« Muslims warm to Tories' Israel line | Main | Only one-third of Associations respond to membership enquiries »


Is Peter postulating based on personal experience, I wonder?

IIRC, he wore the dark green tie for the first round of the MPs' ballot during the leadership election, his conference speech last year, the Question Time head-to-head and his first PMQs as leader.

A quiet time then for the newspapers...

I hate the green tie! He looks so much better with blue, I really wish Samantha would fix this!

It's the creeping references all over the media and the web to "organic dope smoke" and similar, that are significant. Are there any substances in these hints? We must be told!

Personally Christina, I was extremely disappointed when Cameron refused to state categorically that he had never taken drugs.

In my view he should have been required to give a clear statement "yes" or "no". If "no" I would have accepted his word and that would have been the end of the matter.

If "yes", that would clearly have been the end of Cameron, and rightly so,

Must be nice to be wealthy enough to be able to spend £85 on a tie. ;)

With regards to the drugs thing, maybe what somebody did or didn't do 20 years ago shouldn't hang over them for the rest of their lives. Alas when somebody declines to give a categoric answer about something in the distant past, people always then believe the worst, maybe best just to accept the lack of clarity and move on in the belief that whatever we thought they might have done years ago, they certainly don't do now.

On Cameron and drugs, I disagree with monday clubber. If Cameron had said, 'Yes I've taken drugs as a student, or experimented with drugs when young,' then most people including myself would have shrugged their shoulders and said 'so what'. If on the other hand it turned out that Cameron had been an habitual user of a class A drug, that would have been a different matter. If it could be proven that his statement on channel 4 news that he had not taken drugs since becoming an MP
'law makers shouldn't be lawbreakers' was untrue, that would be a resigning matter.

£85 maybe slightly expensive for a tie, but I do wish people would think before they indulge in the ENVY thingy, HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE WHO BOOZE WASTE DOWN THE TOILET!!!!!!! Does anybody really want a NORM scale of what one must spend on a given article and not a penny more - life would not be worth living. And EVERYBODY SPENDS MORE THAN THEY SHOULD ON SOMETHING!!! Even if it is chocolate!!!

The tie looks awful. Far too bright.

We live in an age when people worldwide are starving because they can't afford a meal which would cost a tiny fraction of £85, while in our own country unfortunate people are reduced to begging on the street.

In the circumstances of worldwide poverty, the news that "Dave" has spent £85 on a tie is not just shocking - it's obscene.

It seems that the leadership of our party is already returning to the appalling old image of hard-partying Eton-educated toffs spending vast sums on money on wasteful luxuries without a care for the less fortunate among us.

This would never have happened under David Davis, a man of the people, raised by a single mother on a council estate.

Instead we've slammed the gears into reverse. Damn the underprivileged! We're on our way back to 1899!

Personally I don't give a hoot about him not wearing a blue tie. I am far more concerned about him not promoting a blue political agenda.

Why should it matter whether David puffed the magic dragon back in the 1980s? A bout of youthful indiscretion has very little to do with his ability to run the country.

Wallenstein - Mr. Brown, until recently has worn ill-matched suits crumpled ties and shirts, and I should think most of the time hasn't spent £85 on his whole outfit. He has also demonstrated that he is excellent at acquiring taxpayers money, and saving it rather than spending it on soldiers needs. However he also apparently, does not ensure that the finance needed to prevent less fortunate people in society begging on the streets, is available. Oh, he talks about relieving poverty, but possibly he does not mean the kind of poverty that is evident in this country - that is a different sort of 'poverty'. Like your argument is a different sort of argument! I am sure that Mr. Davis would not thank you for suggesting that he would not dream of spending that sort of money on clothes, and would probably more likely get his clothes at a charity shop, which of course you would approve of heartily!!

"This would never have happened under David Davis, a man of the people, raised by a single mother on a council estate." 11:38

Or maybe it would and just never get reported in the same way. ;)

>>Mr. Brown, until recently has worn ill-matched suits crumpled ties and shirts, and I should think most of the time hasn't spent £85 on his whole outfit.<<

Hi Patsy. Well I say good for Mr Brown. It's good to see that the Chancellor has higher priorities than fashion, and if he's buying from charity shops he's also doing his best to help the needy.

