Cameron: I am a true Tory

In an article for this morning's Telegraph David Cameron attempts to reassure 'core voters' that he is a "true Conservative."  He writes at a time when some of the party's leading Thatcherites are warming to UKIP.  The Telegraph reveals that former Tory Treasurer Stanley Kalms is considering voting for Nigel Farage and his out-of-the-EU message.  "The option remains open for me, and Tories that I know, to vote UKIP," Lord Kalms told The Telegraph.  Stuart Wheeler, the man who gave £5m to Tory coffers in 2001, has held talks with UKIP's leader and may give the party money.

A lot of David Cameron's article contains things that any politician could say.  Who could disagree with the aspiration for a "stronger economy, well-educated children and lower crime"?  But there are a few more specific reassurances that, Mr Cameron believes, put some distance between Tories and Gordon Brown:

• Civil liberties: "Under my leadership, we have opposed ID cards and will replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights that better protects both our security and our freedom."
• Family life: "I have made the strongest commitment to supporting the family and marriage that any Conservative leader has made for a generation."
• Lower taxation: "It is why we are pledged to share the proceeds of economic growth between public services and lower taxes, thereby ensuring that over time the state takes a smaller share of national wealth."
• Defence: "It is why we support the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent and have led the campaign for better conditions for Forces families."
• Euroscepticism: "It is why we will restore Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, and it is why we have announced our withdrawal from the federalist European People's Party."

Mr Cameron's article is at its most interesting in its interpretation of Thatcherism.  Accusing UKIP defector Tim Congdon of painting a false picture of what Mrs Thatcher achieved, the Tory leader writes:

"Commentators such as Tim Congdon seem to have forgotten much of what Mrs Thatcher said and did. It was Mrs Thatcher who launched the Scarman inquiry in 1981 in an attempt to understand the alienation of young black men. And it was Mrs Thatcher who launched modern environmental politics with her Royal Society speech in 1988.  The reduction of Thatcherism into a sort of laissez-faire libertarianism does not do justice to her record. She was animated by a vision of the good society – a vision obscured by decades of economic dirigisme and cultural relativism. The task she set herself was to restore not only personal liberty in economic matters, but also a sense of duty, respect and moral obligation in social matters.  I, too, am animated by a vision of the good society. What I call social responsibility – responsibility to family and community, nation and planet – is as central to my politics as economic liberalism."

It is certainly true that Margaret Thatcher believed in more than capitalism.  She was and is a social conservative who, in her autobiography, talked about her unfinished work to renew the family and tackle crime.  David Cameron's vision of social responsibility - to be developed at a special conference in London today - is consistent with Thatcherism.  Where David Cameron will need to do more to reassure free market Tories is that he has the steel to reverse the tax and regulatory burdens with which Gordon Brown is slowly undoing the Thatcherite legacy.

Comments

[UKIP@HOME]

http://e-ukip-home.blogspot.com/

The United Kingdom Independence Party like to trot out the misleading story that they were responsible for losing the Conservatives 27 seats during the 2005 General Election.

Using the same sort of UKIP logic then I would like to claim that the Conservatives caused UKIP to lose 451 election deposits - costing UKIP £225,500.00.

If people had voted UKIP instead of Conservative, then UKIP would have gained more votes and kept all those lost deposits.

I do hope any potential UKIP donors like seeing their money vanish down a black hole. You might as well use your cash for toilet paper for all the good it will do!

[John Marsh]

Zero immigration - the UKIP policy - many Tories would prefer to the present Tory stance of not quite so many. We are a small overcrowded island. House full.

[HF]

Someone should compare DC with The Freedom Association principles, DC has got closer to these principles than most previous Conservative Leaders.

No ID cards, replace HRA, Social responsibility, get out of the EPP etc..

[michael mcgough]

DC refers in his article to his setting up the 'Movement for European Reform' and yet it's website www.europeanreform.eu is moribund.His lack of precision in referring to Europe when what he means is the EU is also grounds for concern. Good however to see the Telegraph correctly describing UKIP as anti EU.

[HF]

Michael, do you acknowledge that DC is closer to TFA than predecessors on the ID card matter because he is opposed to them?

[Tam Large]

Yeah right Dave... However actions speak louder than words, and you have ratted on important promises before. The "trust me I'm a politician" line won't work now. Give us clear Tory policy and action and we might believe you. Give us action, not just more soundbites.

