7.30pm update: An edited version of this letter from John Hayes MP will appear in tomorrow's Times:
"Dear Sir,
David Cameron has made enormous strides since becoming Conservative Leader. He has rightly focused our Party’s sights on long neglected issues like the quality of life, better protection of children through strong families, social justice and the environment. We must ensure that our campaigning strengths match our Leader’s clear vision about these imperatives. For Cornerstone, David Burrowes MP – who achieved the biggest Conservative swing in the 2005 election – has identified, from a study of 70 seats, the core components of electoral success. In an age when tribal Party allegiance is waning, he argues that local credibility; effectively articulated strong traditional values and well-honed campaigning skills are vital strengths for our candidates.
Contrary to your report (May 30) none of this is incompatible with the need to tap the talents of more women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. That’s why the principle of a priority candidate list is right – in fact many Cornerstone members helped to build it. So I deeply regret the misinterpretation of my remarks when launching the pamphlet, which were certainly not intended as a criticism of David Cameron or his policy of attracting a wider or more representative cadre of candidates.
As the A-list continues to grow, it will draw in talent from a steadily expanding range of backgrounds, both professional (including, for example, from the public and voluntary sector) and geographical – helping to ensure that Tory candidates are not only of the highest quality, but also reflect the diversity of the country we aspire to govern.
As David Burrowes argues, all of this must be built on sure commitment and sound campaigning skills.
Change is never easy; it is an evolutionary process to which we should all give our best ideas and best endeavours. Cornerstone will continue to contribute positively because, above all, we want David Cameron to be Britain’s next Prime Minister.
John Hayes MP"
***
Guido thinks that the Cornerstone Group (which desperately needs a new website) is crumbling after the controversy provoked by Tuesday's publication of 'Pick 'Em Local' and more particularly because of John Hayes' chichi remarks. The libertarian Guido will be disappointed to learn that the socially conservative Cornerstone Group is in fact holding steady. ConservativeHome has been emailed the definitive list of 35 public supporters/ members...
- David Amess
- Brian Binley
- Peter Bone
- Julian Brazier
- David Burrowes
- Douglas Carswell
- Bill Cash
- Christopher Chope
- Stephen Crabb
- David TC Davies
- Philip Davies
- Christopher Fraser
- Robert Goodwill
- Greg Hands
- Mark Harper
- John Hayes
- Philip Hollobone
- Gerald Howarth
- David Jones
- Daniel Kawczynski
- Edward Leigh
- Ian Liddell-Grainger
- David Mundell
- Owen Paterson
- John Redwood
- Laurence Robertson
- Andrew Rosindell
- Lee Scott
- Andrew Selous
- Bob Spink
- Graham Stuart
- Desmond Swayne
- Andrew Turner
- Charles Walker
- Angela Watkinson
Three other MPs are effectively supporters but for various reasons have asked not to be publicly identified as such. ConservativeHome has verified the accuracy of this claim.
Surprised not to see Ann 'chinese takeaway' Winterton and her hubby on the list. Other than than, as Alan Sugar would say "What a shower, what an absolute bloody shower"
Cameron will need a majority of at least 80 to avoid being in the hands of this little lot........
Posted by: comstock | June 01, 2006 at 17:53
Helpful intervention as usual Comstock. From what I've seen, the majority of the Cornerstone group are fully behind David Cameron and will not be holding him to ransom should be have a low majority.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 01, 2006 at 17:58
There's lots of very talented MP's in Cornerstone, comstock. For instance, Rosindell and Spink achieved massive swings at the last election, unlike some of the A-List luvvies. Watkinson won her seat in 2001, when everything was seen as hopeless. Philip Hollobone is one of the most value for money MP's. There is a wealth of talent in Cornerstone, both newly elected and seasoned MP's.
Posted by: Tim Aker | June 01, 2006 at 18:01
Justine Greening and Stephen Hammond were listed on their website. They are not now. So Guido was right... There are two names included in that list who I know for a fact were furious at Mr Hayes's comments. And rightly so.
Posted by: Iain Dale | June 01, 2006 at 18:04
A pleasingly high number of them are people who actually *gained* seats for us in 2001 and 2005.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 01, 2006 at 18:07
"Cameron will need a majority of at least 80 to avoid being in the hands of this little lot........"
I know, it's shocking isn't it - a Conservative pressure group with conservative views. I don't agree with everything they say but I see nothing wrong with their existence.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 18:09
Helpful intervention as usual Comstock
Just telling it like it I see it, like most other folk on t'internet. The debate on here is quite intellgent, unlike most forums, even if I disagree with most of what is said.
