry Whitmarsh | April 05, 2006 at 12:11
Chad,
I stated earlier that I don't believe Cameron should have made those remarks, but I do believe it is a storm in a teacup.
On the positive side, he has answered those who say we will be joining the likes of UKIP when we withdraw from the EPP. Withdrawal from the EPP is more important than UKIP getting upset, you should see what some of them say.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 12:15
Interesting though Henry, is the internationalist approach. There are many (but apparantly less than in the past) internationalists with the pro-EU LibDems, who would prefer international bodies, and see the EU as a step to moving "up" to the international approach.
The most important issues we face from terrorism to the environment are international ones that would be best served by international cooperation, not splitting the world into regional power-bases.
It is this very carving up of the world that leads to friction and for example, the anti-americanism from many super pro-EU supporters.
The EU is hindering internationalism not helping it.
UKIP's message can look inward, and perhaps xenophobic even if the policy underneath is neither of those, but, imho, at some point we need to not step down from the EU but step up to nation-state internationalism.
There is a serious need to reform our failing international bodies, but it will never happen while they remain secondary solutions to regional ones.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 12:19
Henry wrote
"Cameron's punch and judy pledge was just silly. It's like volunteering to wear a straight jacket. UKIP are a joke. No mainstream party is ever going to remove itself entirely from the EU. Ever"
Henry,
Cameron has not pledged to leave the EU. The EPP is a straightjacket to reforming the EU in a conservative direction because of its commitment to federalism.
Do you want Britain to become part of a Federal Europe?
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 12:24
I’ve been a lifelong Tory until 1997, when the despair of people like me let Labour in. The Tories have 4 million ‘missing’ voters. Where are they? They are either sitting on their hands or supporting UKIP. Under proportional representation the fledgling UKIP received 2.7 million votes and achieved 12 MEPs. Under the first-past-the-post system they are unlikely to get an MP, but it is absolutely stupid to ignore the strength of feeling, and simply infantile to go around insulting them. UKIP want to end the disgraceful situation where some 70% of our laws are made elsewhere by a foreign bureaucracy which is beyond any democratic control, and we are over-regulated to such an extent that it can only be corrected by leaving full membership of the EU. UKIP simply wants the return of our governance to Westminster and an end to the £115 million per week of our taxpayers‘ money which is exacted to support the EU budget (after allowing for any ‘grants’ we get back). We’ve lost 1 million manufacturing jobs since 1997, we’re running a huge deficit and we are in debt. The EU is a drag on us we don’t need, and a drain on our resources. No one is suggesting we cease trading or cooper-ating with Brussels - we just don’t need to be governed by them. I would like to vote Tory again but now that Cameron has shown his true colours, I won’t.
Posted by: Don Anderson | April 05, 2006 at 12:32
"The problem I have with the term europhobia is that it suggests an irrational fear of Europe. This may be true for many people but personally I oppose the concept of the EU on a simple matter of democracy"
That is why I prefer the term EUskepticism to euroskepticism.
Posted by: Shaun | April 05, 2006 at 12:38
Cameron goofed and he should apologise for using sloppy language. If he wants to he can validate his criticism of UKIP with facts.
The real problem is this all pervasive word of 'Racism' It is bandied about in the way that Robespierre used the term 'aristocrat'during The Terror.
Let's face it we all are prejudiced in some way and all discriminate all the time. Where do we stand on 'lazy frogs' jibe from an airline chief about the French strike.
Roger Helmer has been mentioned and on his excellent website he quotes the Lib Dem Leader of Newcastle Council who wrote to the Independent saying 'There is no England - England is the genuine mongrel nation - I have no loyalty to England'
Is that racist ? - what are we going to do about it ?
We should lighten up about race issues and adapt Roger's slogan LOVE EUROPE - HATE THE EU ! .................and say LOVE ALL RACES - HATE MULTICULTURISM !
