"Sometimes infuriating but always good value" - David Cameron 'endorsing' ConservativeHome

This is David Cameron's videoed acceptance of his 'Environmental Champion' award - first shown at Monday night's ConservativeHome Awards Evening.

Comments

[Loyal Tory]

"Sometimes infuriating but always good value"

Fair description of DC himself.

[ukfirst]

"Infuriating" presumably means banging on about embarrassing things.

[Jeff Greenland]

ukfirst, 10.31:

'"Infuriating" presumably means banging on about embarrassing things.'

Or maybe it's a reference to the fact that lots of the comments left here are ill-informed, self-important and preposterous.

[Michael McGowan]

"Ill-informed, self-important and preposterous": perhaps it is a case of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery - we have only to look at those who regard themselves as our elders and betters: the Conservative Party at Westminster.

[nolocalisminmybackyard]

Michael McGowan: the Conservative Party at Westminster ARE the betters of the wider party. Isn't that the point? Under DC, we have our first poll leads for years. But if he listened to some of the posters on Cons Home, we'd be unelectable for another decade. I shuddered at George Osborne's comments on internet-based direct democracy.

[Michael McGowan]

Lenin, thank you for that little sermon on the joys of democratic centralism. You must be suffering from a truly catastrophic crisis of self-confidence if you regard the Conservative Party at Westminster as your betters. This is petit bourgeois reflexive deference of the 1930's. As for internet-based democracy, hard luck: it's here to stay. You might as well try to uninvent the wheel.

[Jeff Greenland]

Yeah, far better that we allow local education authorities to prioritise fingerpainting over English and maths, and replace A and E centres with aromatherapy facilities.

BUT IF THAT'S WHAT LOCAL PEOPLE WANT! BUT IF IT'S WHAT LOCAL PEOPLE WANT! Jibber, jibber, jibber.

Representative democracy is also here to stay, and mercifully it goes some way to saving us from the lunatic views of the great unwashed.

[Anthony Broderick]

Jeff Greenland's comment smells of what he accuses others of. Besides, there is a difference between comments made on the site and the actual site which is fair, informative and widely respected.

[Editor]

Thank you Anthony!

I have never claimed that the comments on this site are representative although I do make occasional attempts to spring clean the comments threads by banning those visitors who abuse the comments policy.

What is representative of grassroots opinion is the monthly survey and results of the October survey will be published very soon.

[nolocalisminmybackyard]

Michael McGowan: if I'm Lenin, perhaps you're Proudhon, because you don't seem to be a conservative at all. You don't believe in parties, you don't believe in firm government; you're an anarchist. If the Party should adopt internet-based direct democracy, why don't we just sack Oliver Letwin, and adopt Conservative Home's 100 Policies? I'm sure the middle ground of the electorate will go for it.

[Michael McGowan]

No, I am delighted to say that I am neither a small c nor a large C conservative: I am an economic liberal with slight libertarian leanings, who in the past has voted Conservative. Truly bizarre to suggest that that makes me an anarchist. Like many other people of independent judgment, I simply don't trust the major political parties, who are largely made up of second-rate careerists who lie lie and lie again to the electorate and who are between them responsible for much of the damage which has been done, and continues to be done, to this country. In the Looking Glass World of Jeff Greenland, these people, in the face of all the evidence, are suddenly transformed into a far-seeing elite who can best discern the public good. Perhaps Jeff would be so good as to supply us with the name of his dope supplier: it must be good stuff.

Conservative Home is not a blueprint for anything. It is a discussion forum. The fact that it infuriates the Party top brass shows that it is doing its job: increasing transparency, broadening the terms of debate and shedding light on their evasions and murky dealings, which like all oligarchs, they would rather keep well-hidden.

[Jeff Greenland]

The site itself is wonderful. On that, at least, we can agree.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Well, if this site never achieves anything more than getting Wat Tyler's transparency-on-spending 100 Policy into actual law, that is a massive step.

Then voters will realise that schools'n'hospitals is only a third or so of government spending and that at least a tenth (or as much as a fifth, per the TPA) is just waste, quangos, balancing and missing figures, consultants, PR exercises and so on. Law and order (police and prisons) seems to be less than 5% of government spending, but check with prisonworks on that.

[Richard]

"Representative democracy is also here to stay, and mercifully it goes some way to saving us from the lunatic views of the great unwashed."

Nice to know you have such faith in the British people. I may not agree with the majority on everything but I don't think that makes them lunatics.

[Sean Fear]

"the Conservative Party at Westminster ARE the betters of the wider party. Isn't that the point?"

Where do you get that extraordinary idea from?