From what I've seen, the majority of the Cornerstone group are fully behind David Cameron and will not be holding him to ransom should be have a low majority
Remember the Mastricht 'bastards' of the Major era?
Who do we reckon for the 3 'closet' supporters then people?
Smithy (of the Ian Duncan variety) maybe -still hoping (perhaps not in vain) for a cabinet post??
Posted by: comstock | June 01, 2006 at 18:11
There's lots of very talented MP's in Cornerstone, comstock
I know, Tim A, that is what worries me!
I despise (for instance) the BNP, but I know they are just a bunch of buffoons shunned by all three sensible parties.
This little lot, and their mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity, anti-homosexual, fundvangelical view of t'world are a major swathe of a party that is (because I am a realist) likely to win power at one of the next two general elections.
Posted by: comstock | June 01, 2006 at 18:18
Guido wasn't right, Iain. Cornerstone is hardly "crumbling".
Posted by: Editor | June 01, 2006 at 18:25
Agree with you about the Cornerstone website needing a facelift, Tim. Perhaps you may care to recommend my services ;-)
Posted by: Cllr Graham Smith | June 01, 2006 at 18:32
Graham Stuart? I don't think so! Graham was (and still could be?) a member of the TRG. There's a big difference bewtween supporting good local and hard-working candidates and wanting facist policies as advocated by the Tombstoners.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | June 01, 2006 at 18:45
Is "facist" like "racist" Justin except it's a prejudice against differently-faced people!?
If you meant fascist, what fascist policies do Cornerstone hold? Details please.
Posted by: Editor | June 01, 2006 at 18:58
"There's a big difference bewtween supporting good local and hard-working candidates and wanting facist policies as advocated by the Tombstoners."
I am curious to know what is "fascist" about their policies. I don't recall them calling for the abolition of democracy and an end to freedom of speech.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 18:59
http://www.cornerstonegroup.org.uk/reviving_tory_britain.pdf - Cornerstone policies.
Flat taxes, education vouchers, decentralising the police force - there's a lot of libertariansm in here. Can't imagine Herr Hitler using this as a basis for NSDAP policy.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 19:12
Good on Cornerstone...about time there was a strong traditionally conservative element in the party now. What can be wrong with promoting low taxtaion, nationhood and traditional family values? We used to be for those...once. What's changed?
Posted by: Tim Aker | June 01, 2006 at 19:15
Justin, you really have to back up words like fascist. I may not agree with everything Cornerstone say but they are certainly not fascist. Your statements previously about Roger Helmer taken from a Lib Dem defector were a similar demonstration of rash posting.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 01, 2006 at 19:17
Flat taxes, education vouchers, decentralising the police force - there's a lot of libertariansm in here
Try the founding statement http://www.edwardleigh.net/newsarticle.php?id=314
The liberals have constructed an empire of cultural assumptions which, conservatives must realise, you either surrender to or fight. We must seize the centre ground and pull it kicking and screaming towards us. That is the only way to demolish the foundations of the liberal establishment
Still think they are libertarians, Richard?
Posted by: comstock | June 01, 2006 at 19:24
"Still think they are libertarians, Richard?"
No, nor did I say they were. I said their policies included libertarian elements. I have always described Cornerstone's dominant philosophy as "socially conservative". Many social conservatives favour libertarian policies but it doesn't make them full-blown libertarians.
I also suspect they use the word "liberal" in that sentence to mean left-liberal (as opposed to the Classical Liberalism of libertarianism.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 19:30
The problem with Cornerstone is not their policies some of which are very interesting but their intention to become the Conservative equivalent of the Campaign Group in the Labour Party. No true Conservative should want us to go back to a situation where if we have a small majority we have one group in the Parliamentary Party dictating what could and could not be passed in the House of Commons as occurred with the Whipless wonders/Maastrict rebels who however laudable their aims had the effect of tearing the Conservative Party apart contributing to the massive Labour landslide in 1997.
Posted by: Andrew M | June 01, 2006 at 19:43
A propos nothing in particular, I would just like to deny being the person who coined the nickname "Tombstone".
Does any one know who did?
Posted by: William Norton | June 01, 2006 at 19:43
The Cornerstones don't glorify war, advocate the Corporate State, or subscribe to the Fuhrerprinzip, so I'm at loss to see how anyone could seriously apply the label "fascist" to them
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 01, 2006 at 19:47
"Three other MPs are effectively supporters but for various reasons have asked not to be publicly identified as such."
uhm, is there something wrong in being associated with Cornerstone?
Posted by: Andrea | June 01, 2006 at 19:54
"uhm, is there something wrong in being associated with Cornerstone?"
Yes, apparently they want to invade Poland.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 19:59
Very good Richard
Posted by: Jon Gale | June 01, 2006 at 20:07
Cornerstone have every right to both exist and to attempt to give vent to their views. The only facism I can see in all this (Justin) is the facist desire of those on the left of the party to deny anyone who doesn't slavishly agree with them the right to express their views. Another sign that we are in grave danger of becoming exactly like the NuLab shower who value diversity just so long as that doesn't extend to diversity of opinion.
Posted by: Matt Davis | June 01, 2006 at 20:21
Oh and btw at the extreme risk of being accused of racism, as an attempt to divert the argument, it isn't exactly a facist thing to want to invade Poland more a German and Russian thing. At least that's the lesson of history on that one.
Posted by: Matt Davis | June 01, 2006 at 20:24
Should CH ever go a bit Big Brother, I know which 'Tory Boy' poster I'll be texting in my eviction vote for.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 01, 2006 at 20:48
BTW, Matt, Jon, Richard, Andrea, Sean, William, Andrews, Comstock even, Tims, and Iain, my previous post was not directed at you.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 01, 2006 at 20:53
What exactly is Mr. Dale's problem with Mr. Haye's comments? All he was doing was sounding a note of caution that the leadership seems to be forgetting about Britain beyond the M25.
Posted by: CDM | June 01, 2006 at 21:07
More importantly, not just Iain Dale, but John Hayes himself has recognised what was wrong with his remarks as shown by his grovelling letter in tomorrow's Times.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 01, 2006 at 21:34
One wonders, looking at this list of members, how on earth they were ever labelled the 'Tombstone group' ...
Posted by: Gareth | June 01, 2006 at 21:41
"This little lot, and their mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity, anti-homosexual, fundvangelical view of t'world"
Sounds fine to me Comstock !! - more power to their elbow !!
Posted by: RodS | June 01, 2006 at 21:43
"What can be wrong with promoting low taxtaion, nationhood and traditional family values? We used to be for those...once. What's changed?"
We used to be for Imperial preference and 10 new dreadnoughts. What's changed?
Posted by: Gareth | June 01, 2006 at 21:44
Clearly the Cornerstone group, like me, is not fully on board with all of the Cameron makeover. It is difficult to lead a party which is divided, so it is important that they can make their voice heard in a constructive way, particularly close to an election.
On the other hand, we do need to be able to have a debate about policy, and candidate selection, carried out in a calm and respectful atmosphere. I am pleased that Cornerstone is able to contribute and I hope that it will be able to exert influence in proportion to its significant membership.
Posted by: Derek | June 01, 2006 at 21:54
Alan Duncan was the first person to use the term "tombstone" in my hearing.
John Redwood is just being polite allowing his name to be listed. He has distanced himself from "official" Cornerstone comments.
"Cornerstone Crumbling" is, as Tim probably well understands, a bit of alliterative verse on a slow news day during recess. It is undeniable and I assume accepted that at least two listed names were not happy at being listed. That is a 5% crumbling at the least. If I had called some more I am sure I could get that number up to 10%. Then we would be moving towards collapse...
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | June 01, 2006 at 21:54
I agree with what most of the cornerstone group stand for so im glad to hear they're not crumbling.
"This little lot, and their mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity, anti-homosexual, fundvangelical view of t'world"
so are we not allowed to express christian views in parliament now? or stand up for what we beleive is right?
Posted by: spagbob | June 01, 2006 at 21:56
oh and christians are not mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity. nor from what ive read of cornerstone are they.!
Posted by: spagbob | June 01, 2006 at 21:59
Well looks like someone is on the defensive...
Posted by: G-MaN | June 01, 2006 at 21:59
so are we not allowed to express christian views in parliament now? or stand up for what we beleive is right?
Personally I think religion and politics do not mix well. Surely ultimately religion is about personal consience, whilst politicians have to serve us all, even sinners like me!!
Posted by: comstock | June 01, 2006 at 22:14
Well said Cornstock. We live in a secular state thankfully. One only has to look at theocracies such as Iran to see the trouble that politics and religion can cause.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 01, 2006 at 22:29
Or, lucy74, we could look at states like secular Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia that filled the graves of the 20th Century.
Guido: "If I had called some more I am sure I could get that number up to 10%."
Go on then... Show us your power!
Posted by: Editor | June 01, 2006 at 22:49
Cornerstone are basically the Tory equivalent of Skinner, Corbyn and Abbott in the Labour party.
Posted by: houndtang | June 01, 2006 at 22:56
Thanks for making my point Editor! The Communists actually banned worship - another downside of mixing religion with politics.
I don't have the exact figures to hand but I expect even the graves filled by Nazis and Communists put together would nowhere near equal the graves filled in the name of religion.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 01, 2006 at 23:12
"We used to be for Imperial preference and 10 new dreadnoughts. What's changed?"
The difference is that there's still a significant body of support in the country for lower taxes, nationhood and family values.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 23:13
"I don't have the exact figures to hand but I expect even the graves filled by Nazis and Communists put together would nowhere near equal the graves filled in the name of religion."
Probably because the Nazis and Communists weren't around for centuries. That's a rather silly comparison.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 23:15
Exactly. We put a stop to the Nazis and Communists...
Posted by: lucy74 | June 01, 2006 at 23:16
"Probably because the Nazis and Communists weren't around for centuries. That's a rather silly comparison."
Apologies. I was unaware that the destructive nature of a belief system is measured on a deaths-per-century basis?
Posted by: lucy74 | June 01, 2006 at 23:20
John Hayes has written to point out that he supports the Cameron leadership, and the A-List. If that's it, what is the fuss all about? I'm a bit confused....!
The existence of the Cornerstone Group has been known for ages.
If it had been a blast from Better Off Out by 40 or more MP's, that might have threatened the Cameron leadership. Are peope frightened of what might happen rather than what has happened? Then I can understand the insecurity of the criers of 'Fascist, Nazi etc'.
John Hayes is too shrewd a player to pull the rug from the Cameron regime. Relax, everyone. It's the sound of Conservative confidence....a sound we haven't heard since Maastricht blew us apart.
Posted by: william | June 01, 2006 at 23:24
The Crusades, the Reconquista, Nazism, Stalinism, etc were identical in that they sought to control people's thinking and restrain their freedoms. That is what filled the graves.
Civilized society must protect freedom above all else.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 01, 2006 at 23:30
"Apologies. I was unaware that the destructive nature of a belief system is measured on a deaths-per-century basis?"
The point is that you implied religion was worse because it killed more. Putting it bluntly, religion had more time.
I don't see what's so destructive about the doctrine of love your neighbour. I do see what is destructive about racial supremacy or enforced equality.
Posted by: Richard | June 01, 2006 at 23:30
"I don't have the exact figures to hand but I expect even the graves filled by Nazis and Communists put together would nowhere near equal the graves filled in the name of religion."
No religion has killed on the scale of Hitler and Stalin.
Posted by: Editor | June 01, 2006 at 23:33
The Cornerstone Group is about one quarter of Conservative MP's. I don't imagine they all OK'ed John Hayes' letter word for word.
The 'chichi' bit was the necessary soundbite material to ensure that his views got reported.
Conservative Members and activists will be greatly encouraged by John Hayes' letter and his willingness to speak publicly.
If MP's cannot speak publicly without being called Nazis then I am not sure who can.
Posted by: william | June 01, 2006 at 23:39
Is there some implied suggestion that the Cornerstone Group are in favour of mass murder here? I have come in from an evening of sport to find that Conservativehome is examining the darkest side of humanity in the context of a letter by John Hayes to the Times about the A List.
Would you forgive me for finding this trifle odd?
Posted by: william | June 01, 2006 at 23:41
I can't believe all the stick the Cornerstone group are getting. Why does anyone who supports family values, a good deal for Britain and low taxes get labeled an extreme right-winger? A lot of people in the country are crying out for politicians to stand up and actually be proud to believe in something. at least these tory mp's have some principles unlike some whose only belief is "must be more like blair!"
Posted by: Paul | June 01, 2006 at 23:54
Apologies in advance to William for use of numbers...
This is a rather macabre but excellent source of data for deaths by atrocity and war. Dictators were more efficient killers than religions. The Crusades killed about 1% of the world’s population. WW2 killed about 2.5%, mostly attributable to Hitler.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 02, 2006 at 00:06
"No religion has killed on the scale of Hitler and Stalin."
Lets not forget cuddly Chairman Mao, responsible for the deaths of an estimated 70 million people.