You write as if it were normal for men to pay £85 for a tie? Is this what your husband does? I never heard of anything so ridiculous.

The most I ever paid for a tie was around £20. I needed a particular tie for a particular occasion miles from home and the only one I could get was a silk one from Austin Reed.

Nothing could be more calculated to arouse old-fashioned "them and us" feelings about the Tories than this shocking news about Cameron's spendthrift sartorial habits.

Perhaps it's time for another of those famous Cameron apologies, this time for his own "misdeeds" rather than somebody else's.

My Wife has just returned from a business trip, bought for me an Italian silk tie, a rather splendid blue with a delicate spot pattern on it, £8.50 from the airport I understand. ;);)

Amazing that there are so many fashion critics about here. When are you all going to post your pictures so we can judge for ourselves?

Dave saying yes or no to smoking weed years ago (or frankly weeks ago) would probably attract a lot of voters who are sick of hearing MPs claim they "tried it once and didn't like it." I have never heard so many people claim to have never liked weed - and all from the same profession. Strange, that.

I have never spent more than £20 for a tie. I think Samantha should take him down to TopMan

But is he Windsor, pratt or four-in-hand? Please, Editor, knot-a-tie blog from conference!!

Insane - a man earns over £80k (?) a year in a two income household with probably a not insubstantial nest egg - and then he rubs our noses in it by buying an £82 silk tie!

Well, it's a 'let them eat cake' moment isnt it? He had me taken in until I heard about the expensive green silk tie - thank god i know the truth now! ;)

Oh the prophanity of it all - Keith Joseph must be spinnning in his grave! You'd think Cameron made regular speeches, television appearances and didn't want to want appear to a national and global audience looking like Michael Foot - I mean who does this man think he is? A candidate for Prime Minister!?

£82 for a green tie! Its the end of civilisation as we know it! Why can't he dress all the time in dark blue boiler suits (like Churchill) or nice powder blue chairman mao outfits? Or would you prefer a hair shirt? :0

Get a grip guys! If you hate Cameron so much debate him on his policies face to face, in writing, and over the web like you have had (and continue to have) the chance to do.

This continuing innuendo about drug abuse from when the man was at university is beneath contempt and seems to be a running obsession for some like Christina - it is juvenile.

I'd far rather have a leader who's experienced life, had a few different roles before politics and knows something about drugs first-hand, than be lead around by repressed puritan prudes like Blair and Blunkett whose lack of life experience outside of professional politics hasnt really equipped them to make the right informed choices across a vast range of public policy failures.

Get a grip! United, we'll smash this corrupt Labour edifice to the ground and not before time. Divided and attacking the man on such petty grounds will lead to more years in the wilderness whilst Great Britain is diluted further into mediocrity, debt and inertia.

'I'd far rather have a leader who's experienced life,had a few different roles before politics....'

So would I. That's why the wrong David was elected party leader.

Personally Christina, I was extremely disappointed when Cameron refused to state categorically that he had never taken drugs.

On Steve Richard GMTV programme yesterday Kevin Maguire of The Mirror stated that this issue is not far fromthe surface and will re-emerge as a campaign issue.............he gave every indication that it was a) true and b) ready to emerge as an embarrassment

I mentioned before that I had been informed (by a parliamentary candidate) that certain CCO employees are under permanent instructions to "spin" on this blog.

I must say that the sudden orgy of extremely partisan and frankly ludicrous posts by "Robson S Leeds" lends credence to this allegation.

At first, I was certainly inclined to give Cameron a chance but I must say his charms are wearing thin. The "dope" allegations, in particular, are a matter of very great significence which could yet grievously harm the party.

It is not for me to say how 21st century electors should view this matter. That is up to them. Undoubtedly many people have tried a spliff or two in their time and I personally wouldn't get overheated about that.

What is absolutely necessary is that a politician should tell the truth, the whole truth etc.

Cameron should have answered the question fully and truthfully and left it to others to decide whether what he did was right or wrong.

I have a nagging feeling that the "Cameron dope" controversy is a harbinger of future problems.

