The Shadow Secretary of State for The And Theory

Snippets of Dr Liam Fox's Sunday interview with GMTV are picked up in a number of newspapers this morning and Iain Dale has a full transcript.  Dr Fox appears to be calling for David Cameron to offer a broader conservatism - emphasing core and breadth policy issues:

"We avoid external coalitions in our politics by maintaining an internal coalition, and the Conservative party has long been a broad coalition and if the party is tilted too much in any one direction that makes us politically less stable and that makes us less attractive for the voters... I think that we do have to deal with some of the issues that we haven’t dealt with in the past. On things like the environment. As you know I’m very keen on issues like mental health and domestic violence... We do have to have that social agenda which I think has been missing, alongside the traditional Conservative policies of wealth creation and of national security and of being tough of crime and so on. And it's getting the balance right over the next few months that I think we need to do and I think that it is quite preposterous that people expect us to come out with detailed policy now. What I think is reasonable is for people to expect us to set out the intellectual architecture upon which our policy will be based and I think increasingly that is beginning to come forward."

Interviewer Steve Richards then asked the Shadow Defence Secretary if David Cameron was getting the balance wrong at the moment:

"No, I think that this is a project that is still evolving and I think that David Cameron has made a very good start in that he set himself, as a politician in a mould that is of clearly very attractive to a lot of voters. He’s more popular now then the party is. The question now is can we repeat that exercise in showing to the electorate that the Conservative party is a broad coalition which deals with all those issues that the public is concerned about, on crime and discipline and so on, but that it is also able to bring into it this element of social agenda which I think has been missing."

Some will question the wisdom of Dr Fox making these remarks so close to Thursday's local elections but he has only said yesterday what he said repeatedly last year.  Dr Fox understands that 'the traditionalist right' of the party are anxious about David Cameron's relative neglect of issues like crime and national security.  He is giving David Cameron good advice.  It is exactly the same advice contained in ConservativeHome's And Theory of Conservatism.  Dr Fox is not asking David Cameron to abandon his emphasis on green issues and on social justice.  He - like ConservativeHome - applauds David Cameron for embracing those issues.  What mustn't continue to happen, however, is that the party doesn't talk about the issues that are worrying the striving classes.  I think, particularly, of crime, immigration, national security, the tax burden and public service failure.

Comments

[St. Ella of Artois]

Hmmmm .... so you don't want an external coalition which the voters can control, but you do want an internal coalition which the voters can't control ...

... right, ok ...

[malcolm]

Liam Fox is a very experienced media operator and I suspect he new exactly how this would be reported.Even though I would agree with his theme I am very disappointed that he gave this interview.DC has every right to expect total loyalty from the Shadow Cabinet not little coded messages the like of which Mrs Thatcher had to put up with from the 'wets' in the '80's.
If you read this Liam please try to concentrate on starting to make some impact as Shadow Defence Secretary rather than making comments 'off brief'.

[Andrew Woodman]

Fox and Camerons next tennis match should be a heated affair.

[William]

The fact that constructive criticism is being voiced today by Liam Fox, Daniel Hannan and others, indicates concern that the upcoming local elections might spring some unpleasant surprises.

The Conservative Party under Cameron has decided not to address the key issue of the EU at all. Under Major, that strategy worked as people still trusted the Party, and the threat of EU power seemed unlikely to really happen in the early 1990's.

Today no one trusts the Conservatives - or any other major political party - and the impact of EU power is now well known and heartily hated. Cameron's strategy of silence on Europe (and continuing with the deception that nothing is happening)is not working and will not work.

If the Conservative Party does not change its position, and come clean on what is really going on, they will rightly be seen as part of a conspiracy to deceive the British people.

Loss of votes to other parties is happening despite the immense media-induced personal polularity of David Cameron. I think Fox's criticism is actually extremely mild.

We need a leadership ready to tell the truth, and represent the views of its members, and the the views of the British people. Failure to do that will be met by surging interest in other parties that do, and a drift away from the Conservatives. That is what is happening.

However, I don't believe that Conservative MP's will sit there with Cameron while BNP support heads for 10% and higher (today 6% - last year 2% - follow the trend).

If they don't care about the views of electors, they will surely care about the security of their own seats. Turkeys don't normally vote for Christmas, but in choosing Cameron, it appears they have.

[Chad]

Whereas I would applaud Liam for his bravery.

Some-one has to have the balls to stand up and be counted if they think the party could be heading in the wrong direction and could be redirected to a better path, rather than wait for the car-crash and benefit from the wreckage.