Posted by: Mike Christie | June 02, 2006 at 00:14
Paul, the stick that Cornerstone have been getting was caused by the apparant disloyalty to the party leadership, and we truly have had it up to here with division.
Mr Hayes has now written a much clearer statement, to be in the Times tomorrow.
So thats all right then.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | June 02, 2006 at 00:24
Hitler was a Christian, so he needs to be included in both totals. Religion and Dictator. Many other dictators also use religion as their reason.
Who decides who God actually talks to ? Those killed in Iraq, with the Bush hotline to God, are they deaths due to religion ?
9/11 more religious deaths, 7/7 the same. If religion didn't exist these people would have to come up with real reasons for the carnage.
Posted by: Will | June 02, 2006 at 00:26
Will, have a look at this analysis. It's very well argued and researched and includes a great graph of deaths / culpability.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 02, 2006 at 00:38
Hilarious! Hayes clearly got a severe spanking from both CCHQ and some of his fellow Tombstoners for his inaccurate portrayal of the Burrowes paper. The letter above is a massive humiliating climbdown for him.
Posted by: Moralz | June 02, 2006 at 00:40
Mark Fulford - Thanks for the link. I don't agree with the conclusions, but the information has added to my understanding of this topic.
Posted by: Will | June 02, 2006 at 00:52
I think this religion vs atheism dichotomy is rather irrelevant, and the debate is a bit puerile (comparing figures of deaths etc). Cornerstone aren't arguing for theocracy, or for a return of the Spanish inquisition; they want a return to family stability and belief in nationhood. Anyone who thinks those things are "fascist" should join a different party.
Posted by: John Hustings | June 02, 2006 at 01:04
Family stabilty is important - married couples, partnerships ( same sex or otherwise ), single parents, carer with dependent - all important families within our communities that all need support.
Definitely not "fascist". Unless you mean something else ?
Posted by: Will | June 02, 2006 at 01:14
michael gove compared tax cuts with joining the ERM on question time.
Posted by: anon | June 02, 2006 at 01:25
They are clearly not fascist, and it's barking mad to claim they are (there are some Nu Labour types to whom the description would better fit). What is slightly unerving about the Tombstoners is their rather rigid belief that they and only they know the way to a return to family stability and belief in nationhood.
Posted by: Moralz | June 02, 2006 at 02:26
Well if Cornerstone would like me to knock together a free site for them, free hosting,forum, etc whatever, just let me know.
I certainly don't agree with all they say by any means, but even someone outside the CP will wonder why a grouping of almost 20% of the party is so despised because they believe something different than others.
Surely conservatives should be tolerant of one another and seeking to help one another.
Posted by: Chad | June 02, 2006 at 07:57
The liberals have constructed an empire of cultural assumptions which, conservatives must realise, you either surrender to or fight. We must seize the centre ground and pull it kicking and screaming towards us. That is the only way to demolish the foundations of the liberal establishment
Not really a cornerstone type myself, but I fail to find anything wrong with this sentence.
The Liberal Establishment is so out of touch with reality, that you can't even debate with them. In the long term we either destroy their arguments or we will lose.
Posted by: Serf | June 02, 2006 at 09:11
When Portillo was reported as assisting a cat's home, John Hayes was quoted as being pleased that Michael was taking such a keen interest in 'pussies'.
Cornerstoners obviously have the capacity to commit mass murder, but at least they have a sense of humour. This is, I believe where A Hitler went wrong.
Posted by: william | June 02, 2006 at 09:17
Yeah, right, if only Hitler had a decent line in homophobic humour he'd have been OK, eh William?
Posted by: moralz | June 02, 2006 at 09:41
homophobic mass murderers. correction.
Posted by: william | June 02, 2006 at 09:46
I should point out for all the ill informed fury at Cornerstone's
"mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity, anti-homosexual, fundvangelical view of t'world" and "fascist" policies
I know of at least two who have gay staff working for them and at least two who have ethnic minority staff working for them... and I only know the staff of about five of them...
So can ultra liberals stop throwing glib comments which have no basis whatsoever around... Comstock/ Justin
Posted by: 1AM | June 02, 2006 at 10:18
"Hitler was a Christian, so he needs to be included in both totals."
I wasn't aware Christians believed that the Germans were a master race descended from the lost civilisation of Atlantis. Hitler was a member of the Thule society who upheld those beliefs. He may have said he supported Christianity to win votes but his own beliefs were somewhat pagan.
