Some time ago, when I was very confident that David Cameron would deliver his EPP pledge in a timely way, I agreed to a £100 wager with Mr Chad Noble. I promised to pay The TaxPayers' Alliance £100 if the Tories failed to leave the federalist grouping by the end of the year. Chad promised to pay £100 into CCHQ coffers if Tory MEPs were out of the EPP by 31st December 2006.
History, of course, proved Chad right on this particular issue and earlier today I cycled to the TPA's offices and handed over my £100 cheque. The TPA is such a good cause so I am very happy to see my money go to help their fight for taxpayer value.
Another upside is that Chad has promised to stop commenting on ConservativeHome now my debt has been settled. Goodbye Chad. Hopefully our threads are now a little safer from being constantly sidetracked into 'Vote UKIP' debates.
But..but.. its not the end of the year yet!
Posted by: Rob | October 24, 2006 at 13:12
We want Chad back! Just for fun!
Posted by: David Walker | October 24, 2006 at 13:20
Hmmm...
His Grace never had Mr Montgomerie down as the gambling sort.
However, on this occasion, the temptation may be pardoned, not least because it was more an expression of his unwavering confidence in the public words and private assurances of Mr Cameron that he will do as he promises; and supreme faith in Mr Cameron's sincerity, honesty, and decency...
Posted by: Cranmer | October 24, 2006 at 13:23
I agree with Rob about this being a tad premature, but we've already been informed that we won't withdraw this year, so I guess now is as good a time as ever.
Unsure of my stance on the Chad issue, at times he can be well informed and can cultivate some brilliant arguments, but at other times was just plain annoying.
Posted by: Chris | October 24, 2006 at 13:27
You must be a Tory to be so gullible and believe anything Dave says.
Posted by: TimberWolf | October 24, 2006 at 13:38
£100? If I knew it was that cheap, I'd have paid ages ago.
Posted by: Andrew | October 24, 2006 at 13:52
I ask Archbishop Cranmer's forgiveness re my gambling. Once bitten, twice shy and all that!
Posted by: Editor | October 24, 2006 at 14:13
At least something good came out of it...
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | October 24, 2006 at 14:27
Bloody hell! Hinchcliffe in an accidentally reasonable moment conceding that £100 to the Taxpayers Alliance is "something good"! Will wonders ever cease to amamze?
Posted by: Hannibal | October 24, 2006 at 14:34
Must be an aberration Hannibal.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | October 24, 2006 at 14:37
Sorry to disappoint, but I was of course referring to the end of Chad! The TA? I support a flat tax and new green taxes to pay for it - what's the TA view on it?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | October 24, 2006 at 14:53
No more Chad. Such a pity. I will miss making anonymous comments against him. Oh well, there is still Justin Hinchcliffe left I suppose...
Posted by: Chris Palmer | October 24, 2006 at 15:03
I ask Archbishop Cranmer's forgiveness re my gambling.
Man, have you not heard of the Reformation? There is no longer any compulsion to seek my pardon or confess your sins to any man, for you have direct access to God and are forgiven by faith in the completed atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
On another matter, when did you acquire the gift of prophecy? Are you absolutely certain that Conservative MEPs will not be liberated from the EPP by 31st December? What about one or two? Was your wager for all MEPs, or could its wording be legally construed to indicate that one or two may withdraw, and thus the process was begun before the end of the year? Nine weeks... if a week is a long time in politics, etc, etc.
Posted by: Cranmer | October 24, 2006 at 15:08
That's a pity. Chad speaks a lot of good common-sense, and we need debate to be stimulated and views challenged. I for one will miss his comments.
Posted by: Tam Large | October 24, 2006 at 15:12
Roger Helmer is a Conservative MEP outside the EPP so technically Tim could have a case to get out of it Cranmer. Chad did win the spirit of the bet though I'm afraid imo.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | October 24, 2006 at 15:20
*sigh* I suppose deep down I knew Hinchcliffe's flash of sense was too good to be true. Oh well.
The Taxpayers' Alliance would not call for a flat tax to be "paid for" by new taxes, and nor should they. The point is that we are OVER-taxed, not that a tax-lowering reform in one area needs to be "paid for" by a tax-increasing reform in another. That's a socialist trick.
Posted by: Hannibal | October 24, 2006 at 15:26
That will teach anyone not to put any money on any promises David Cameron makes.
Posted by: david | October 24, 2006 at 16:01
The Conservatives are leaving the EPP, just not until 2009, and the deal was struck only a few months after David Cameron got in. We can't leave the EPP until we have an alternative group to sit in, and our partners want to be re-elected on the proposal first. So I would say that Chad should have paid the money to CCHQ, and then left. But I suppose we can't have everything.