As regular attenders will know, there is always at Party Conference an excellent stall, run by Ron Pain, selling incredibly cheap designer (eg Hardy Amis) silk ties for £6 each. Oh and he'll do deals on multiple puchases as well.So there is really no need for any Tory to be paying £85 for a good quality, fashionable tie unless he, or she, wants to. And that is my point, DC, in common with the rest of us should and does have a choice about where and for how much he buys his clothing.As Conservtaives we ought to support that choice and his right to make it.

The dope issue is a thing we always see brought up by Cameron`s enemys everytime they have nothing else to attack him about.
Secondly it is no business of anyone`s what DC spends his money on.I thought that was what the right-wingers who regularly pollute this site believed that we all should be left more of our own money as we are the best people to to decide how to spend it.


Spot on Patsy.

My name is Mark Fulford and I spend £80 a week on curries. I also have a taste for Champagne, organic chocolate and more gadgets than are strictly necessary.

Good God Mark, 80 quid a week on Curry. Ye Gods, does your doctor know? If I spend 10 quid on one take away, I feel the effects for two days!

Clearly, therefore, I should be restricted from such spending. After all, even though it's my money, others should dictate how it is spent. As for you on 80 quid a week, that's just obscene. You should be locked up man.

"the right-wingers who regularly pollute this site"

I think Jack Stone should apologise for that deeply offensive remark

Timothy Everest is very 1990s and is the choice of spivvy City oiks. Everest is now reduced to designing crap suits (made in the Far East) for Marks & Spencer. He is therefore perfect for Dave.

Those of us with taste and class still go to real tailors on Savile Row. We are thankful that Dave goes to the Spitalfield Spiv will not bump into CCHQ low life like Steve Hilton and Dougie Smith on the Row .

"I mentioned before that I had been informed (by a parliamentary candidate) that certain CCO employees are under permanent instructions to "spin" on this blog.

I must say that the sudden orgy of extremely partisan and frankly ludicrous posts by "Robson S Leeds" lends credence to this allegation."

Thank you for, at least partially, sourcing that allegation.

One day of posts and this is what i get! :)

Four supportive emails, six abusive and ten items of junk mail! Don't stop, but I don't have time to reply to them (does anyone?) and shall keep the debate here ;)

If anyone can suggest a way in which I can disprove this I would be happy to comply.

I will say though that the quality and validity of the debate on here would be greatly improved if only paid up Party members could log in to post - maybe with a membership number or unique ID to access the site - it would certainly smoke out the UKIP and other mischief-makers (respect to Christina for admitting she was formerly UKIP by the way).

If you are going to the Conference next month Monday Clubber I will be happy to meet for a drink and prove I am most certainly not a CCO employee - you have my email address - which is more than can be said for some of the strident nay-sayers on here!

Sorry Robson but I haven't attended the conference for some years.

It's easy to look back with rose-tinted spectacles, but the days when representatives (not "delegates" - that rather pedantic little in-party shibboleth should act as some confirmation of my bona fides) got to choose a couple of motions of their choice and when many, myself included, spoke from the rostrum, now seem like a golden age.

By all accounts the current arrangements have as much democratic validity as a meeting of the Supreme Soviet under Brezhnev. All we need now is for Cameron and his muppets to stand and applaud their own speeches and the regression will be complete.

Still I daresay that may suit you very well, as you seem to be strangely concerned about the exercise of free speech on this forum which, as far as I am aware, is neither an official party site nor restricted to party members.

If there are indeed UKIP members posting here they may well be former Conservatives who have defected. I know several people who have. Isn't it a matter for concern to Conservatives that they are losing good patriotic members to a rival party?

No, probably not.

Robson if what you want is a forum restricted to on message party members then why not get one set up on Conservatives.com. Otherwise please understand that this site's strength and raison de'etre is the wide range of differing opinions that are posted here and the debates that then ensue. Oh and by the way I'll be happy to take you up on a meeting at Conference since I too have serious doubts as to your genuine independence from the Notting Hill Cowboys, even if you're not actually a salaried CCHQ apparatchik.

Monday Clubber when right-wingers are posting comments on this site that are verging on libel and are talking about the leader of our party in terms I personally find insulting no I will not withdrew my remark about them polluting this site.
I also think there very small minded when they seem to think that people care for one moment that DC wears silk ties.
What do you want him to do go down and buy his clothes from the local charity shop.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker