Has The Mail lost its political compass?

Over recent years the Daily Mail may have become a reliable thorn in Tony Blair's side but it has consistently had a soft spot for Gordon Brown.  Insiders say the Brown-friendliness is very much the policy of the Mail's Editor, Paul Dacre.

Today's Daily Mail leader (not yet online) suggests that Mr Dacre's generosity is set to continue.  Here are some key sections of the leading article:

"His sure-footed performance yesterday - unflashy (like the man himself), full of conviction and moving at times - showed up his rivals as the pygmies most of them are..."

"Mr Brown's voice rang with unaffected truth when he said of his mother and church minister father: 'My parents were more than an influence, they were - and still are - my inspiration..."

"There is a decency and integrity about Mr Brown that the Mail admires.  If he can bring these qualities to government, that can only be a huge improvement on the Blair era of spin, sleaze and cronyism."

The Mail provides a reminder that Team Cameron should not underestimate Gordon Brown for he clearly does have qualities that appear, in large part, to be an antidote to some of the least popular aspects of Blairism.  But The Mail really shouldn't be allowed to get away with today's leader.  'Brown offers Britain a moral compass' is the leader's headline but The Mail appears to have thrown away its political compass in its assessment of Mr Brown.  In almost throwaway asides, the Mail leader notes Mr Brown's addiction to spending, the pensions crisis and the deterioration in schools'n'hospitals as if these were small matters in comparison to Mr Brown's "decency and integrity."  The Mail says Mr Brown deserves "huge praise" for Britain's economy.  He doesn't.  His regulations and tax burden (much of it stealthily imposed despite that "decency and integrity") are steadily eroding Britain's competitiveness.

Today's Sun Says isn't as flattering to Brown as The Mail but it falls into some of the same traps.  Tony Blair's premiership may be coming to an end but the once-right-wing press is still not yet free from New Labour's spell.  Falling for New Labour's spin in 1997 is forgivable but still falling for Labour in 2006 - given its record - is inexcusable.

Related link: Newspapers are still falling for New Labour's announcements

Comments

[Chad]

I think it simply shows that people are gradually holding their nose and begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a much better choice than Cameron.

[Mark Fulford]

I think it simply shows that people are gradually holding their nose and begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a much better choice than Cameron.

On UKIP and Europe related threads I can take your constant self-promotion. But to come out with such utterly unfounded bollox in order to stir and promote your own goals (which are not Conservative goals) is straight-forward trolling. And don't give me any of that "small c" sh*t.

[hannibal]

What utter rot, Chad! You're blinkered Tory hatred is reaching a hysterical crescendo. Residual support for NuLabour from the formerly right-wing press is more to do with Stockholm Syndrome than genuine admiration.

Cherie Blair can see through it.

[verulamgal]

No it isn't hannibal. It means that Right wing press see little difference to choose between Bliar and Cameron

[Edward]

Exactly, Tim. It almost belies belief that they still fall for it and try to impose such lightweight logic on their readers. Let's hope the readers still manage to think for themselves (or watch 18 Doughty Street...)

[Edward]

Sorry, meant to add that one can only assume they want to "brown" nose their way through the Brown lobby.

[mirthios]

The 'Comment' is now online. It includes the line:
"there is a decency and integrity about Mr Brown that the Mail admires."

Funny, hadn't noticed either of those qualities myself.

[Andrew Woodman]

"there is a decency and integrity about Mr Brown that the Mail admires"

Is that why he imposes virtually all his taxes by stealth and is slowly realising his goal of destroying the middle classes. The Mail has really lost it today.

[malcolm]

The Mails leaders do not sit well with their columnists.See Richard Littlejohn 2 pages later who admits that he 'almost likes the Wicked Witch' for what she's done.
I suspect that you're right Tim that personal relationships matter.The Mail was also kinder to David Blunkett than just about any other paper in Fleet Street during his troubles because of his friendship with Dacre. But rest assured Dacre and just about all his staff are dyed in the wool Tories and the Mail will support the Tory party unstintingly whatever happens. If Cameron proves to be tough on Crime and Immigration they will do so with a greater zeal than any other newspaper.

[John Coles]

It seems a pity, Editor, that a crude entry like that of Mr Fulford should feature on such an interesting thread.

[TFA Tory]

The right-wing press are talking up Brown because they are unhappy with Cameron. He is not talking about the issues that matter to their readers. They want action on public services, crime, immigration, tax and pensions. Cameron offers higher fuel and air taxes plus a large dose of political correctness on candidate selection.