Posted by: RodS | April 05, 2006 at 12:43
Christina
"If the majority of CP members agree with you then they can vote against his Built to Last program"
Indeed they may, but "Built to Last" or "Built to (be) Last" is a perfect example of DC's vacuity: it is designed to mean all things to all men to minimise a rejection by the membership. The curate's egg comes to mind except the "good" bits are sparse and the "bad" bits are legion.
One instance: he could have been honest with the British people and tell them that, as far as the NHS is concerned, they actually can't have it all at the taxpayers' expense. He knows this, you know this and I know this: everyone in the political class knows this. But even unpalatable truths are a positive because, in the end, they are, simply, true: DC might initially get a lot of stick for telling the truth but, in the end, he would gain enormous respect (and votes) and the country might find a way of getting an efficient and affordable NHS: you've got to start talking about it some time. If you don't, the situation just gets worse. The NHS, 100% taxpayer funding, efficiency and public satisfaction just don't go together.
Posted by: Umbongo | April 05, 2006 at 12:52
'Do you want Britain to become part of a Federal Europe?' (Christina)
*sigh* We already are, as I'm utterly sure you realise. The Constitution has been introduced slice by slice in blatant disregard for its rejection by referenda, the EU-wide drivers licence is a stealth ID card etc etc. Let's not rehash those old threads again.
However, it is simply a question of get out or be absorbed ever deeper. Like it or not, despite the best efforts of the political establishment and a compliant media, this issue will come to a head sooner or later.
Over the next few years a lot of our opt-outs start to expire. It is politically expedient to negotiate a ten year opt-out for something at the time knowing you won't be in office at the end of it, but when we start seeing speed signs in kilo-thingies and can't ask for a pint any more when Weights and Measures are finally crushed by our European overlords then the man in the street will finally see that we don't have the right to legislate for ourselves any longer, and haven't had for a while.
The law against demonstrating outside of Parliament, for example, is widely quoted in the press as being for a distance of 1 mile - it is legally 3 kilowhatsits.
Under the EU-wide arrest powers, a crime in one country can be punished in another. If someone from UKIP commits an Orwellian thought-crime deemed unacceptable in Austria or Germany, then let's see them extradited and tried for racism out there. It'd be ironic, to say the least.
So UKIP have a few nutters? Next up on the news 'Bear Requests Bogroll In Wooded Area'. You should have seen my old Borough Council - most of them needed straightjackets, crayons and blunt plastic cutlery: mostly LibDem but including a couple on our side!
Posted by: Geoff | April 05, 2006 at 12:59
"UKIP are simply wrong - this party is extremist"
What is extremist about these policies?
Wholesale deregulation, particularly for small businesses
Cut council taxes by a half for all householders, not just pensioners.
Scrap the 10% income tax bracket, removing another 2.5 million people from tax altogether.
Rescue pension funds by reinstating the tax credit.
Raise the threshold for inheritance tax to £500,000.
Remove the government from day to day management of NHS facilities.
Return to the ‘matron’ system with a single manager responsible for all care and accommodation.
More freedom for consultants to select treatment based on clinical need rather than performance targets and fear of litigation.
Scrap Strategic Health Authorities and return hospital control to local boards.
GP surgeries to re-open in the evenings and at weekends when working people can visit. Leave family doctors free to use their professional judgement rather than dispensing tick-box medicine.
Give more autonomy to our state schools, to allow teachers freedom over how to teach and what they want to cover outside the curriculum. Leave schools to organise their own intermediate testing: Standardised Attainment Tests (SATS) must go.
Leave the decision to exclude unruly pupils to the headteacher without allowing governors, parents or bureaucrats to compromise this authority. Provide sufficient specialised facilities for excluded pupils.
Encourage schools to specialise in technical or academic disciplines and allow limited selection of pupils.
Scrap the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to stop interference by government and bureaucrats in setting standards for GCSE and A level examinations.
Insist on school sports, encourage school trips and provide the necessary facilities.
Undertake a review of all undergraduate university courses and withdraw funding from those that are of insufficient standard. Fully fund those courses that remain.
Review the standards for grading all courses and ensure that students who do not pass the university’s annual examinations are not permitted to continue.
Cancel top-up fees, give maintenance grants as necessary, and scrap the student loan scheme.
Charge the same full fees to students from EU countries as are now paid by non-EU students.
Review sentencing and require credible minimum and maximum prison terms.
Strengthen the powers of lay magistrates and reopen local magistrates courts.
Relieve our police of unnecessary paperwork.
Make Chief Constables and other senior officers directly accountable to local government and remove
Home Office placements from police authorities. Support the presumption of innocence for homeowners defending their homes from intruders.
Build new prisons as required.
Adopt a ‘points’ system for evaluating applications for work permits based on an identified need for specific skills and other tests of suitability. Applicants from EU countries to be treated in the same way as those from any other country. Stricter control of residence rights granted because of family connections.
Reinstate embarkation controls to check those entering and leaving Britain. It is essential to keep proper records of those crossing our borders – the government has admitted it has little idea who is in the country.
‘Britishness’ tests to encourage those settling here to acquire knowledge of our language and culture and to assimilate fully into our society.
Set our own criteria for determining those deemed to be refugees. No refugee status to be considered for asylum seekers who arrived via some other ‘safe’ country.
More rigour in deporting those who are refused the right to stay. Only one in five are currently removed.
All those entering Britain with the intention of staying to be subject to health checks for certain communicable diseases.
Replace CAP with environmental care payments.
Protect farmers from the excessive buying powers of big business by allowing the expansion of farmers’ co-operatives.
Reward farmers who use ‘green’ and ‘organic’ methods and those who farm in difficult terrain like hill farmers and coastal marsh farmers.
Relax planning to assist diversification into recreational and other non-agricultural enterprise. Local authorities obliged to facilitate local farmers’ markets.
Financial support for approved young farmers to assist with start-ups.
Re-establish British control over our coastal waters with sufficient rebuilding of our fisheries protection fleet to enforce this.
Fishing licences to stipulate acceptable practices such as mesh sizes of nets.
Fishing prohibited in temporary ‘fallow’ zones to allow stocks to recover.
British armed forces to be deployed only when this is clearly in the national interest. Our forces are not world policemen or international social workers.
Reverse the planned cuts in all branches of the armed forces, including the EU-driven breakup of our traditional regiments, and increase spending to improve our own independent military capability.
Support our independence and our defence industries by buying British-made equipment where possible.
Preserve our standing within NATO and disengage from any commitment to a common European force. Our forces are not a vehicle for political ambitions or for furthering European integration.
Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines.
Build more nuclear power plants using standard fission technology and promote research into generation using nuclear fusion.
If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result.
Greater autonomy for local authorities to serve their communities rather than obeying government orders, particularly on planning matters.
Business rates and transfer duties on houses to be paid into local council budgets rather than to government.
Slash politically-correct appointments.
Encourage Council efforts to recycle waste.
Scrap all English regional assemblies and dismantle other regional quangos.
I have yet to see anybody answer this point.
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 13:04
"This is 2006 and we're dependent on pan-european cooperation more than ever."
In what sense? How do we benefit from EU legislation telling us how long we can work and how businesses should conduct relations with their employees?
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 13:08
Cut council taxes by a half for all householders, not just pensioners. - Who's paying the council spending then? central government?
Encourage Council efforts to recycle waste - This is already widespread, the shame of is that PRIVATE recycler are known to dump unsorted wate in countries like indosnesia.
If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result. - No the british people are too dumb for anything sensible resolution to come out of this. Most people will side with the cynics.. Fear is a driving force against change.
Preserve our standing within NATO and disengage from any commitment to a common European force. Our forces are not a vehicle for political ambitions or for furthering European integration. - NATO is useless, we have no common enemy, EU military integration is vital to regain control of our borders in eastern europe.