The latter action is the easiest, least likely for criticism and opportunist. The former shows real conviction, understanding that loyalty should be to your core values not simply the current leader's agenda no-matter-what.

I noticed earlier in the week when the Evening Standard phoned all shadow ministers to ask them about their cars. Only Liam clearly stated that he had no intention of changing his current model. I assume he is not keen on gesture politics.

[Andrew Woodman]

'However, I don't believe that Conservative MP's will sit there with Cameron while BNP support heads for 10% and higher (today 6% - last year 2% - follow the trend)'

I believe that the BNP is taking support from Labour in the main and not us. If you want policies that attract potential BNP voters in Labour heartlands, then we will lose a massive amount of moderate voters (including myself) and implode.

[Richard]

"The Conservative Party under Cameron has decided not to address the key issue of the EU at all."

Like it or not the EU is not at the moment a key issue for voters, which is unfortunate bearing in mind it makes 80% of legislation in some areas. Instead of making repeated posts here telling us to concentrate on the EU why don't you spread your message around the country? I don't disagree with much of what you say but I don't think the electorate are as interested as you believe.

[Richard]

There's nothing about this speech that strikes me as too conroversial. after all he does say that Cameron isn't getting the balance wrong.

[William]

Professor Anthony King writes that (quoted on conservativehome) that the BNP is pulling votes from Conservative as well as Labour.

The two parties are seen as part of the same deception of the people by many voters. Government by deception is the problem. Labour claim a figure for immigration which is known to be an underestimate of such a magnitude that it is painfully obvious. Conservatives are saying nothing to expose the wrong information, so they are seen by simple minded folk as party to a lie. I can understand that viewpoint easily enough.

This lack of trust from electors is enough to stop them voting for the Labour and Conservative Parties.

If you don't want the Conservative Party to establish trust with electors who you believe are mistakenly leaving, then what strategy would you propose? Wave farewell and go down with the ship, or find a way to build support and re-build trust?

It sounds like the former.

One good way to enable us to stop being a party of deception in the eyes of many voters would be to talk openly about Europe, not hush it up Cameron-style.

[William]

The electorate, Richard is not interested in the topic of the EU, you believe. They are however exercised by the problem of immigration, the problem of released prisoners who should have been deported and so on. They also are absolutely certain that they are not being the truth on many issues, either by the Government or by the Conservatives.

My proposal is that we need to rebuild trust with voters. That can be achieved by telling them the truth about what is happening - why are deportations not happening for example? Could it be fear of 1000's of cases being brought under the Human Rights Act, and the fact that we cannot deport EU citizens?

Why is Cameron wanting State Funding of politics? Is that to comply with an EU Directive? If so, then tell people the truth. Don't carry on with the game of let's pretend. ID Cards are a Europe-wide programme from Brussels. Why not tell people?

If we do tell them then they will start to trust us. If we don't tell them the truth, they won't. If they trust us, they will possibly vote for us. If they don't trust us, they definitely won't.

We are by default, by our silence propagating lies. Doing this is counterproductive to our declared aims and strategies of winning votes. I am very simply trying to unravel a situation that is locked into failure. The more resources and efforts that we make to get elected without addressing these fundamental problems, the more our frustration will grow.

I don't want the country to turn to extreme parties for its salvation, Andrew, but if we continue to live a lie, that is the only home that people will find that appears to be trustworthy. It will be our own fault. David Cameron has made a conscious decision to avoid the problem, and he is totally in the wrong.

[Jack Stone]

It doesn`t take balls to speak out it takes balls to keep quiet when you may have doubts.
It is typical of the right in recent years that as soon as the Copnservative Party goes in the lead in the opinion polls some idiot starts putting there ore in.
Davis and Fox are too self servers who can`t stand the fact that they were both soundly rejected last year and they are saying these things at this time in the hope that it may dent Tory hopes on Thursday. I expect them to be diappointed.

[Andrew]

Excellent. He's further to the right than me on most social issues, but I like Fox's brand - conservativism as a means to the twin ends of dignity and self-respect. For too long stuff like domestic violence has been ignored by conservatives unwilling to "interfere in the home", not realising that this is weakening the family unit rather than defending it.

On another note, the above points on policy detail were also a warning to the party and media - it's simply electoral suicide in modern politics to give the opponent a target to shoot at (aka misrepresent). I wouldn't be surprised if the whole interview was co-ordinated and planned with Cameron's people.

[Jaz Hayre]

I think Davis makes a good politician, him as home secretary would be a great benefit to the country. I'm not so sure about Fox... There simply is no choice, we cannot argue amongst ourselves until after the next GE.

[Richard]

"It doesn`t take balls to speak out it takes balls to keep quiet when you may have doubts."

Hello Jack/Michael. Bored of the UKIP forum?

Do you agree that Tory left-wingers and "modernisers" should have kept quiet under previous leaders?

[James Hellyer]

Dr Fox's comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. He openly supports David Cameron and says that he's doing well, but worries there seems to be more of a focus on forming a future coalition government than there is on building a strong Conservative coalition - the sort that can win elections.

[Chris D]

"We avoid external coalitions in our politics by maintaining an internal coalition, and the Conservative party has long been a broad coalition and if the party is tilted too much in any one direction that makes us politically less stable and that makes us less attractive for the voters... I think that we do have to deal with some of the issues that we haven’t dealt with in the past"
I would say that Liam Fox is agreeing with David Cameron's strategy of trying to widen the appeal of the conservative party to more than just the core vote which it has attracted in recent years. I would also say that he is telling various factions within the party that they must accept that policy needs to represent everyone in the tent not just the loudest "critics", a mistake we have made to often in the past.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Davis and Fox are too self servers who can`t stand the fact that they were both soundly rejected last year."

Just another manic Monday for you, Jack? Why the hysteria? I'm sure you can provide examples of these too (sic) self-servers sticking the boot in, can't you?

Heaven forfend it's just the latest episode in your one-man vendetta against David Davis...

[Rob Largan]

"Davis and Fox are too self servers who can`t stand the fact that they were both soundly rejected last year"

Thats funny, I dont seem to remember Fox getting rejected by the membership at all, I am certain that if he had made the run-off the vote would have been much much closer.

I cant see anything wrong with Fox's comments, I agree with him.

[Richard Bailey]

I made the point a while ago that what Cameron needed was for someone like Liam or David to perform that crucial job of holding the core vote together while the Party seeks fresh support from elsewhere. This is essentially the job Prescott did for Blair (when he had time of course!).

Liam and David have done much these past days to be robust in amore traditional tory fashion, but Liam's tone here is rather too distant for my liking.

As I said beofre, if Prescott could keep the Left bound to New Labour securely enough to enable them to reach out for support, surely we have someone who can do the same for us.

[Matthew Oxley]

I've read the interview, then these topics, then re-read the interview and re-read the comments. I'm still confused as to what he has said so wrong in the Interview.

It seems a supportive enough interview to me, except with sensible balance.

Well done Dr Fox for speaking his mind in a constructive way.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Liam Fox hasn't really said anything markedly different to sentiments that David Cameron himself has expressed.

This is just mischief-making on the part of the British media, which is desperate to conjure something out of nothing so it can reheat 'Tory splits' stories of old - add together 'Liam Fox demoted by David Cameron' plus 'Liam Fox represents right-wing' plus 'Liam Fox gives interview in which he claims Conservative Party should remain a broad coalition' and what have you got?

Answer - some bored press hacks with overactive imaginations and nothing to do on a Bank Holiday.

[Rob G]

People will need to read the transcript for themselves and make up their own minds. I didn't see in it any criticism of what DC has done so far nor any attempt to give DC advice on a change of direction. When asked whether he thought there was a risk of the Party tilting too much in one direction, Fox said "No".

So, editor, I think the spin you have put on the interview is wishful thinking on your part.

[JackNevinson]

Absolute genius: "It doesn`t take balls to speak out it takes balls to keep quiet when you may have doubts."

Can we have a special prize for Jack Stone in the ConservativeHome awards?

[Editor]

What Dr Fox said, Rob G (14:39), was 100% in tune with The And Theory and David Cameron hasn't been following The And Theory.

Of course he didn't say "yes" to Steve Richard's question but we all know what Liam Fox was saying. Most of us, anyway.

Team Cameron has privately rejected The And Theory. Liam Fox's intervention is, imo, a sign of the right's frustration bubbling into the open.

[Chad]

sign of the right's frustration bubbling into the open.

Not just the right. I 100% agree with the fusion of core and conversion issues that the And Theory supports.

[Goldie]

Now, this is real loyalty -- loyalty to the Conservative Party, that is, not a little clique within it.

Fox campaigned on the And Theory of conservatism, and picked up a lot of momentum during his campaign. He finished third, but only very narrowly. He would have been a much better person for Cameron to fight because Davis was obviously not suited to win. Fox was demoted by Cameron.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that anyone outside of the Westminster bubble that "Project Cameron" is flopping. The local election results will bear this out. Fox is reminding Cameron of the alternative strategy open to him.