[Scotty]

Michael, on this thread I would like to see a discussion about David Cameron's article and how he compares to Mrs Thatcher. It would be quite interesting because I am reading a fascinating autobiography about the great lady, and I needed to be reminded of the actual difficulties she faced in the run up to her first GE and what she actually promised in her first term.
I do not see the relevance of your comments on UKIP other than to advertise them as antiEU, and try and hijack the thread???

[jorgen]

Cameron: I am a true Tory

Wow, it is "let's-tell-the-fruitcakes what-they-want-to-hear"-day today!

[Mark McCartney]

>>Someone should compare DC with The Freedom Association principles<<

You a member of the Freedom Association HF?

I am, and I can tell you that whatever DC's views of identity cards my colleagues are (in general) not very happy with him.

In particular, we see him as more inclined to Political Correctness than any previous Tory leader and less Eurosceptic than his two predecessors.

As for Scotty (how's Keith BTW?)this thread is actually defined by UKIP's challenge and Cameron's panic-stricken reaction.

[Mark Wallace]

HF @ 9:00,
"do you acknowledge that DC is closer to TFA than predecessors on the ID card matter because he is opposed to them?"

Yes, HF, we do indeed acknowledge this, and it is a very positive improvement from Michael Howard's previous stance that the Cameron leadership has made their opposition to ID cards very clear and unequivocal.

Mark Wallace,
Campaign Manager,
The Freedom Association

[HF]

Mark
Thanks for the reply, is that acknowledged
on the TFA website?

[Scotty]

"As for Scotty (how's Keith BTW?)this thread is actually defined by UKIP's challenge and Cameron's panic-stricken reaction."
Oh well that is the thread gone already!
I am a conservative member who helps their local association, I don't know any UKIP voter's and in fact they do not stand either locally or nationally in my area. The Libdems on the other hand do, and in fact as many conservatives know and experience in the rest of the UK they like Labour are the relevant opposition we need to be fighting.
In fact with 60+ MP's it is them we need to take on rather than a minority party who did not even perform well at the 06' local elections.

[Tory T]

Exactly. It really is tiresome with Michael McGough and all the other ukip trolls spamming every thread to promote their fringe party.

Real Eurosceptics know the choice is between Labour and the Tories and the Tories will pull out of the social chapter and leave the federalist epp. A vote for ukip just lets the Euro-loving, free immigration Labour party back in. The Europhiles just love ukip as one of their best allies in getting them elected.

[Mark McCartney]

>>I don't know any UKIP voter's<<

Well you "know" at least one, because Daniel Vince-Archer admitted to voting for them at the last Euro election. I'm sure you're right that UKIP don't stand in Hackney.

The challenge from UKIP is very different from that posed by the LibDems. The LibDems play to win. UKIP now appear to be waging a guerilla war primarily aimed at changing the Tories or failing that, hitting them hard.

UKIP is also intending to "turn" prominent centre-right Tories and the news in the Telegraph about Kalms and Wheeler comes as much as a shock to me as anybody. I'll bet Cameron choked on his museli this morning.

I suspect that Kalms's attitude is not uninfluenced by Cameron's change of tack on the Middle East, concerning which I posted ysterday.

[Mark Fulford]

I am sorry that education didn't make it onto David Cameron's list of differences. He has no direct experience of state education, so he needs to open his ears a little to what his party and the public are saying:

On Question Time last week, not one person in the audience had a good word to say about Labour’s education policies. We see our children’s education being blighted by government control-freakery and mismanagement, but the Conservative Party -- which should be screaming blue murder -- is saying and doing diddlysquat. It's a f***ing disgrace.

[Scotty]

" and the news in the Telegraph about Kalms and Wheeler comes as much as a shock to me"
Why are you surprised? I think that the recent thread on this site pointing out the fact that many new people were lining up to donate money to the party might have alerted you to the fact that these two might not be happy.
"Well you "know" at least one, because Daniel Vince-Archer admitted to voting for them at the last Euro election. I'm sure you're right that UKIP don't stand in Hackney."
I do not know Danial VA other than from his occasional posts on this site.
Also every time you make a petty comment like that I know I have made a valid point, that you are left unable to rebut.
So you think that by attacking my credentials as a conservative member, who is supportive of the leadership which won an overwhelming mandate from across the party would discredit my points or arguments.
Mark, it does not make UKIP any more attractive to me or many other conservatives who post on the site.