Support our independence and our defence industries by buying British-made equipment where possible. - This goes against free trade. Dependancy is a non-issue we trust our european and american arms dealers, you give your contracts to those who do the best work, British or not.
British armed forces to be deployed only when this is clearly in the national interest. Our forces are not world policemen or international social workers. - We should continue to play a role in international deployments, the British have a good reputation in the world. I'm sorry but the policy sounds isolationist.
Re-establish British control over our coastal waters with sufficient rebuilding of our fisheries protection fleet to enforce this. - Why?
Raise the threshold for inheritance tax to £500,000. - It needs to be scrapped altogether.
Give more autonomy to our state schools, to allow teachers freedom over how to teach and what they want to cover outside the curriculum. Leave schools to organise their own intermediate testing: Standardised Attainment Tests (SATS) must go. - So wait.. how are secondary student going to differentiate between good students and poor ones? Yer Nine (?) SATs are the only useless ones.
More rigour in deporting those who are refused the right to stay. Only one in five are currently removed. - Everyone says that, but frankly how is going to happen? I don't think UKIP could really do that.
Cancel top-up fees, give maintenance grants as necessary, and scrap the student loan scheme. - Who's going to pay for this? More central taxation? Topup fees are necessary, our universities are getting beaten by Havard, MIT etc due to a lack of funding.
Perhaps UKIP can deport me too, when unemployment rises, perhaps Asians will be the next target after all those Europeans scoundrels are gone!
Posted by: Jaz | April 05, 2006 at 13:28
No Geoff,
We are not in a Federal Europe. We couldn't have supported America over Iraq if we were.
The EU is unique, and has some federal elements, but it is not a Federal Europe - yet.
This is why it is so important that a group is formed, a strong group hopefully, to oppose federalism.
Posted by: Christina | April 05, 2006 at 13:29
Lee Rotherham - The Patrick Nicholls case proves two things IMO. First is that UKIP cannot be trusted. There is a tendency for many Conservatives, including some on this board it would appear, to think of UKIP as a sort of wayward band of Tories. They are not, most of them want to destroy the Tory Party and enjoy nothing more than undermining the Tory position in seats like Teignbridge. Ask yourself why UKIP seem to take more pleasure in trying to wreck Tory prospects rather than fighting pro-federalist EU Parties like the Lib Dems and Labour.
Although there are some ex-Tory members in UKIP who can be won back, the vast majority are, for want of a better word sh*t-stirrers, who cannot be trusted, nor should be dealt with.
My second point is that I agree with Marcus Wood in that we should concentrate on winning support from dissatisfied Labour and Lib Dem voters. Sometimes I feel too many Conservatives get hung up about UKIP and lose sight of the bigger picture. To use the example of Patrick Nicholls, even if in 2001 every single UKIP voter had voted for him, he still would have lost his seat regardless and so you cannot blame UKIP alone for his loss. Besides even in the South West, I suspect that in the general election UKIP were more successful in winning votes from Labour and the Lib Dems than they were from the Tories. I have very strong suspicions that in Torridge and West Devon for example, UKIP's increased share of the vote came on the back of dissatisfied Lib Dem voters rather than Tories. Again despite their improved showing they came no where near stopping us winning the seat.
Posted by: Voice from the South West | April 05, 2006 at 13:32
Christina, I beg to disagree completely, but it would be horribly off-topic to start this argument, so I'll save this one for another thread.
Posted by: Geoff | April 05, 2006 at 13:33
In Cameron, here is a man who ran for leader opposing Punch and Judy politics and alleged "nastiness" in his own party. He then chooses to direct highly abusive comments against ordinary members of another party collectively. Perhaps Theresa Thought-Crimes Villiers could send them to a detention camp.
I know plenty of Tory and UKIP members and have found no worse attitudes in the latter than in the former. UKIP people strike me a deeply traditional Conservatives who would happily join a Tory Party once again committed to national independence. Accordingly they are anathema to the pseudo-sophisticates in the Tory political class who view such people, and those like-minded, as inherently contemptible voting fodder.