Posted by: Richard | June 02, 2006 at 10:44
RodS wrote
"This little lot, and their mono-ethnic, mono-cultral, anti-diversity, anti-homosexual, fundvangelical view of t'world"
Sounds fine to me Comstock !! - more power to their elbow !!
Umm.
Regardless of whether Cornerstone espouse the views paraphrased by cornstock, the fact that some of you vibrate with glee at his exposition should tell you all you need to know about what Cornerstone's real agenda is.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 02, 2006 at 10:54
The inability to keep the anti-Cornerstone comments within some kind of reason is the main thing that stands out in this thread.
As is so often the case in life, in his accusations, the accuser describes himself better than ayone else could. If you see extremism in the Cornerstoners, I would suggest a quick look in the mirror.
There never was a milder bunch of folk. Without the burden of PC, you can actually enjoy a laugh occasionally with such people. I can recommend them as a tonic to lighten the load of life - the perfect antidote to 9 long years of New labour-speak.
Posted by: william | June 02, 2006 at 11:58
I know for a fact that every member of Cornerstone is a 33rd degree freemason who drinks the blood of virgins, and works for the Bilderberg Group.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 02, 2006 at 12:02
LOL...sounds like me on a Friday night...we all have our vices!
Posted by: James Maskell | June 02, 2006 at 12:12
"Hitler was a Christian, so he needs to be included in both totals."
Hitler was NOT a christian and you should stop stating that he was. He never claimed to be. In fact he hated christianity, he persecuted and killed many christians e.g. Bonhoeffer and after the war he was planning to replace christianity with a pagan religion. So all this talk of hitler being a Christian must stop. Lets get back to an intelligent debate.
"Personally I think religion and politics do not mix well. Surely ultimately religion is about personal consience, whilst politicians have to serve us all, even sinners like me!!"
so explain to me why Christians or people with religious beleifs should not be allowed in parliament then. Christianity doesnt beleive in theocracy and never has. Islam is the religion of theocracy, and even then only a few agree with that. I resent the fact that people should not be allowed to be MP's just becuase they hold religious beleifs. That is discrimination.
im not going to defend what people have done in the name of religion, but i will say that, in the twentieth century - the century when religion was at its weakest and secularism its strongest, the world went through the most bloody century of its history. as far as im concerned, thats argument enough for people of faith to go into politics and try and make a difference.
No one is suggesting that people of a religious faith who engaged in politics would persecute non-believers or force everyone to follow their faith. they would just work for a more loving, moral and fair society. tell me now that you wouldnt agree with people trying to do that, motivated by their religious beleifs. Christians beleive in democracy, freedom under the rule of law e.t.c. we always have. and the christian constitution both here and in america makes that very clear. it seems to me that some athiests think that all other ideological brands except theirs must be opposed and they are willing to stop people of religious faith holding power becuase of that. if anyone is guilty of bigotry and trying to force their beleifs on people, it is these.
Posted by: spagbob | June 02, 2006 at 12:24
Sean,
Were you joking about the Freemasonry? It always struck me as a very masonic-sounding name for a group, and now I know why!
http://www.cornerstonesociety.com/index3.html
Posted by: moralz | June 02, 2006 at 12:47
As far as I am aware 'cornerstone' is only masonic in the sense of construction - to do with masonry of the structural kind. A cornerstone being the piece that binds the walls together.
The Cornerstone Group is not masonic in the sense of secret organisations, which is tragic for those who are looking for sinister tales of secret organisations involved in mass murder, witchcraft and the destruction of civilizations.
Posted by: william | June 02, 2006 at 13:33
I just think this thread sums up the frothy-mouthed anti-religious madness that has arisen in recent years, which, like all things originating from the left, claims to be speaking on behalf of tolerance and diversity but is actually anything but.
You see it in the fanatically hysterical overreaction to Tony Blair's Christianity. Anybody who is a Christian must be a "fascist", must be mad, must be dangerous.
Of course these secularists claim that they want the country to be "neutral" with regard to religion, but you can see from their venom and hostility that actually they wish to eradicate Christianity and have everyone brought up in their own philosophy of secular humanism. This, of course, is a philosophy with socialist roots, and it is in keeping with our membership of the European Union -- another fanatically secularist institution.
Can anyone make a serious criticism of Christianity that doesn't involve ludicrous references to the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, or to cults on the American bible belt?