Posted by: Ashton | October 24, 2006 at 16:57
The Conservatives are leaving the EPP, just not until 2009, and the deal was struck only a few months after David Cameron got in
This was the only promise Cameron made when he stood for the leadership, in order to attract votes from Hannam et al.
I knew it was a promise he would not keep.
Come 2009 I have no doubt that the Czech "engagement" will have broken down for one reason or another and we will remain in the EPP.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 24, 2006 at 18:06
Rejoice! Rejoice!
(Didn't he also say he would stop visiting the site as well? If so, I guess that'll mean an end to comments being lifted from the threads here to be rehashed on his blog as attacks on David Cameron and the Conservatives.)
Seriously though, it's a shame things had to end this way, as his contributions were positive, insightful and constructive when he first started visiting.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | October 24, 2006 at 18:12
Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Bring back Chad! He is an institution.
Posted by: Ian Sider | October 24, 2006 at 18:18
his contributions were positive, insightful and constructive when he first started visiting.
Really Daniel?
I've been told that when he first arrived he was pro-Cameron which, if correct, is very interesting. I'd certainly like to know why he changed his views.
And would I be correct in inferring that you believe he ceased to be "positive, insightful and constructive" when he stopped supporting The Blessed Dave?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 24, 2006 at 18:30
"And would I be correct in inferring that you believe he ceased to be "positive, insightful and constructive" when he stopped supporting The Blessed Dave?"
No.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | October 24, 2006 at 18:34
Come on! Chad is a Don Quixote, tilting at every passing windmill. Think how many causes he espoused in the time he has been posting.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 24, 2006 at 23:03
You sound like you're running scared Mr Montgomerie, now that popular talk show host, James Whale, has announced he's considering standing as UKIP's candidate for London Mayor. Mind you, I'm not sure how Nigel Farage feels about it. He jokingly invited Whale to be the candidate during a radio interview last week. Poor old James took him seriously. Still, at least Whale will have a platform for his anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Israeli views. He's been spending too much time with his good friend George Galloway if you ask me.
Posted by: UK Daily Pundit | October 25, 2006 at 09:17
I rather regret Chad's departure, even though it was voluntary. I doubt I'd ever go over to UKIP myself, but I can see why some of their policies would attract Conservative Party members who have doubts about the content of Cameron's programme. At least UKIP's policies have a certain clarity about them.
More generally, I'm becoming a bit concerned (in light of the recent bans) that CH is in danger of becoming a blog where only Conservatives - as opposed to conservatives - are welcome to comment.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | October 25, 2006 at 11:11
After the success of the ODS at last weekend Senate elections I think the quicker we come out of our associate membership of the EPP the better. Ten out of ten through Tim for keeping to the bet, but shame that people who voted for David on the pledge(not me)can't know change their vote?
Posted by: Peter | October 25, 2006 at 11:16
sorry to see Chad go, another dissident voice consigned to Siberia
Posted by: David Banks | October 25, 2006 at 11:53
Without sharp edges, even the brightest diamonds lose their sparkle.
Posted by: Crighton | October 25, 2006 at 13:08
Like Tim's bank balance, Conservative Home will be the poorer for Chad's departure. It does Conservatives no harm to realise that there are other non-racist, non-socialist parties out there and Chad is an articulate exponent of one of those alternative parties.
Posted by: Simon Richards | October 25, 2006 at 13:34
Ashton Cull says " We can't leave the EPP until we have an alternative group to sit in, and our partners want to be re-elected on the proposal first"
Of course the Tory MEPs can leave the EPP at any time. Indeed Roger Helmer by a roundabout route already has! You don't have to be in a group!
And WHO are these "partners" who want to be reelected ??? And why should we care?
As for the resolution of the bet based on Cameron's broken promise surely this is just an excuse further to purge the list of any non-Cameron groupies?
Posted by: ratbag | October 25, 2006 at 13:40
You bet one *hundred* pounds? OUCH! Ouch indeed! Good on you for paying up though, Editor.
I hope Mr Woodman and Mr Dunn will be equally forthcoming with their respective wonga come the first Friday in May 2009 I've not forgotten, chaps ;) :D
Posted by: comstock | October 25, 2006 at 21:31
I've not forgotten either Comstock. I expect to collect my winnings or I'm emigrating!After I've paid you of course!
Posted by: malcolm | October 25, 2006 at 22:57