Cameron regularly criticises the Thatcher and her policies. He replaced the torch of liberty with a child's scribble. Brown, by contrast, praises Thatcher and her achievements.

It is time to save a large salary and sack Steve Hilton. The alternative is that it will be change to lose.

[Denis Cooper]

Brown made two correct and related decisions of paramount importance:

1. To retain and significantly improve the system he inherited, whereby the Bank of England sets interest rates to meet a stated target for domestic inflation.

2. To stay out of the euro.

Neither of those are "pure", in the sense that for example the inflation target is now stated in terms of the EU's CPI, rather than the British RPI-X, and while we're not in the euro he has agreed to stay within the EU's 3% budget deficit limit.

But the scheme of keeping the pound, then setting interest rates just to control UK inflation, while allowing the pound to float freely against other currencies, has worked a damned sight better than previous schemes like trying to run the UK economy so that the pound could be held on a peg against the dollar, or kept within a range against the mark. Of course going the whole hog of scrapping the pound and handing control of monetary policy to the ECB in Frankfurt would have been a disaster.

Most of his other decisions have been wrong and damaging to the economy, but the benefits of those two fundamental decisions which he got right have been so great that so far they've easily outweighed his many mistakes.

How long that will continue to be the case is a moot point, but obviously while it does the Tory party will continue to be at a disadvantage on perceived economic competence, given the folk memory of its own performance when it was last in office.

[John]

I've studied the Mail for years, its support for the Conservative party has been, consistent and total. However in recent years, it has stuck to a 'moral' agenda. This agenda has made it even more Conservative, but less a supporter of the Conservative party. In 1970 the then Mail columnist Bernard Levin wrote in his column, that in the forthcoming GE he would be supporting Labour, the column was cleared by the editor. The proprieter, De Vere Harmsworth, (who lived in Paris) on receiving his copy, contacted the Editor, Levin was dismissed. Compare that with the situation today, Melanie Phillips is allowed to pour vitriol on David Cameron, unchecked. In its sister paper the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens uses every opportunity to vent his spleen on Cameron who he detests. Compare that to the Guardian or Independent, where even those columnists who are open in their support for the Labour party, do not attack Cameron with anything like the fervour that Phillips/Hitchen do. Those two columnists have been given a licence to express Associated Newspapers true feelings about Cameron and the present day Conservative Party. If anyone thinks the Guardian is a fully paid up member of New Labour hasn't been looking at this weeks Steve Bell cartoons, they have been just brilliant.

[James Maskell]

Now Mandelson wades in...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5380640.stm

[malcolm]

John no newspaper group employs columnists with excactly the same views.The Mail also employs Max Hastings and Steven Glover as regular columnists who are generally loyal to the Conservative party.When I worked at the MOS we had as a star columnist the massively overrated Julie Burchill who liked Thatcher but hated the Conservative Party.It didn't stop us being completely behind the party during the 1992 election.

[Chad]

"On UKIP and Europe related threads I can take your constant self-promotion""

Huh? I simply said that people are begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a better choice than Cameron.

That's an honest point that many agree with, even though it is a horrible choice.

A perfectly valid point and in line with the thread subject.

Cameroons are becoming increasingly twitvhy and abusive. I wonder why...

[John]

Max Hastings until recently was a supporter of New labour, he has returned to supporting the Conservatives since Cameron became leader, and disenchantment with Blair. The point I am making is that there was a time when the Mail would have never allowed criticism of the Conservative party, as the treatment of Bernard Levin shows, that is not the case today. I am sure come the next GE, the Mail editorial line will be to support the Conservative party, but it will not be done with the same vigour as in the past. After all on the morning of the William Hague election the Mail (memory) led with the Michael Barrymore scandal, unthinkable in the past.

[Sean Fear]

I don't think that there's any doubt that many right wing columnists are sceptical about the Cameron project, nor that they are reflecting the views of a significant proportion of their readers.

Obviously there are large numbers of people out there who detest New Labour, and all it stands for, but (so far) see no evidence that a Cameron-led government would be any better.

[Tapestry]

The Mail is navigating away from reality. The compass is pointing East. They're steering West. A large cliff, although not yet visible is approaching.

How come so many bloggers so easily assume that dead tree merchants must be right? In the words of Serf, as sure as toast is brown, 'Brown is toast'.