Perhaps it is a warning to those who remain in the Conservative Party and who hold unreconstructed views about immigration, low tax, attacks on liberty, crime, family breakdown and welfare dependency. I suspect the leadership holds them in similar contempt.
The problem faced by former Conservatives like myself is that we cannot rely on the Tory Party to fight New Labour on our behalf. I didn't renew my membership this year because I think Cameron, the self-styled Heir to Blair, has no recognisably distinctive Conservative values. Nothing over the previous 100 days - a feeble mixture of PR stunts, punch-pulling and invective - has changed my mind.
Perhaps we need a political realignment to create a voice for those of us, a growing number, disenchanted by the indistinguishable 3 party stitch-up. One wonders what that would mean for the present Conservative Party. The Tory modernisers are right to say that the party is over-dependent on its core vote. But what would happen if that core vote decided that it has credible options elsewhere? Take that prop away and the Tories could collapse to a Notting Hill rump very quickly. Perhaps there is unintentional method in Dave's madness after all.
Posted by: The Watchman | April 05, 2006 at 13:34
Re-establish British control over our coastal waters with sufficient rebuilding of our fisheries protection fleet to enforce this.
- Why?
Sorry, did I just read that comment correctly?
Posted by: Geoff | April 05, 2006 at 13:37
This website is bloody obsessed with Europe and Roger Helmer. Change the records! And leave Cameron be.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | April 05, 2006 at 13:51
Jaz you say:- "the british people are too dumb for anything sensible resolution to come out of this". referring to referenda.
So you don't believe in democracy then? Intelligence testing before you vote? Too dumb to vote too perhaps? Good grief!
Posted by: A Nonee Mouse | April 05, 2006 at 13:53
Obviously what he said about UKIP will have effects that depend on the audience. I suspect it may play well with swing voters but upset some of our fringe supporters on the right.
Matt
Posted by: matt wright | April 05, 2006 at 13:53
If you can't take serious debate Mr Hinchcliffe, away off to your spit and sawdust tapas bar in Notting Hill. Some of us here are interested in politics.
Posted by: The Watchman | April 05, 2006 at 13:53
Sorry Justin but it was perhaps the one clear policy that DC came up with during the leadership election. You do have a short memory!
Posted by: A Nonee Mouse | April 05, 2006 at 13:55
I think this incident shows that Cameron has no intention whatsoever of courting the UKIP vote (or the Eurosceptic/right-wing element more generally). He obviously thinks he can get all the votes he needs from amongst the Liberal Democrats.
Seems rather naive to me.
Posted by: John Hustings | April 05, 2006 at 14:14
How many of the people condemning David Cameron have spent any time with senior UKIP members? There are some decent, patriotic people in the grassroots (as well as quite a few sour, nasty haters) but most of the leadership is truly ghastly - ego-tripping little men with unpleasant views. Farage is a throwback to the world of the League of Empire Loyalists.
I bow to no one in my Euroscepticism but UKIP has become an embittered rump driven by negativity and paranoia. Too many UKIP-ers are using the party as a vehicle to vent their rage and rationalise their disappointments with their own lives. The grim delight they take in screwing the Conservative Party is evidence of the nihilism at their core.
UKIP are posturers, curtain-twitchers and, yes, racists.
Posted by: David P | April 05, 2006 at 14:21
I see UKIP are now seeking legal advice. Can Cameron provide proof to stand by his statement that UKIP is "mostly racist"?
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 14:46
Jaz, you make some good criticism of UKIP policy but you don't show how it is "extremist" (to use your word). Indeed, you believe their inheritance tax policy doesn't go far enough (as do I).
"the british people are too dumb for anything sensible resolution to come out of this".
That's hardly a "moderate" comment is it?