Posted by: John Hustings | June 02, 2006 at 13:33
the cornerstone group can't be masonic - there a number of catholics who are members. freemasonary and catholicism are enemies. it was always the case that any catholic who joined the masons was automatically excommunicated.
Posted by: Paul | June 02, 2006 at 13:39
"Of course these secularists claim that they want the country to be "neutral" with regard to religion, but you can see from their venom and hostility that actually they wish to eradicate Christianity and have everyone brought up in their own philosophy of secular humanism. This, of course, is a philosophy with socialist roots, and it is in keeping with our membership of the European Union -- another fanatically secularist institution."
Time for a chill pill don't you think John?
Posted by: Gareth | June 02, 2006 at 13:47
You're right, Moralz, it is a masonic-sounding name.
That's not quite correct, Paul. The RC Church in England has no bar on freemasonry, although historically the RC Church has had such a bar (and still does in Ireland).
John - if people have to overstate their case, it indicates it's not a particularly strong case to begin with.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 02, 2006 at 13:47
John Hustings: "secular humanism. This, of course, is a philosophy with socialist roots, and it is in keeping with our membership of the European Union -- another fanatically secularist institution."
Rubbish. Belief in the supernatural is unrelated to socialism. In fact, the opposite is true - the Bible itself describes a communist society among the early christians"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
(Acts 2:44-45)
"There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."
(Acts 4:34-37)
Plus all the camels through an eye of the needle stuff.
http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/communism.htm
Posted by: Jon Gale | June 02, 2006 at 13:52
"Of course these secularists claim that they want the country to be "neutral" with regard to religion, but you can see from their venom and hostility that actually they wish to eradicate Christianity and have everyone brought up in their own philosophy of secular humanism."
Err not quite John. I do wish the country to be neutral with regard to all religions as the state should not impose any particular religion on its people. The fact that I was confirmed and attend church is a personal issue for me alone - those who seek to represent us should be free to follow whichever religion/creed they like but when making policy their religious views should not be a factor.
Turkey is a great example of a secular state where 98% of the population follow one religion but the state does not impose it on anyone.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 02, 2006 at 14:16
The Bible can justify anything you want it to as can the Quiran.
Belief in a spiritual being however does not guarantee an interest in mass murder, or a political slant to left or right wing political views. For most people, it's just part of being a human being.
So far as we know, members of the Cornerstone qualify under that description.
Posted by: william | June 02, 2006 at 14:21
"Rubbish. Belief in the supernatural is unrelated to socialism. In fact, the opposite is true - the Bible itself describes a communist society among the early christians"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.""
I said *secular humanism* not atheism.
"The fact that I was confirmed and attend church is a personal issue for me alone - those who seek to represent us should be free to follow whichever religion/creed they like but when making policy their religious views should not be a factor."
People's personal beliefs will always be a factor in forming their political views. If you're an atheist it will affect your views on, say, euthanasia as much as a Christian's would. The idea that one is more "neutral" than the other is balderdash. There is no neutral position.
Posted by: John Hustings | June 02, 2006 at 14:28
"People's personal beliefs will always be a factor in forming their political views."
Are you saying that politicians are unable to put aside personal views when making decisions as to what is best for the country?
Posted by: lucy74 | June 02, 2006 at 14:33
Can anyone make a serious criticism of Christianity that doesn't involve ludicrous references to the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, or to cults on the American bible belt?
Yes, you can. Simply that in 2000 years nobody has come up with any evidence, even circumstantial evidence, that one word of it is true!!!
Posted by: comstock | June 02, 2006 at 14:34
"Are you saying that politicians are unable to put aside personal views when making decisions as to what is best for the country?"
I am saying that their personal views will inform what they think is best for the country.
Posted by: John Hustings | June 02, 2006 at 14:39
'in 2000 years nobody has come up with any evidence, even circumstantial evidence, that one word of it is true!!!'
It seems more remarkable to me that no-one has ever come up with any evidence that it is false.
Posted by: johnC | June 02, 2006 at 14:44
"Turkey is a great example of a secular state where 98% of the population follow one religion but the state does not impose it on anyone" - Lucy74.
Er, No, Turkey's not such a 'great example', unless your definition of a 'great' state includes it being, either formally, or informally, a military dictatorship for almost all its oh so lovely secular existence.
And - and I'm not trying to pick on anyone here! - Lucy also asked, "Are you saying that politicians are unable to put aside personal views when making decisions as to what is best for the country?" Lucy, that makes very little sense. Do you not see how, 'setting aside personal beliefs', is either, impossible, or, in itself (the supposed setting aside) a personal belief?