It's the right thing to do.

[CDM]

My God... Why is it that the party that believes in the free market has a monopoly on short-sightedness? With three days until the local election, only Tory supporters would be deconstructing their leader and hailing "criticism" from a fellow shadow cabinet member as something good.

Speaking as someone who believes in EU withdrawal, more (and harsher) prisons and vouchers for schools and hospitals, I call on the right to hold their fire. There is no way Cameron will not be leading us into the next election, so opining about what might have been if Fox got to the final ballot will get us nowhere. With regards to the local elections, I think we can all agree that we want to maximise the number of Conservative councillors, and trying to do Cameron down based on the suggestion of disagreement between him and Fox based on a single interview is not helpful to the conservative cause.

[James Maskell]

It says a lot when I talk to my brother (a nurse at the local hospital) and is actually rather happy thAt I have quit the Party.

What is the Party going to do about the hospitals? Whats the Party going to do about our schools? Camerons got to come up with some bright ideas soon otherwise his ratings will go down. Forget the Policy Groups. Its simply time wasting and a waste of party facilities. As I have said continually, use the Conservative Policy Forum. That way you get the views of the country without the expense. And those officers will do it for free, just glad that this Party thinks highly enough of them to contact them.

[malcolm]

I look forward to quoting the above post back at you on Friday morning Goldie/Rebel or whatever it is that you're calling yourself these days. You used to be interesting but now every post is the same, (ie Cameron is leading us to defeat),whatever the evidence to the contrary is.

[CDM]

Some wise words that were spoken on here a few weeks ago (I forgot the provenance: Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

In other words: Cameron may not be your cup of tea, but would you really prefer another Labour Government?

[Chris D]

Rob G, Like you I could see no criticism of David Cameron or the direction in which he is taking the conservative party in Liam Fox's comments
As I commented earlier in this thread "I would also say that he is telling various factions within the party that they must accept that policy needs to represent everyone in the tent not just the loudest "critics", a mistake we have made to often in the past.
Editor,"Of course he didn't say "yes" to Steve Richard's question but we all know what Liam Fox was saying. Most of us, anyway."
I am sorry but I think that if that interview is meant to be "a sign of the right's frustration bubbling into the open" then the message got lost somewhere on the GMTV sofa.

[John Hustings]

"I look forward to quoting the above post back at you on Friday morning Goldie/Rebel or whatever it is that you're calling yourself these days. "

I'm not sure that we will learn on friday morning whether "Project Cameron" is succeeding or failing. We are already the largest party in local government, but it didn't translate into seats in Westminster last time round. I see no reason why it would this time either.

[Deputy Editor]

CDM: Some wise words that were spoken on here a few weeks ago (I forgot the provenance: Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

It was one of the (excellent)Laws of the Political Process, written by Donal in March.

[Chad]

In other words: Cameron may not be your cup of tea, but would you really prefer another Labour Government?

I agree, but it is not relevant to Cameron's strategy as he is not polling anywhere close to high enough to win the election.

[Chad]

..and if a shaky Tory government was voted in, it could become a one-term horror and lead to people keeping conservatism out for a generation.

I'd rather lose the next election and win the 4 after than win the next one with a shaky agenda and leave Labour in charge for 12 years afterwards.

So a bad Tory government could actually be a lot worse than Labour winning again if it damages conservatism for decades to come and keeps Labour in power. But it's all hypothetical as Cameron isn't in a winning position.

[CDM]

How would you suggest he gain higher ratings? Polls on Sunday showed that we already lead on law and order, so that seems to be little need to return to that as a major theme: we should instead concentrate on raising awareness of traditionally non-Tory areas of policy, like the environment and the health service.

[CDM]

In what way would a Cameron government be "shaky"?

[Chad]

How would you suggest he gain higher ratings?

Listen to Liam. Fuse core and conversion issues. Not talk about one or the other, but fuse complimentary core and conversion issues into one cohesive strategy.

Think in terms of modern, progressive, government and show that he is working with an experienced team, not apeing Blair's presidential style.

Represent small government, and roll back Labour's march to more central control, instead of going along with it.

Policies?
* Reject state funding of political parties and compulsory voting
* Offer a referendum on EU withdrawal to stop the divisions and let the people decide and agree to abide by the decision. Let's just get this one resolved in a democratic way so we can chart Britain's future without this EU argument hanging over us.

* Reject a central national Id database.

Cameron could destroy UKIP, attract new more liberal voters and show he is a small conservative.

I believe this approach would win the election. Not 24 hours to save the NHS, but 24 hours to save Britain and Democracy against Labour's relentless march to more central, big government control.

[James Hellyer]

Polls on Sunday showed that we already lead on law and order, so that seems to be little need to return to that as a major theme

Michael Howard thought the same and didn't campaign much on law and order issues. By the time he stood down as leader, that lead was down to one point at best.

The current lead is a response to a government in crisis. To make it a more permanent lead a lot more needs to be done.

[Chad]

In what way would a Cameron government be "shaky"?

An agenda that is not built on a clear and defineable set of values, with policies that are consistent with the values are built on sand and thus 'shaky'.

With values, you can judge how a party will react or respond before they do. At the moment it is unclear what Cameron is.

He can't be for small government and support state funding of political parties.

He can't be for equality and support positive discrimination.

He can't be for localism and support centrally-candidate selection.

Built To Last contains some fine ideas, but the subsequent policies contradict them. The actions are not matching the words.

Cameron is currently a mass of contradictions and, imho, that makes for bad government.

[CDM]

"Vote Tory for a smaller state". Nice idea, but I doubt it would bring millions of new voters into the conservative fold. In many ways the British public is still very fond of certain aspects of the big state (such as the NHS), and any potential threat to that always goes down like a lead balloon with the electorate.

As for withdrawing from the EU... I agree with the sentiment, but it'd make more sense to do it once in government. Such a declaration would turn many areas of the media against us, making it harder for us to get into power.

[Suggestion]

I strongly protest CH's editorial line today and have posted on it on the frontpage comments.

[CDM]

Cameron doesn't currently have any firm policy, so it seems rather foolish to criticise him on that front until the policy forums report back mid-2007. That should also bring us another welcome round of publicity, and fire the starting pistol for the next generation with us in the lead in terms of ideas.

[Chad]

Cameron doesn't currently have any firm policy
Yes he does. He has proposed state funding of political parties.

[chad]

..and he is forcing members to vote on a platform before the policy is fleshed out making criticism next to impossible when the policies do not match the promises.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Yes he does. He has proposed state funding of political parties."

That's not a firm policy, Chad. It's one part of a list of proposals.

[Chad]

They're all just proposals Daniel unless he becomes Prime Minister and gets to turn them into policy.

[malcolm]

Has Cameron made ac firm proposal for State funding?I was away for almost a month and may have missed it.I would be absolutely horrified if that is the case.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Has Cameron made ac firm proposal for State funding?"

No he hasn't, but it would be inconvenient for the leader of the Let It Be Party, or whatever it's called, to acknowledge that given it's the central tenet of his campaign against David Cameron.

[Richard]

"Can we have a special prize for Jack Stone in the ConservativeHome awards?"

Yes, UKIP Interloper!

[Chad]

Has Cameron made ac firm proposal for State funding?I was away for almost a month and may have missed it.I would be absolutely horrified if that is the case.

Um. How about sticking to the facts? It took me all of 30 seconds to find the official state funding proposals from Cameron on the Conservatives site.

Are you still saying no Daniel?

[Chad]

Daniel, I've already made it 100% clear that I am seeking for Cameron to drop these official proposals.

Are you mistaken or manipulating the truth?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Are you still saying no Daniel?"

Seeing as this point was actually a response to a comment from Malcolm, I don't see what you're getting at...

"Daniel, I've already made it 100% clear that I am seeking for Cameron to drop these official proposals.

Are you mistaken or manipulating the truth?"

Chad, I know that you're against state funding. (How could I not be aware of that when it seems that you must mention at least a dozen times a day?)

[Chad]

OK Daniel for clarity:

Malcolm asked:
"Has Cameron made ac firm proposal for State funding?"

You answered:
No he hasn't.

I'll leavve it to everyone else here to judge if you were suggesting that Cameron has not made a firm proposal for state funding!

Yes Cameron has proposed State funding of political parties. You were seeking it imply that I was lying when in fact I am protesting against a grossly unconservative official proposal from Cameron.

[kingbongo]

I can't see the Fox has said anything that radical or upsetting to those of us who want to see DC succeed. The party has always been a coalition. I think Dr Fox however could spend a bit more time on his defence portfolio as, apart from the Trident promise, there's not been much from him.