Posted by: Richard | April 05, 2006 at 14:52
Richard, anyone can 'seek legal advice'. I could ask my (excellent and highly recommended, btw) lawyer about the fact that I don't have a government-subsidised skull made of gold - it probably infringes my 'Human Rights' somehow. He could probably find a legal angle to justify sending a reasonably threatening letter to someone about it for me too.
It's just a publicity stunt and a throwaway line. Move along, nothing (really) to see here.
Posted by: Geoff | April 05, 2006 at 15:00
"we have no common enemy, EU military integration is vital to regain control of our borders in eastern europe"
We have borders in Eastern Europe??
Posted by: John Hustings | April 05, 2006 at 15:00
The fact that the candidate who received the second highest number of votes in their recent NEC elections (behind Farage in a field of about 50 candidates overall) is black just might make it difficult for Cameron to prove his claim.
UKIP could simply note that their diversity has occurred through democratic means without the needs for any centrally-imposed GM-Diversity.
Again I am not a UKIP supporter, but I can see a huge similarity between the two parties. Insulting UKIP in this way looks like a real case of pot and kettle in membership terms, but only the tory party may be seeking to make racism a party policy by imposing candidates from ethnic minorities on constituencies.
Posted by: Chad | April 05, 2006 at 15:01
The Conservative Party, in fact, probably lost as much as 25 (!!) seats to UKIP/Veritas at the last election (at least, the votes for UKIP/Veritas were larger than the gap between the Tory and the winner in at least 25 seats). People in those seats voted for UKIP instead of for the Conservative in obviously close races because they didn't think that the Conservatives are serious about certain issues. Among which Europe and immigration.
Given how a vote for the Conservatives has now translated into the Cameron Project, you can't blame these voters.
Calling them racist will do nothing whatsoever to attract them back into the fold. On the contrary, if UKIP plays it wisely that list of 25 seats could very well double.
So now we know what political correctness is worth to Dave. Literally dozens of seats.
And if you think that he has won even a SINGLE Lib-Dems seat by towing the PC-line, you deadly mistaken.
Posted by: Goldie | April 05, 2006 at 15:03
By the way, sorry to go off-topic, but whilst "Dave" is calling UKIP a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies, what about his higher education spokesman? He has refused to sack this repeated adulterer. Are these the types of standards we can expect a Cameron Government to uphold?
Posted by: Goldie | April 05, 2006 at 15:07
The sad thing about this thread is that it shows how quickly Cameron has dissipated the goodwill which he enjoyed from all sections of the party on his election. And it is his own doing. All too often his remarks and ideas come across as either too shallow (chocolate oranges) or too shrill (his histrionic budget speech and this latest anti-UKIP rant). The impression is that he lacks intellectual depth and has not really mastered the detail on any of the issues which he claims to want to promote, such as the environment and international development. Also the comment on another thread that he needs someone to keep the party right on side in the same way that Willie reassured the wets is spot on. Surely he realises that all wings of the party need to feel included and respected ? He is making it very difficult for some of us to retain our motivation and enthusiasm.
Posted by: johnC | April 05, 2006 at 15:43
I see UKIP have support from one Conservative MP, Bob Spink on Epolitix:
MP Bob Spink says;
UKIP supporters are no more racist than Tories were in the last election…
I regret very much the personalised political attack on UKPI. I respect them and know local UKIP members are excellent people simply trying to defend Great Britain and our sovereignty from constant attacks from the unelected, unaccountable and profligate EU Commission.
The UKIP Leader, Nigel Forage, was right to ask for an apology, decent Tories will freely give it. People are sick of party political bickering. We should focus on listening to and serving the people who elect us and not exchanging school-boy insults.
Posted by: lurker | April 05, 2006 at 15:57
This is 2006 and we're dependent on pan-european cooperation more than ever.
For what exactly?????
All we need from the EU is free trade. All the rest is a socialist nightmare, that we as Conservatives should have no part of.
Posted by: Serf | April 05, 2006 at 15:59
Goldie
seems a very sensible decision. We had enough of people resigning for so called sleaze (adultery) when John Major was in charge plus earlier the destruction of Cecil Parkinson. Unless we want NOW to go on exposing people for their private lives then unless there is no criminal activity then I say ignore the press vultures. If Boris uses his free travel warrants etc. then I'm interested otherwise its just gossip.
johnC
Agree with you on need to keep party together and support your comment on all wings of party but, while I try hard not to personalise, most of the antiDC comment on this has come from the usual suspects - and some of the most vociferous are I suspect more UKIP than conservative.
Posted by: Ted | April 05, 2006 at 16:04
You make some interesting points JC - I find it bewildering how a man as PR-conscious as David Cameron has allowed a throwaway remark to completely overshadow the positive stories from yesterday, which were the apparent democratisation of candidate selection for the London mayoral contest and George Osborne's hint towards tax relief for business and economic disincentivisation of practices harmful to the environment.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | April 05, 2006 at 16:12
"most of the antiDC comment on this has come from the usual suspects - and some of the most vociferous are I suspect more UKIP than conservative."
Have they? Most of the anti-DC comments are from people I've never seen before.
Posted by: John Hustings | April 05, 2006 at 16:14
David P
Your intemperance does not do you proud. I reject your comments entirely. Farage and the current crop of UKIP MEPs, many to be fair who did not expect to be elected are the closest thing that this country of ours has to a Libertarian party. I am glad that you think that there are some decent patriotic people amongst the grass rroots in UKIP, funnily enough I find the same in the Tory party (shockingly one could even say the same about the Lib Dems and Labour)
"Farage is a throwback to the world of the League of Empire Loyalists." No he isn't. He is odd in politics in that he can perform to camera, and, maybe dangerous in a senior politician he has a sense of the absurd.
However, having a central belief in regaining our own sovereignty is a good thing IMHO. Why do UKIP seem to concentrate their attacks on the Tories, because the current Tory party seems to wandering around with a big 'Kick Me' sign sellotaped to its collective v-neck sweater. You will of course notice that the Tories seem to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking UKIP. I have lost count of the number of senior Tories, both elected and unelected who have told me that they are pleased that there is a growing threat from UKIP as it "might concentrate the minds of our leadership". It is a shame about decent people like Patrick Nichols and Conor Burns, but politics is not about individual victories and disappointments. It is, at least for me the forum in which I can help regain my country's independence and improve the lot of my fellow country men and women, whatever they look like and wherever they come from.
Posted by: Eliab | April 05, 2006 at 16:17
I realy can't beleive this is still going on. I look forward to the equally impassioned debate when DC says something uncomfortable for the Labour party - he might upset the millions of people who switched their votes to T Bliar and his gang of smarmy pickpockets.
Somehow I think the people who switched their votes away from us for being swivel eyed euro-obsessed nutcases might just about outnumber the people who think 'hangings too good for 'em' and that the buttons on a blazer should NEVER have lacquered buttons 'you should bloody well polish them properly'
Our job is to be electable as a party of government and to do that we have to take the population on a journey of discovery of the benefits of free markets - it's much more important to win those people over than the ones who have abandoned the party because it's not reactionary enough.
DC was right, UKIP are a 'stop the world we want to get off' party and they could do worse than move to France where this appears to be official government policy.
Also, just because an ethnic minority candidate does well in one UKIP vote doesn't alter the underlying tone of many UKIP publications. I remember back in the 80s going to a Monday Club meeting and there wa a black guy there. All anybody wanted to talk about was that there was a black guy there so it proved they weren't racist - it didn't, they were and I left the Young Conservatives. He was an impressive speaker but I can't remember his name. He certainly deserved better from the Conservative Party than to be a token black member of the Monday Club and the Conservative Party deserves better than to have its leadership constantly attacked for having a go at an opposing party.
Posted by: kingbongo | April 05, 2006 at 16:30
Eliab says: "politics is...at least for me the forum in which I can help regain my country's independence"
You won't do that by supporting UKIP. Their venom and self-parodying posturing (including people dressed as John Bull and Britannia) alienates mainstream voters from the Eurosceptic cause.