Of course people being bring their personal beliefs to bear on everything they do. Indeed, it surely verges on tautological to talk about 'personal beliefs' - what other sort of belief does one have? If one, for example, is boringly humanist, but (and how unlikely is this?!) decides to 'set aside' that 'personal belief' when dealing with some public policy issue, how exactly do you go about it? Do you forget what you believed a second ago by going into some sort of brief trance?
John Hustings is right: secularism is, 9 times out of 10, not 'neutral', it's intentionally anti-Christian.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 02, 2006 at 14:48
"I am saying that their personal views will inform what they think is best for the country."
Don't you agree however that personal views should be trumped by quantitative research as to what is best for the country. Isn't that why we have Parliamentary Select Committees?
Incidentally, one of the best things about Cameron's leadership is that he is taking the time to carry out such work before making policy decisions - a marvellous alternative to NuLab's policy-for-headlines approach which has led to so much inefficiency and incompetence.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 02, 2006 at 14:49
LeNerd, I think you are doing your fellow humans a great disservice by saying they would be unable to set aside beliefs etc.
Judges, for example, have to do it every day in their job - although admittedly they get sent on courses to learn how to detach their personal beliefs from their job of distributing justice. Criminal defence barristers likewise have to disregard their usually innate distaste of murderers and paedophiles but still manage to do their jobs and ensure a fair trial.
Lastly, I did not say that Turkey was an example of a perfect state - their human rights recird for example is appalling - I said it was an example of how politics works without being mixed with religion.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 02, 2006 at 15:06
Ummm Lucy, "I did not say that Turkey was an example of a perfect state - their human rights recird for example is appalling - I said it was an example of how politics works without being mixed with religion" - I couldn't agree with you more. Without religion, Turkey's politics works horrendously.
You still haven't shown how your personal belief that, something you call 'personal beliefs' should be 'set aside' isn't ........ a personal belief.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 02, 2006 at 15:30
Only because it's too boring to explain such semantics! OK, you got me! I should have said "religious beliefs", rather than "personal beliefs" but I was trying not to pick on one particular group of people.
But I am glad that I have made the case that people are able to put aside beliefs, whether they are religious, anti-gay, pro-choice or whatever, when they are at work. And politicians are no different.
the simple fact, to get back to the subject of this thread, is that many of Cornerstone's policies simply do not chime with the electorate.
Posted by: lucy74 | June 02, 2006 at 15:43
Surely politics would be nothing more than a scramble for office if politicians were not expected to act on their ethical beliefs.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 02, 2006 at 15:47
Lucy, please believe me when I say that this isn't meant in any spirit of personal antagonism, but I'm glad that we flushed out what really seems to be your objection here: you, as far as I can tell, object to people having a religious frame of reference when it comes to public policy issues.
I cannot for the life of me see how not having a religious frame of reference when it comes to public policy positions is any better than having one. Not being religious is not a middle way, as you appear to be implying, it's the deliberate antithesis of being religious.
People can't divroce themselves from their personal beliefs, religious or secular, and as a result, I see little point in them pretending to themselves, or to other people, that they can.
As for the supposed unpopularity of what Cornerstone believes in, consider me unconvinced.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 02, 2006 at 15:50
Le Nerd: Cornerstone's agenda was that of the party at the last three elections when we was thrashed*. If you factor in people like me, tribal Tories who - I admit - will vote for nearly anything with a blue rosette on - then you can estimate support for their grotesquely non-pluralist view of humanity at something under 30%. And falling.
* OH! Sorry - I forgot - the reason we was thrashed was that we wasn't sufficiently cornerstone-ish. Yeah! In the words of my favourite non-Cornerstone Tory - keep it real man.
PS Why not ask one of them to write an article setting out what they believe in, so we can take it apart like we do everything written here (I know, it's part of the fun, like a flock of locusts descending on a ripe field).
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 02, 2006 at 16:34
Yeah, I forgot, the mainfesto we lost the last election on, with a pitiful third of the vote, was written by a Cornerstone headbanger. Oh, wait. But then there's 1997 - obviously Mahor was an extreme right loon, and everyone saw him like that. Oh, again, wait. Well at least you have William Hague and his crazy right wing views in 2001. You know, those blindingly extreme positions he had like, um, and then there was, er, and obviously there was, ah. Case made, Graham, case made - walk back to the pavillion with a well deserved smirk on your face.
Posted by: Le Nerd | June 02, 2006 at 16:40