[sjm]

In yesterday's DT, Rachel Sylvester's profile of the Chancellor's wife made a point of how she has buttered up Paul Dacre.
Mrs Brown is a professional PR woman and therefore understands journalists' egos.

Given Brown's prediliction for subterfuge - such as not releasing significant budget changes in public - and his monomania for complex control systems in all situations, Dacre's comments about his integrity ring extremely hollow.

[Alexander Drake]

I think it simply shows that people are gradually holding their nose and begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a much better choice than Cameron.

Is that your view Chad? You'd really rather have another Labour government than David Cameron?

[Chad]

Yes.

Cameron is not offering a low tax, pro-grammar, small government, anti-positive discrimination, anti state funding agenda, so unfortunately, it's better the devil you know until a real choice emerges.

[Chad]

..i despise the socialist approach butonly UKIP is offering a real choice but they are not big enough to win government.

I'll be voting UKIP of course, but I'll certainly help to derail Cameron's chances of winning.

[Sean Fear]

Oh, I still think this government deserves a kicking, Chad. In a marginal seat, one should vote for whichever candidate is best placed to keep Labour out, and that will usually be a Conservative.

[Chad]

100% agree Sean. I'm sure it's clear that I don't like the choice on offer. A hung parlaiment would be useful for Britain, democracy and the small values-based parties.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Mark Fulford was quite measured - considering...

"I'll be voting UKIP of course, but I'll certainly help to derail Cameron's chances of winning", says Chad. This is why he cannot ever be taken seriously.

[Mark Fulford]

Huh? I simply said that people are begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a better choice than Cameron.

Yes Chad, I know what you said. Tim’s editorial was about The Mail’s lack of objectivity towards Brown. From there you managed to fabricate a completely unsubstantiated attack upon Cameron and the Conservative Party. As a UKIP activist your motive is obvious (and self-confessed).

I apologise for my earlier outburst and to anyone who was offended. For a rare moment I was overtaken by real anger… I am fed up with the increasing sniping, often from UKIP trolls, that is making this blog almost uninhabitable.

[Og]

The Mail is an appalling rag and has been for years.

My first reaction to Chad's post was that he is now completely obsessed by his AntiDavery, but on reflection he has a TINY point - just why would the brainless Mail editorial team decide to beef up Brown, particularly on a day when all sane commentators (Craig Brown in the Telegraph the best of them) are ridiculing Brown for his same-old same-old hour of drivel and platitudes at "Conference" yesterday?

By beefing up the gloomy old socialist, they were trying to affect the balance of opinion; and on the other side of the scales sits Cameron. As Brown goes up, Cameron goes down. They know this, yet they chose to do it.

[Chad]

:-) Oh come on Justin - the thread title "Has The Mail lost its political compass>" shows the inability to look at reality rather than through cameroon-tinted glasses.

The thread title should more accurately be entitled "Has The Tory Partylost its political compass"

I know it is not what you want to hear, but if you don't listen and change, then you will walk into a fourth consecutive defeat.

[Antony Calvert]

TFA Tory is absolutely spot on... this is classical newspaper lobbying. They are uneasy with what Cameron is saying 3 years shy of an election, but come polling day when it really matters, they will come back into line.

In the meantime all this discussion is falling into the hands of Paul Dacre. He wants outrage from Conservative supporters as it puts added pressure on the leadership to start talking the language his newspaper is lobbying for.

As for Chad... he is a joke and should be treated as such.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

And a fourth defeat is something you would like to see - you've said so yourself! Given today's outburst, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the editorial team for CH are considering banning you from this site.

[malcolm]

Og, it may be an appalling rag in your opinion (it's not mine) but I think I'm right in saying that it is read by more Conservative voters than any other paper so its editorial line is important to us. One thing the Mail journalists are not is brainless 'though.I'm hoping todays editorial line was just a mistake which will be rectified shortly.We shall see.

[Deputy Editor]

In the meantime all this discussion is falling into the hands of Paul Dacre. He wants outrage from Conservative supporters as it puts added pressure on the leadership to start talking the language his newspaper is lobbying for.

Or, he could genuinely want Brown as Labour leader because, it seems to me, he would be a bad choice for Labour!

[Perdix]

This blog should be named HeadBangersReunited.com So few posters seem to want success for the Conservative Party - very little balanced thought here. Not my favourite blog anymore.

[James Maskell]

Perdix, weve been through that point so many times before, we do we really have to go back through it...cant you just accept that there are many of us who dont like whats going on?

[Tapestry]

Toast is brown.

[Gareth]

Well said Mark! Chad's disingenuousness on this site needs to be exposed, not least because it is so intellectually inconsistent.

First he posts this:

"Cameron is not offering a low tax, pro-grammar, small government, anti-positive discrimination, anti state funding agenda, so unfortunately, it's better the devil you know until a real choice emerges."

and this ...

"I'll be voting UKIP of course, but I'll certainly help to derail Cameron's chances of winning."

Then, when Sean begs to differ and says the priority is to defeat this Labour govt.and the best way to do that is to vote tory, he posts this:

"100% agree Sean. I'm sure it's clear that I don't like the choice on offer. A hung parlaiment would be useful for Britain, democracy and the small values-based parties."

Apparently, he simultaneously believes that it's 'better the devil you know' and that we need to vote tory to get rid of the Labour govt. If it wasn't so risible one would have to laugh.

[Tapestry]

If 'brown is toast'(Serf's phrase) was the Mail's story today. What on earth would they write tomorrow? They've got to spin this out as otherwise there's no news. Cameron's mainatining judicious silence as Labour are hanging tyhemesleves saving him the bother. Dead Tree media cannot look beyond today's events or they run out of material. dacre has my sympathy, but really he's not looking very bright.

[James Maskell]

Toast can be black as well...well, its black using my toaster!

[changetowin]

Mail lost its political compass?

Did it ever have one? It has been a filthy hate-filled rag for as long as I've read it!

[christina speight]

The Cameroons on the list cannot grasp the simple fact that IF one believes that Cameron is a Blair-clone built on "spin" and that he will wreck the Tory party as well as our country if he were elected - - on that belief it is clearly inadvisable to promote the victory of a Cameron-led party.

A Cameron government would be led by a leader whose first act was to break his only promise and would not promise to deliver the vitally necessary tax-cuts to restore our competitiveness, or the equally necessary and socially imperative policy of freeing the disadvantaged from crippling marginal tax and dependence on the state.

Since many people cannot stand any of the parties on offer they will either abstain or vote for the party they dislike least be it UKIP or the BNP. "Dislike least" or the one which will cause the maximum upset!!!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Yes, this site has lost its way; it's been taken over by UKIP trolls. I am very sad about it all.

[Chad]

Gareth, I was agreeing with Sean's first point that Labour deserves a kicking by getting rid of its majority.

[Gareth]

I honestly don't think you know what you believe Chad. Half your posts are in the 'more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger-I criticise-the-tory-party' vein. The other half are about how UKIP is going to destroy us. And as I've said to you before, I find your fascination with a blog which is explicitly intended for members and supporters of another political party, deeply odd.

[Chad]

Gareth,
Do we have to keep going through this? - there is a vast different between criticising the Tory Party's current direction under Cameron and conservatism and the conservative party as a whole.

[Chad]

..remember I supported Cameron on his leadership pledges, but resigned when it became clear that he didn't mean them.

Seems fair? Broken EPP pledge, introduction of institutionalised racism via fixed ethnic minority quotas, proposals for state funding, dropping the passinate low tax apporach, opposing grammar schools...

[Gareth]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. 'I'm a small 'c' Conservative' blah, blah, blah. *yawn*

[malcolm]

Does every thread have to end up talking about David Cameron or UKIP? Can't we just keep on topic for once?

[Chad]

Malcolm,
I agree - but you'll see it was Cameroons who keep bringing it up not the other way around- I simply said that people may simply see Brown as a less-worse choice than Cameron - hence the Mail article

[Editor]

Malcolm's comment is spot on. You have a way Chad of taking every thread of topic. This is about The Mail's editorial line - there will be other times to talk about your favourite topic - Has the Tory party lost its political compass?

[Gareth]

As ever Chad, it's important to remind you what you actually said,

"Cameron is not offering a low tax, pro-grammar, small government, anti-positive discrimination, anti state funding agenda, so unfortunately, it's better the devil you know until a real choice emerges."

As you see, you said YOU see Brown as the least worse choice. Quite how this is consistent with your apparent belief in low taxes, small govt. etc. is very hard to see, but then, that's a matter for you.

[Chad]

For God's sake Gareth - read my comment right at the beginning of the thread:

"I think it simply shows that people are gradually holding their nose and begrudgingly accepting that Brown is a much better choice than Cameron."

You see - a simple point - no mentin of UKIP etc etc.

However, it was then that the insults came flying in to which I responded.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Justin, can you send me an email so I have your email address please? I'm contacting a few people about a mutual concern.

[Tapestry]

Guido burns off pests. Couldn't CH do the same. Ban a blogger from a particular thread. You could set limits to the amount that Chad can bore for Britain somehow surely. The trolls've convinced themselves that Cameron is an evil infiltrator who has to be stopped. If he wasn't such, he'd have to pretend to be.

Back on thread, buy a new toaster, James Maskell 11.33

[Alexander Drake]

Chad, I went away to have dinner only to come back to see you answered "yes" to my question!

I'm genuinely sad to hear that. I guess we've got maybe 2.5 years to persuade you to think differently about the desirability of a Labour government vis-a-vis the alternative, and failing that, pray that you're not in a marginal seat. I hope you realise soon that a Labour government is the worst possible result for Britain. Ten long years is enough.

[Chad]

Well - this has become ridiculous. What a nasty, abusive lot some of you are.

There is no chance of anything but banging the Cameron drum here any more if you don't want to be abused, so it has lost any sort of value for balance.

As reasoned discussion is now impossible I will give you what you want and stop visitng and posting.

[Editor]

Justin: "Yes, this site has lost its way; it's been taken over by UKIP trolls. I am very sad about it all."

I think that's a too easy way of hiding away from the fact that there are large sections of the Conservative Party who are concerned about the direction of David Cameron's Conservative Party, Justin. There may well be some UKIP trolls but most of the people who comment negatively on these pages are discontented Tories. Loyalists to the current leadership should out-argue the critics and not simply dismiss them as trolls.

Having said that I do not think the comments left on these threads are representative of party opinion as a whole. The monthly Panel survey is, however, reliable and the September set of questions will be online within the next 24 hours. I will defend that Panel's representativeness and of course I am responsible for the editorial line of my own posts.

[Michael McGowan]

Cameron's supporters still don't seem to be getting the message that, as Sean Fear put it, there are a lot of (centre-rightish) people out there who detest the current Government but see little evidence that a Cameron-led Government would be any better. For many of them, a hung parliament may look the least worst option because they are totally repelled by the greedy dishonest narcissistic world of the politico-media elite, whether it be the Blairites or Brown's entourage or Cameron and his courtiers. Brown has spotted this and is now fraudulently reinventing himself as the "common man" and an English one at that.

It should have been apparent to the Tory High Command years ago that the centre-right feudal system they have taken for granted for years is breaking up. People whom they have not-so-privately reviled but whose votes they have assumed are in the bag are waking up and smelling the coffee. UKIP may be a bit of a joke but its existence is one symptom of this process. Mass abstention is another.

[A H Matlock]

I think this demonstrates that Brown is a friend of Dacre's and precious little else.

[James Hellyer]

I do not think the comments left on these threads are representative of party opinion as a whole.

I suspect they are more repesentative of the party's activists as a whole than they are of the party itself.

[Sean Fear]

While there are sometimes obvious trolls, James, I think that that is a fair assessment. At almost every internal Party meeting I attend, there is criticism of the current direction.

WRT my earlier post, I should add, for the sake of completeness, that in a Conservative/Lib Dem marginal, one should always prefer the Conservatives to UKIP.

[Gareth]

It's true, undoubtedly there is criticism. I wouldn't call myself a 'Cameroon' (he wasn't my first choice as leader) but I am generally supportive of his leadership and, personally, think he would be doing something badly wrong if there wasn't criticism. In a way, that's his raison d'etre. His mandate was to change the party. It's all about needing to break eggs to make omelettes isn't it?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

DVA, you can email me at [email protected]

I suspect the DM will remain Conservative as will the TD and Express - they know there markets. I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian and Indie endorsed certain Conservative candidates. The Murdoch press will stick with Labour. No hope for the Liberals.

[Andrew]

While sympathising with the difficulty of managing comments on a political blog (a problem I'm long familiar with), perhaps what's needed is a slightly different structure?

Many of the issues repeatedly argued out here are better suited to long, threaded forums. Instead the same tedious war is waged daily on the latest item comments, regardless of the actual topic. Essentially discussions have a shelf life of 2 days or so, as new items push them to the bottom. With that setup, it's inevitable comments on daily news will drift back to the same old/same old.

A further advantage to separated forum discussions would be an easier alternative to outright censorship: the "take it to the forums" warning for off-topic bunfights.....

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

*their markets*

[Tapestry]

The problem is that Cameron moves in mysterious ways. He has to be a non-Tory to be popular and win elections. We live in a country where 90% admit they have no interest in politics. The people who write here are the .1% - those who are interested, and also willing to act.

They are right to state what they believe and what motivates them, but not very bright about seeing the world from the averge person's viewpoint. They have to accept that Cameron is targeting that audience an not Conservative activists.

In fact Cameron is sound on all key issues that get activists worked up. He's not playing the Rupert Murdoch game which would make it an easier ride. He has his own mind.

Rather than trying to hole the good ship Cameron below the waterlne, activists who feel offended by him should look beyond the current PR, and ask for example how he can easily work with IDS, Redwood, Fox and others if he is a raging europhile in the mould of a Blair.

He has to beat Blair at the PR game, which he's done beautifully, which has collapsed the Lib Dem vote and forced out Kennedy. He is now collapsing labour, and especially Gordon Brown who, alongside DC
looks and sounds like a creature out of a dinosaur movie, dying a slow painful and humiliating death.

Cameron has outspun Blair and Kennedy and is now putting the skids on Brown but he is no Blair himself.

[Denis Cooper]

I would agree with that, Sean, with a few exceptions where the Tory candidate is known to be so unpatriotic (EUphemism for "traitorous") that it would be better to exclude him from Parliament even if that meant letting in a bog standard LibDem.

[Victor]

The Daily Mail seems to have come to the conclusion that voters will at the General Election. Brown is more conservative than Cameron, and the Conservative and Labour Parties are switching places. Unfortunate, but that is what you get with Cameron.

Luckily there is still time for a change of Leadership.

[Michael McGowan]

Hmmm. Didn't Beatrice Webb use the eggs and omelettes line when justifying Stalin's Purges at a state banquet in Moscow?!

[Gareth]

"Brown is more conservative than Cameron"

What a self-evidently preposterous statement. When hyperbole of this type comes along, reasoned debate leaves the room.

[Gareth]

Perhaps she did. So what? So far as I know, DC hasn't opened any gulags lately.

[johnC]

The Conservative party only has itself to blame if Gordon Brown is regarded as a successful Chancellor. It has abandoned its commitment to lower taxes and controlled public expenditure and therefore it lacks coherence and integrity in criticising his stewardship of the economy. Until we return to sound Thatcherite principles we wil;l continue to fail.

[Martyn]

The Mail leader merely confirms what lots of traditionally minded small 'c' conservative people like to think they see in Brown in their more charitable moments. There seems to be an integrity to him that appeals outside of the metropolitan loop. He is a Middle-Scotland figure in the mould of John Smith and the countless post-war bank managers and GPs in small English towns who were rarely seen as being that personable, but who were mightily respected. He touches lots of reassuring British lower-middle class respectability buttons and disavows the new-age crankery and love of celebrity as beloved by the Blairites and their Blair-Lite Tory shadows. Cameron will win the fickle, vacuous, London and the South-East rootless aspirationals who saw in Blair one of their own, but his appeal outside of that circle is by no means sure. In the North of England his background and willingness to change his opinions with his underpants appears to be going down quite poorly.

Brown on the other hand is consistent. He won't set hearts on fire but he will reassure and perhaps do enough to make a Cameron majority difficult to achieve.

[Sean Fear]

"In fact Cameron is sound on all key issues that get activists worked up"

Please explain.

[Michael McGowan]

In answer to your "so what?", Gareth, I'm always wary of opinionated people who demand drastic measures to achieve the New Jerusalam...That's what the omelettes and eggs line is all about. But then I'm not a "Tory moderniser".

Brown probably is more small-c conservative than Cameron on a number of issues. It is hardly one of his selling points so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Gareth]

Michael, we clearly differ in regarding DC's 'measures' as 'drastic' and in supposing his vision for the party is Utopian rather than just practical.

[Afleitch]

While it took me a while to wade through the Anti-Cameron venom that seems to be clogging up the message boards, the Daily Mail should not be considered the torch bearer for the Conservative Party, nor us for it. As a paper it displayes the very worst traits that we have as a nation; small mindedness, misplaced 'family values,' xenophobia, homophobia and a paternalistic attitude. If an authoritarian newspaper wishes to support an authoritarian Chancellor then let it do so. We owe the paper nothing.

[Michael McGowan]

Clearly, Gareth......although in some respects his proposals are desperately timid as he prepares to fight the next General Election on ground picked for him by the left-leaning establishment....

[Elfwith]

Taken from A Tangled web. Written by Littlejohn in the Mail
"Brown spoke of how he wanted to create a Britain where there were no 'second-class' citizens. Yet under his government, there are already two very distinct classes of citizens — those who work for the state and all the rest of us. While the hundreds of thousands of public sector workers that Gordon has added to the payroll over the past nine years — along with the millions already there — can look forward to a comfortable, index-linked retirement, those of us in the private sector have seen the value of our pensions fall by three-quarters under Labour. As a direct result of Gordon's £5 billion-a-year raid on pension funds, a generation of older people faces an impoverished and uncertain future. Meanwhile, The Man Who Stole Your Old Age can himself look forward to a gold-plated, taxpayer-funded retirement income of at least £100,000 a year at today's prices.

So yes, Brown IS a liar.

But so is Blair. And so is Labour.

And so is Cameron. And so are ALL of our political elite. Don't be taken in by any of their carefully rehearsed but oh-so-faux sincerity - all they want is POWER. Putting hopes and dreams in the hands of the political class is like putting a handful of snow onto a roaring fire - they almost instantly dissolve and you are left feeling cheated, if not burnt."

[John Hustings]

Why is it that Chad just makes one comment and a thread will be derailed as we inevitably get about a dozen comments afterwards calling him a troll and saying he shouldn't be saying what he's saying (or even allowed to say it)? He then comes back and defends himself, as he has a right to do so. But if people didn't start attacking him in the first place his comment would be just one of many.

There seem to be alot of complaint about "headbangers", yet the thing I know I'm getting tired of is people *whinging* about the so-called headbangers. I see *that* more than anything else. Almost every post descends into an argument about whether people should be allowed to complain about the leadership (apparently not), or that particular voices are supposedly dominating unfairly (it's a free forum!), rather than spending time in a discussion of issues or a sharing of opinions.

It feels like a sort of petty game of "my faction must dominate the comment section more than their faction".

I know that *that* is what makes things less attractive for me in visiting this site. I'm less interested in what particular views are expressed, than that they are on topic and discussing politics. I'm not interested in petty squabbling, but in political issues!

[Gareth]

Make your mind up Michael. Either it's 'drastic measures' and the 'New Jerusalem' or it's timidity and the 'left-leaning establishment'.

[EML]

All the opinion polls I have seen, with the relevant data at least, suggest that Cameron is a lot more popular than Brown. Head to head, Brown will lose, but without extra effort from Cameron there isn't hope of a Tory majority.

[Michael McGowan]

Gareth, I'm not a dim witness being cross-examined. I would just refer you back to my last post: "although in SOME respects [emphasis added]". The great paradox about the Tory modernisers is that they want to take drastic action (or so they have claimed in the most intemperate language) in order to rerun the Tory Party along the patrician Butskellite lines that were so "successful" in the 1950's ....a decade that they otherwise regard as the Dark Ages.

[Gareth]

Lol @ 'dim witness'. Ok. In what respects is he 'timid' and in what 'drastic'?

And, I realise it's easier to 'win' an argument if you invent your opponent's position as well, so I can reassure you that this 'moderniser' certainly sees no attractions in Butskellism.

[Jon White]

One point strikes me throughout this thread, and in the newspapers - the ASSUMPTION that Brown will take the crown. I for one hope that he does, as I see him as much easier to beat than some other possible contenders.

However, I do not think that it is in the bag for him. (Clearly he remains the favourite, however). DC MAY not face Brown at the next election. He may have to face a much less easily defeatable Leader of Nu Lab. We should take nothing for granted.

[G-MaN Wild]

EML is right. The UKIP trolls can try and bog down this site, for what should be a fantastic Conservative Party tool to debate and promote. But we are leading in the polls, we will surge even more so when we announce policy in stone. Cameron will trounce Brown, he will get a majority.
And the Daily Mail is a horrid piece of work anyway.

[Barnet Boy]

Tieless Cameron, with his bike + following car, and huskies, sled + wrong glacier, and £40,000 tree is an embarressment to the Party. How did he become a member, let alone Leader?

No wonder even the Daily Mail has given up on the Conservatives.

Act before it is too late!

[Michael McGowan]

Thanks, Gareth. With the next general election at least two years away, a mortgage to pay, a pension to save for, two children to educate and an ageing parent to keep an eye on, I had better get back to the real world. I'm certainly not relying on David Cameron to make any of those taks easier.

[James Maskell]

This is a situation which the Internet and weblogs suffer from. The problem of freedom of speech and bias. A website I visit often has been hit by the same problems. People saying the editor is biased and that its visited too nfrequently by a poltiical group. Very often its because they feel they dont have a voice. Unusual really because as commented before the only reason Chad posts so much is because others continually post critical messages about him.

Or perhaps Im biased, being a partner in crime...

[Gareth]

Oh well Michael. If you'd rather trade quips than engage in debate, suit yourself.

[Graeme Archer]

Brown has been working on Dacre for a long time, see Private Eye passim. So what? "Lots of people read it" is the usual apology held up for populist publications, as though we're supposed to bend over for the narrow minded. Lots more people don't read it. (We should worry much more about the pernicious influence of the BBC). I think we need not worry about the impact of Mail-thinking on voter intention, particularly with regard to that constituency at which the Mail aims its interminable updates on the Life of Paul Burrell and those bizarre repeat articles about the prophecies of Nostradamus (I have a memory of an article about the face of Christ supposedly revealed in a jam sandwich; it may have been a parody, but that's the trouble with the Mail, it's often hard to tell).

(Many honourable exceptions among Mail writers of course eg Melanie Phillips, Craig Brown &c &c yes OK that is a copy of Sunday's edition lying on the sofa ... and what? You want consistency?!)

In any case, Brown should beware since the Mail's history isn't 100% great in backing winners ... "Hurrah for the blackshirts" &c &c.

Though I would swap Express endorsement for that of the Mail :-0)

Gordon Brown was awful yesterday ... it will take more than a few Dacre puppies writing about how dewy-eyed Brown makes them feel in order to convince middle-England that this is their best bet for PM.

[Hope Note]

PS written as a good Presbyterian, west coast Scot!

[malcolm]

Do you actually ever read the Daily Mail Afleitch or Changetowin ?
Yes the Daily Mail supports the family but what on earth is wrong with that? But it is as far as I'm aware neither small minded,xenophobic or homophobic.No doubt you'll be able to provide us with many examples of each,Afleitch?

[Sean Fear]

They'd both probably find the Guardian and New Statesman much more to their taste, Malcolm.

[Derek Buxton]

We certainly do not want another Labour government, unfortunately it seems that we have little in the way of an alternative. The so called opposition is silent when it should be doing it's job. Not opposition for it's own sake but there are many areas where an intelligent party could make huge waves, taxation, pensions, defence, schools, hospitals etc, etc, but not a word. And that is without mentioning the dead hand of the EU which is expensive(and how)and failing in all areas. Mind, he doesn't do Europe, which shows his error, it's the EU, stupid.

[Gay ex-Tory]

Good to see that the Mail is the latest on board to see through the Cameron charade.

The Tory Party is a bunch of intolerant bigots pretending to be tolerant. I don't know what I despise the most.

[Afleitch]

To Malcolm and Sean Fear (who I'm suprised has decided to pigeonhole me as some crazy lefty because I dislike the Daily Mail, I'm a Times reader myself and as a libertarian don't take much comfort in reading either of the publications you mentioned!) I could provide examples of the Scottish Daily Mail's misguided homophobia (it's support for Bashir Maans rant against 'unatural' gay people and their supposed detrimental effect on society and the family) that have been aired in recent months, but that is not helpful. I do infact read the Daily Mail every day it's articles, comments page and so on. I also read the Times and I compare how the same news is reported in each. The Daily Mail is guilty of over sensationalism and lowest common denominator reporting in an equal (and often worse) way than the red top press.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Rather late commenting on this but no matter.

People often use the Daily Mail as a stick with which to beat the Conservative party. If they support Brown then that's a good way of breaking that connection in people's minds.

Journalists like Hitchens and the awful Heffer are also doing us a service by distancing themselves from the party.

Regarding comments, what you see anywhere like this is the complainers, people who are happy tend to keep quiet. One of the only reasons I started posting is that I have no massive complaints (but would prefer greater moveent on such things as sorting out the devolution mess) and wanted to create a little more balance. It would be very easy not to bother when you are not as enraged as the complainers.

[Gareth]

I hope 'gay ex-tory' gets tired of trolling soon ...

[Cardinal Pirelli]

A quick google will show you that scumwatchuk (their email address, at least they are truthful) also posts on a BNP forum with a remarkable understanding of their views on jew-hating.

To the press scouring these boards for quotes, please be careful who you refer to as a 'disgruntled conservative'.