Compare their rump idiocies with the brilliant outreach job done by Business for Sterling and the No Campaign - serious organisations that have harnessed the natural majority against EU integration.
The ultras of UKIP may garner a sizeable minority of votes at European elections but they are incapable of breaking out of the core vote laager. In fact, they're so busy getting off on their own overblown rhetoric (and their MEP salaries) that they can't be bothered to think strategically about HOW to deal with the EU problem.
Posted by: Dave P | April 05, 2006 at 16:35
Nigel Farage has only been able to fire up this debate so intensely because he knows Cameron is worrying Conservative eurosceptics by, for example not fulfilling his EPP promise.
If Cameron were to establish his eurosceptic credentials to his supporters, and get the new anti-federalist grouping in the EP started, UKIP would seem irrelevant.
Only insofar that people doubt Cameron's commitment to euroscepticism, will people take Farage and UKIP seriously e.g. his promise to eliminate 10% of MP's, his expressed preference to end private donations, his delay on the EPP. There are just too many signs of Cameron supporting Blair's anti-British democracy programme.
Posted by: william | April 05, 2006 at 16:58
This UKIP press release has just been released to journalists over tea and fruitcakes (!!) at the European Parliament...
"UKIP releases text of Leader’s letter to Cameron
05-04-2006
Following the comments made by Blue Labour leader David Cameron yesterday (4.4.06), suggesting that UKIP supporters are ‘closet racists’, UKIP Leader Roger Knapman MEP has published the contents of the letter he has written to Mr Cameron asking him to apologise.
Mr Knapman said that while UKIP was consulting lawyers over Mr Cameron’s remarks, it is not yet too late for him to publicly admit his mistake and apologise, although he warned that it is ‘a window of opportunity which is rapidly closing’.
He continued: “We have all made mistakes due to our inexperience or naivety, but most of us have the grace to apologise for them immediately. Admittedly, few of us manage to cram quite so many into such a short period of time, but I am sure David will learn from his experience. After all, his role model, Mr Blair, seems to spend his entire life apologising.”
Notes:
The text of Roger Knapman's letter is appended below.
5th April 2006
David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London
SW1
Dear David,
I was disturbed to hear your comments yesterday labelling the members of the U.K. Independence Party as ‘closet racists’. I am sure that, on reflection, you rather regret the comments you made, and, were you to issue an apology to our MEPs, staff, members and voters, I would be more than happy to let the matter rest there. All of us have made serious errors of judgement when we lack the political and/or life experience to know better.
In the meantime, might I suggest a moratorium on this type of name-calling? Clearly you are aware that, whatever your public pronouncements, UKIP is most definitely not a racist party. It is easy to pick specific incidents and point fingers while crying ‘racist’, which is of course the 21st Century equivalent of witchcraft. After all, your party’s last leader but one (or was it but two? One loses count) appointed BNP Leader Nick Griffin’s father as his agent, but that is hardly indicative of systematic racism within the Conservative Party, although I suspect that Lord Taylor of Warwick may disagree. In my long political career, I have always found that the adage about stones and glass houses has served me well.
Finally, if I might give you a little advice, the use by your party of spokesman of the calibre of Eric Pickles and Dr Alan Sked to attack UKIP is perhaps a little unwise, as they say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Far better, I suspect, to align yourself with the eminently sensible Bob Spink, your party’s MP for Castle Point, who is calling for you to simply apologise and move on.
I look forward to your early response.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Knapman MEP
Leader
U.K. Independence Party"
Posted by: Editor | April 05, 2006 at 17:14
you see, they ARE fruitcakes - I trust DC will file this in the bin where it belongs
Posted by: kingbongo | April 05, 2006 at 17:48
Roger Knapman always come across on the TV as ineffably dull....but this letter is quite funny in a waspish way.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | April 05, 2006 at 17:48