The PPB tonight was quite good I thought, DC talked about crime and also sold a more positive vision of Britain. Won't win any votes (I don't think PPBs ever do) but anyone who thinks Cameron's game is too one sided has got it wrong I think.

Editor - think you're reading too much into Fox's words and if you're not then we are in big trouble, as egos need to be put away and ONE team needs to be fighting to win the next election clearly.

Chad - not everything should be twisted into an argument over party funding. Can't you find another button issue for next week?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I'll leavve it to everyone else here to judge if you were suggesting that Cameron has not made a firm proposal for state funding!"

I did say he hasn't made a firm proposal for state funding.

Perhaps I should have clarified that statement to make it clear that it is not yet full party policy, but is a recommendation put forward by Andrew Tyrie for cross-party talks between the main political parties and the Liberal Democrats regarding the future of party political funding.

I suppose that, technically, my earlier comment may be perceived to be incorrect, and if that caused any confusion on your part, I apologise.

[Chad]

Daniel,

You're still not being entirely forthcoming.

David Cameron makes a statement himself on the link I provided where he clearly notes that he is providing a comprehensive package of proposals. It is not simply a recommendation by Tyrie, it is an offical proposal by Cameron. Read the official statement! I provided the link.

KB,
About three paragraphs ago DVA tried to mislead a Tory party member by telling him there are no official Cameron proposals for state funding of political parties, pretending it was me just playing politics.

This is an incredibly serious issue for me and others (Tim actually raises it as a possible causes in the description of the purpose of the Chameleon Army.

The swapping of independent political parties for state vehicles (including Cameron's proposals to restrict funding to only parties currently with seats thus damaging the growth of new parties) is the most undemocratic and unconservative proposal I have ever seen.

I'll take all the abuse, and don't care if I have tobe the lone voice campaigning against this.

[Chad]

Mr Cameron explained: "Our comprehensive package of proposals offers a positive and constructive way forward. It would clean up politics by ending the suspicion that money buys honours or influence over policy, and it offers a clear bargain to the electorate: in exchange for a little more state funding, we promise to reduce what we spend on politics; and expunge the impression, now deep in the public mind, that influence, access and honours can be bought by wealthy institutions, Trade Unions, and individuals."

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel,

You're still not being entirely forthcoming.

David Cameron makes a statement himself on the link I provided where he clearly notes that he is providing a comprehensive package of proposals. It is not simply a recommendation by Tyrie, it is an offical proposal by Cameron. Read the official statement! I provided the link."

Chad, I read the statement. I have nothing further to add to my previous comment. Time to get back on-topic eh?

[Chad]

:-) Of course, nothing more to add. I'll be here to pick you up next time you try to mislead a party member.

[malcolm]

Thank you Chad.I'm very very sad about this.The difference between you and me is that I think working from the inside is more likely to achieve success than from the outside.
I'll be penning a letter to DC tonight to let him know how incredibly disappointed I am in these proposals.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I'll be here to pick you up next time you try to mislead a party member."

Likewise.

And in the unlikely event that any unwitting ambiguity on my part leads to inadvertent confusion or misinterpretation, I shall apologise.

But anyway, back to Liam Fox and his vitriolic attack on David Cameron... :-)

[Chad]

No problem Malcolm. I don't care who succeeds in getting DC to drop the proposals, whether inside or out, as long as one of us succeeds.

Apart from being undemocratic and unconservative, as a previous link here has shown 77% of the people are against it, making it unpopular too.

This idea will take the parties even further from the people as it insulates their income. Far from "twisting" state funding to this thread subject of compulsory voting as KB suggests, I hope those here will note that the link is detailed in the subject description at the top, not just by me!

[Chad]

Yes I realise that this has spilled over from the compulsory voting into another thread before you start Daniel! End.

[James Hellyer]

Could Tim start a special thread where the party funding debate could be contained? Just so I don't have to wade through it in every thread, you understand...

[Henry Cook]

Very disappointed in the good doctor. He ran such an impressive leadership campaign, and then completely disappeared off the radar when he didn't manage to steal the Home affairs brief off DD. The first time he manages to get himself in the papers is by allowing himself to be seen as criticising Cameron. He would have known how his comments would be interpreted. Not good form just before the local elections.

Contrast this with Davis's exemplary performance since he lost. He's been fantastic the last few days, was fully behind Built To Last, and always defends Cameron 'the man' when on telly. He will be crucial to the success of the Cameron project (whatever tosh Portillo chooses to write).

[Christina]

I think Liam Fox was right in asking for balance from Cameron, and it is what I expect soon.