[James Maskell]

My Internet connection right now couldnt be much worse and with a change to my Internet Explorer its suddenly far slower than it was before the updates...cheers Microsoft! I shall get to the point.

If it pisses off the elitist leadership we have who couldnt give a stuff about us members, then I think its a damn good thing.

[James Maskell]

Sean, our own Convention Chairman said so when asking for our help in relation for the By-Election Campaign Task Force.
It was saying that we (the voluntary party) shouldnt leave it all to those in Westminster.

[Jamie Oliver's Sausage]

Anything that infuriates Cameron and his clones must have a lot going for it.

CH has become the voice of the party's silent majority. Maybe it upsets Cameron to be reminded of that fact.

[Deborah]

"the Conservative Party at Westminster ARE the betters of the wider party."

As sjm said on the MEP thread

"We have to get rid of the idea that any 'sitting' politician has the right to a seat for life "

[matt wright]

I don't think the comments section of Con Home is the voice of the silent majority of the party at all. I would tend to agree with the editor that the monthly survey is likely to be a much closer representation of views,

Matt

[Julian williams]

"the Conservative Party at Westminster ARE the betters of the wider party. Isn't that the point? Under DC, we have our first poll leads for years."

What happened to the Tory vote at Bromley, did they turn out to endorse their "betters" and the leadership of Cameron, or did they stay at home?

Cameron is out of touch, he has nothing to say and will be a disaster for the Tory party and the country if they are ever foolish enough to turn out and vote for him.

[Tory Loyalist]

I don't think the comments section of Con Home is the voice of the silent majority of the party at all.
________________________________________________

No you wouldn't, would you.

So inconvenient when real people with the ability to think for themselves don't toe the party line.

[Martin Wright]

My reaction to David Cameron has been, by turns, to be charmed and infuriated. So if what is said here occasionally infuriates him, good! I say this not in a nasty way, but because I think it is good for all of us, especially for our leaders, to be given pause for thought.

The leadership must stay in touch with the ordinary supporters. There is a balance to be struck between trying to make necessary changes and going so far so fast that one loses core support.

The danger for David Cameron is that he does too well in the Westminster village. If he and his colleagues read the comments here regularly, then it will be a welcome reality check.

David Cameron has my goodwill, I just wish sometimes he would be a bit more conservative and less keen to follow fashoins that the general public have got thoroughly fed up with.

[matt wright]

Martin, I have some sympathy with your views here. It does no harm at all to have reality checks and in fact tends to strengthen any endeavour. Some of the comments on this site, whatever side they take, are considered and well argued but others are just obsessively negative and reactionary. Conservatism is at its worst when it only means conserving things as they are or were (although conserving good things is good in itself). One of the great things about lady Thatcher (in my humble view) was that she wasn't a traditional Conservative and in fact she was radical, forward looking and wanted to change things. She didn't get everything right but she went forward with hope and changed things. I think DC is trying to do the same in our own age. No doubt Tory Loyalist will be choking over his Telegraph at me saying this.....

Matt

[Tory Loyalist]

No doubt Tory Loyalist will be choking over his Telegraph at me saying this.....

______________________________________________________

The only thing that would have me choking over my Telegraph would be the spectacle of Mr Wright saying something vaguely Conservative.

Margaret Thatcher's approach was a somewhat transatlantic combination of what Matt Wright would describe as reactionary Conservativism mixed with economic liberalism of the Friedman type and political liberalism of the Hayek school.

Actually, that combination suited me very well, whih is why I was a loyal supporter of Thatcher throughout her leadership and why my support for the party has been semi-detached (albeit stronger when Hague was leader) ever since.

I know many others who would say exactly the same of themselves. Needless to say, none of them fit the Matt Wright profile.

It is complete nonsense to say "conserving good things is good in itself" because the notion of what is "good" in the body politic is entirely subjective.

However, if you are going to start by calling yourself a Conservative that clearly carries some baggage. Conservatism was founded upon tradition and support for traditional hierarchy, but by the time Thatcher came to power the political status quo had been so totally altered by years of destructive socialism that a counter-revolution was possible, and she made it happen.

Yes Thatcher was forward-looking and dynamic, but like Ignatius Loyola she was a warrior using exciting new tactics to advance the old faith. Unlike Cameron she did not contemptuously cast aside the principles of her father and grandfather.

I have no sense that Cameron is attempting to advance any part of the cause in which I believe. He seeks personal power through appeasement of evil, and we all know where that leads.

This week, however, there's a growing apprehension that he's losing the plot. As the blessed Simon Heffer proclaims this morning.

"Things are looking far rosier for Mr Brown. After the pasting Dave took from Tony Blair in Wednesday's Queen's Speech debate, the prospects of Dave being anything other than Leader of the Opposition look bleak for the moment."