[Simon]

Re: the telegraph bit. It amuses me to see that when one wants to proclaim their 'right wing' credentials they shamelessly quote Mrs T's name. Mrs T proved her credentials by being quite simply the best PM of the modern age, by conviction, guts, and argument. I'm willing Cameron to succeed but i just have this little niggle at the back of my mind that he would fit quite nicely onto 'Bremner, Bird and Fortunes' 'Ok yah' dinner party. It's an absolute bugger waiting for the 'policy reviews' to report back, and doubts like this ,i hope, will evaporate faster than Tony Blair's 'integrity' when they are published- and debated by us in the party.

[MH]

Dave has reason to be worried. When donors like these and respected (by the City, let's be honest) economists like Tim Congdon say he is on the wrong track, then there may be trouble ahead!

[HF]

Stepping back from the comments in the media this morning, I wonder if a big cause of the "noises off stage" from the various Lord and a few donors is due to the generational gap between them and the Tory Leadership? Most of these people complaining, seem to me to be in their 60s and 70s.

David Cameron is a middle aged man who is at 40 still 20 or 30 years younger than these folk.

40 year olds and younger grew up in a time different to 60 and 70 year olds. Such children grew up learning that Homosexuality was for example legal whereas people of 60 and 70 grew up learning it was illegal.

The same applies to the priorities of 40 and 30 year olds, they are radically different to 60 and 70 year olds.

Europe is that sort of an issue, of more interest to a 60 and 70 yr old than a 30 yr old not even born when we joined the EU.

The issue is should we mainly focus on issues for 60 and 70 yr olds or 30 and 40 yr olds? The right answer is that there has to be a balance and I think that DC in the article above has struck a balance.

[Scotty]

HF, David Cameron is doing something quite simple and its looking very effective in the polls.
He has decided that instead of trying to protect a few deserters to UKIP he is going to do what the party has failed to do for years, and that is take on Labour and the Libdems.
Trying to shore up a few Southern constituencies against a UKIP protest vote in effect cost us far more seats in other parts of the country.
Labour and the Libdems are the parties we need to fight and win against to form a government, this new strategy has done more in one year to detoxify the conservative brand and that speaks volumes.

[James Maskell]

Given how being a Tory these days isnt hard to do (the broad church has become somewhat wider with Camerons election), Cameron has a point. However when the word "true" is used it implied hes a right wing Tory. I disagree with that strongly. Given our spending priorities and pledges, and our awkward comments regarding tax cuts, not to mention centralisation of power in CCO, Im not convinced he is. Hes a lefty wet. Not a true Tory.

[Perdix]

Tam Large 09.28 - Exactly what promises (plural) has DC ratted on?

[Valedictoryan]

"Stuart Wheeler, the man who gave £5m to Tory coffers in 2001, has held talks with UKIP's leader and may give the party money."

I trust that the editorial line remains the same: It's time for Cameron to stand up to big donors.

[HF]

RE MH "Dave has reason to be worried. When donors like these and respected... economists like Tim Congdon say he is on the wrong track, then there may be trouble ahead!"

MH the fact is that Tory finances have not been in as good shape in more than 10 years.

As to economists opposing a Tory Leader, I remember the hundreds that signed that letter opposing Mrs T. They were all wrong. This is about winning elections not attracting 1 economist.

[Torygirl]

Some members of UKIP are not even old enough to vote yet, so HF is wrong if he thinks they are all in their dotage.

I am not surprised that Sir Stanley Kalms and Stuart Wheeler are trying to pressurize Dave into taking a more EUsceptic stance. It is a wake up call, but I suspect that their bark is worse than their bite and they will still vote Tory when push comes to shove.

[HF]

Re Tory girl, I was not refering to members of UKIP, just the Lords and donors etc who have been in the news recently about UKIP.

I never said it was about their dotage.

I said it was that they had a different set of priorities.

We need to acknowledge our differences not try and be politically correct about them.

[HF]

Re valedictoryan, yes Mr J.S. Wheeler has been a big supporter of the Tory party particularly in its worst years from 2001 to 2004.

I pulled this off the Electoral site

from May 2001 £2,452,000.00
2002 £18,000.00
2003 £514,500.00
2004 £523,500.90
2005 £241,000.00
2006 £81,300.00 (believe, not fully filed)

[Mark McCartney]

>>So you think that by attacking my credentials as a conservative member<<

I don't recall doing that Scotty, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that you are a very active member of the party.

Having just collected the Telegraph (the paperboy apparently resigned over the weekend)I was interested to see the front page headline "I am a true Tory Cameron tells core voters"

Wow! Seems we're back to a "core vote strategy". Does this rank as a "U-turn"?

