« One-third of Tory members are dissatisfied with David Cameron's leadership | Main | Could this be true? »



I don't think that David Cameron has any intention of saying what his real intentions are yet on programmes like the Sunday Edition, and why should he when the only reason he is being interviewed, is so that he can be 'skewered' on a pre-determined issue by someone like Rawnsley - which was very obvious today, or made to look ineffectual etc:.

The sheer arrogance AND bias of most of the political commentators on TV is astounding; it is not that they are all very pro labour except some - Andrew Marr for example, I think media commentators and journalists think that they have the right to make or break MP's, and some treat it as some sort of game to see who skewers some unfortunate first!

A very good and accurate editorial which deserved better than the sheer silliness of the first post.
Patsy Sergeant: I think that much of the problem with political commentators is that none of their interviewees ever points out how rude/arrogant/facile they are being. Something between John Nott's mincing out of the studio and the present spineless acceptance of offensiveness is needed to redress the current appalling imbalance.

Well I would say that it is the job of interviewers to skewer politicians' policies, but of course we all know that the big players always skew from the Left, meaning the Tories get it harder than any other. One might even call it disproportionate.

I can't blame DC for running scared of them.

Well Andrew Rawnsley is a bit toothless - he was always a sidekick to Vincent Hanna who would have skewered Cameron, Blair or Campbell without much visible effort............Robin day would have eviscerated this burbling.

Rawnsley did not even stop Cameron's vast ramble after been called a Tosser for getting the Tory Party into a £35 million hole as sidekick to Michael Howard..............and Rawnsley did not stick the knife in by asking about peerage auctions.

All in all political interviewing is tame, and even Paxman is more growl than bite

I think DC is only trying to point out that there are those who would feel more comfortable saying the same old things the party has always said and in the same old way. He is right to try and present our positions differently. However the focus group as reported in the DT was very interesting, it generally supports DC stratgey but shows the dangers of spin. I believe that the strategy needs to continue but adopt a more practical stage now that maps out very celarly for the public what social responsibility will mean. We have to bring to life what we stand for and how the party would take the country froward positively. It is that new, positive feel to some of what DC says that seems to appeal the most to many voters,


John Coles has it absolutely right - interviewees should fight back. The conventional wisdom is that you just sit there and take it because you cannot win against the professional interviewer and you just come over as agressive. Perceptions have changed and in a live interview the audience respects a politician who will not be pushed around and criticises the reasonableness of the questions in a good natured way. Malcolm Rifkind is a good example.

The party doe NOT have a £35 million hole, black or otherwise it has £35 million of debt and a freehld building being sold for £30 miliion. That's a £5 million hole, which is bad enough; but as Conservatives if we are to critique the party we should attempt to get the facts right.

Thank you, John Coles (16:16) - much appreciated.

Kingbongo they are taking out a mortgage to buy the frehold to sell it so you might add the £15 million mortgage to the five you think is profit, and do you think Capital Gains Tax will be due ?

As Ive said on a number of occasions and as Editor points out, we arent asking for the old policies to be wheeled out. We want a better balance of policies. The balance is going too far I think in the way of modernisers and adjusting it to talk about (even in general tones if he doesnt want to go into detail) the core issues which traditional members care about. Cameron can still unite the Party.

Making a seriously constructive point here...please Cameron, talk more about "looked after children", fostering and adoption. Its been mentioned once in the year Cameron has been in charge and it wasnt by anyone senior. Please talk about it more often. It can form part of a discussion about dealing with poverty as looked after children stems from the problem of parents being unable to parent.

£30 million for Smith Square is a joke. No wonder the Electoral Commission is investigating.

The Party is going is going bankrupt thanks to the Michael Howard, Lord Saatchi and Jonathan Marland - the fu*king tossers within!

That's unnecessary, TFA Tory. I won't warn you again.

I see that Derek Conway is reported as having a go at Cameron and we all know that he doesn't bark until his master lets him off the lead.

Interviews with Cameron this w/e indicate that he is growing tired, nervous and perhaps a little disillusioned.

Methinks the big beasts are beginning to scent the first whiff of blood.

I see that Derek Conway is reported as having a go at Cameron and we all know that he doesn't bark until his master lets him off the lead.

Interviews with Cameron this w/e indicate that he is growing tired, nervous and perhaps a little disillusioned.

Methinks the big beasts are beginning to scent the first whiff of blood.

The way in which Lord Saachi has treated the Party over the last few years has been disgraceful. Firstly, as co-Party Chairman, he did some PR work for us - and charged us a bomb! Then he was responsible for renting us 25 Victoria for 'image' reasons whilst 32 Smith Square stood - and stands - empty with no financial returns. Thanks for nothing, Lord S.

I venture to suggest that Lord Saatchi's fantastic record of service to our party is a good deal more distinguished than yours, Justin.

Much as I deplore the current, utterly phoney, "Hug a Hoodie" ethos I do not think that telling the unemployed to fish in the Thames for their own dinners was exactly a PR coup for the Tories. Possibly Lord Saatchi had to dig us out of that hole.

Are you related to Marie Antoinette by any chance?

Editor, I apologise for the tone of my earlier post. I have been infuriated by two requests from the party for donations.

I will not donate because I do not want my money to pay off the 35m of debts that result from the financial mismanagement and waste.

A large proportion of the debt was built up under Michael Howard's leadership. Justin Hinchcliffe is right about Lord Saatchi. His disastrous decision to leave Smith Square has cost over £5m to date, probably a great deal more after the unnecessary move to Millbank next year is complete.

I also do not want to contribute to Steve Hilton's extortionate remuneration of £23,000 per month or ridiculous campaigns like the "Tosser".

I will donate again once I am convinced that my donations will be spent on high quality campaigns rather than paying for past mistakes and expensive CCHQ consultants.

Other activist friends share my opinion and have suspended donations too.

Perhaps donate to specific projects by target seats if you are worried about donations,


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