If so, DC is not quite as Thatcherite as he's currently pretending.

[Esbonio]

I also remember all those economists who objected to then Conservative policy; which leads me to think one of them is more likely to be right than wrong about Cameron.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"I am sorry that education didn't make it onto David Cameron's list of differences. He has no direct experience of state education, so he needs to open his ears..", says Mark Fulford. Well, yes and no.

Yes, because his children all attend state primary schools, although it will be interesting to see if Dave sends his kids to the Paddington Academy where the pupils are being taught in sheds in the playgrounds thanks to some PFI cock-up.

No, because, if he did, he would understand and champion the need for grammar schools - especially in the inner cities.

[Mark Fulford]

Yes, because his children all attend state primary schools

Thanks for correcting me... I didn't know that.

I wonder if he feels as powerless as the rest of us?

[jorgen]

David Cameron's vision of social responsibility ... is consistent with Thatcherism.

Lady Thatcher did not find it necessary to explain she was a true Tory. It was evident.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I think DC is leaving himself wide open to being described as being different things to different people. Personally, I was very happy when he described himself as a "liberal Conservative" - does that still stand?

I agree that we should be spending and time and energy on attacking the Fib Dems - not wasting time on a fringe party (probably being secretly funded by the government to keep us out). As a Conservative, I don't like banning thinsg but, Tim, would it not be wise to consider blocking all known UKIP supporters and members who seem intent on hijacking every thread to promote their own party and to stir endlessly?

[Jack Stone]

What we should be championing about education is not how good grammer schools are but how we can make every school as good as them.
Going on about grammer schools all the time makes as seem elitist and that we don`t care about those who attend comprehensives etc and that is deeply damaging to us I feel.
We must be the voice of the ordinary majority not the privilege minority.

[Chris Hughes]

But... we've heard all this before... why is this news?

[Denis Cooper]

On the reasonable assumption that the next general election will be fought under FPTP, it will make precious little difference to the outcome whether somebody votes for a minor party or a protest candidate, or whether they decide to join the increasing numbers who don't bother to vote. One reason - not the only reason, but probably the main reason - why people don't bother to vote is because they no longer believe that it will make much difference which party has a Commons majority, and one reason - again not the only reason, but probably the main reason - why they feel that is because they sense that power has been shifted away from Parliament to the EU. Which is now becoming a concern not just in this country, but in other EU member states, for example this has just come in:

http://euobserver.com:80/9/23250/?rk=1

"EU threatening parliamentary democracy, says ex-German president"

"Germany's state of parliamentary democracy is under threat from the European Union which is slowly taking away all the national parliament's powers, the country's ex-president has said. In an article for newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Roman Herzog pointed out that between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels."

The Social Chapter contributes just a part of that 84%. There are now few policy areas which are free from EU control or influence, or UN influence, and in effect we've been gradually manoeuvred into a new and deeply anti-democratic system of government, "government by international treaty", which we never asked for and which the great majority of us don't want.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"We must be the voice of the ordinary majority not the privilege minority" - that's why we should be supporting grammar schools! We’d be supporting bright children from low-income families. Sorry Jack, but that kind of utopian thinking has ruined the life chances of hundreds of thousands of bright working class children for over three decades.

[michael mcgough]

"I do not see the relevance of your comments on UKIP other than to advertise them as antiEU,"

The relevance is that it has long been the strategy of those in favour of ever closer union within the EU to refer to Europe when they mean the EU ,to try and imply those against the EU are xenophobic little Englanders.The best rebuttal of this approach was the coining by Roger Helmer of the phrase "Love Europe,Hate the EU.
I welcome David Cameron's initiative for EU Reform but at the moment it looks dead.When the website www.europeanreform.eu was first launched I sent ,in good faith a message advising them of an error (word omitted) on the contact page-----it has never been corrected,and the site is static.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark (Fulford, that is), you are absolutely right.

[Mark Fulford]

What we should be championing about education is not how good grammer schools are but how we can make every school as good as them.

Jack, if you mean “good” in terms of academic results, it’s an achievable objective. If you mean “good” in terms of meeting its children’s needs, I absolutely agree.

A grammar school teaches in a particular style that suits some (but not all) able children. What Conservatives should be arguing for is diversity: a range of choice so that each child can be taught in a way that suits them. Choice, not grammar schools, is our Grail.

[Michael McGowan]

And thank you Justin Hinchcliffe for putting so well what needs to be said at 11.47! The champions of comprehensive education have succeeded in not just ending social mobility but reversing it. So much for Jack Stone's fine talk about helping the ordinary majority.

[Mark Fulford]

* it's not an achievable objective *

[Daniel VA]

"The Telegraph reveals that former Tory Treasurer Stanley Kalms is considering voting for Nigel Farage and his out-of-the-EU message."

The same Stanley Kalms who got in a bit of a strop because William Hague dared to issue a modest rebuke to Israel about its disproportionate fire-and-brimstone assault on Lebanon? The fact that he considers 'voting for Nigel Farage and his out-of-the-EU message' to be a serious alternative to voting Conservative, on top of that previous tantrum, says all we need to know about his judgement.

"Stuart Wheeler, the man who gave £5m to Tory coffers in 2001, has held talks with UKIP's leader and may give the party money."

That's no big deal. When the party funding/spending reforms come in, the influence that people like Stuart Wheeler are able to exert will be greatly diminished anyway. The way he used his financial muscle in the downfall of Iain Duncan Smith shows he doesn't have our party's best interests at heart too. If he wants to waste his money on UKIP (who have received generous donations over the past few years from other benefactors only to fritter it away on their bonkers electoral strategy), then let him.

"Defence: "It is why we support the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent..."

That's hardly distancing himself from the position of Gordon Brown, who has also committed himself to throwing our money at this vainglorious folly.

"Well you "know" at least one, because Daniel Vince-Archer admitted to voting for them at the last Euro election."

I'm not a UKIP voter in the present tense (any more than I am a Liberal Democrat voter, before Justin chimes in with a reminder about my tactical vote in 2005!). You're right that I did vote for them in 2004, however that was a temporary aberration and a serious error of judgement which I deeply regret. I think I've made my views on UKIP abundantly clear on several occasions, so please don't try to use that one mistake again in your petty point-scoring attempts.

[Klamm]

A true Tory does not bring in a system for picking parliamentary candidates based on someone's gender or colour and not on ability.

Cameron brought in the A-List, which is a far-left concept of gender quota's. There is nothing remotely Conservative about it.

[Mark McCartney]

>>Going on about grammer schools<<

Or even grammar schools, Jack.

Evidentally you didn't attend one.

[A H Matlock]

Kalms has been threatening to chuck his toys out of the pram and sulk off since Davis lost the leadership anyway - this latest statement is no great surprise. Let him go if he feels that he'll accomplish more casting his lot with a rag-tag band of nutters UKIP. According to the latest fundraising reports, we no longer require the financial support of either of these two individuals if all they want to do is make trouble for us while DC gets on with the already difficult job of trying to win us the next election.

Stanley Kalms says that 'he will not be bound hand and foot to the Conservative Party.' Well, that goes both ways, M'Lord.

[Mark McCartney]

>>I think DC is leaving himself wide open to being described as being different things to different people. Personally, I was very happy when he described himself as a "liberal Conservative" - does that still stand<<

Oh dear. Looks like DC's new Core Vote Strategy is already leaving the "One Nation" ("Ein Reich, Ein Justin, Ein Hinchcliffe "???) faction out in the cold.

Don't worry. Everything will be back to normal next week, maybe with a Notting Hill orientated piece in The Guardian.

[Valedictoryan]

A true Tory does not bring in a system for picking parliamentary candidates based on someone's gender or colour and not on ability.

Not officially, anyway.

[Mark McCartney]

Switching sides, Valedictoryan?

[DavidDPB]

I suspect that was a barbed comment on the fact that some associations based their choices of candidate on whether the candidate was a white male, rather than ability....

It's a shame Cameron felt the need to write this article. UKIP will never win an election; if they were so attractive, one would have expected the 'Save the Pound' orientated campaign in 2001 to have been far more fruitful.

Europe just isn't an election issue at the moment, and trying to make it so will only remind voters of the Tory turmoil of the 1990s. We can't win on the issue of Europe, but we can certainly lose on it.

And I do wonder whether some of the people here regard Thatcher as the only Tory PM we've ever had, since using her as the benchmark of Toryism would most likely disqualify every other nominally Tory holder of the position.

[TomTom]

What we should be championing about education is not how good grammer schools are but how we can make every school as good as them.

Turning water into wine will be your next trick, Jack ?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Never mind DVA - you're back with us now; that's all the matters!

[UKIP@HOME]

http://e-ukip-home.blogspot.com/

Should big money donors be able to pull the strings behind the scenes and influence Conservative Party Policy?

Yes or No?

Cameron is changing the behind the scenes culture of the Conservative Party by refusing to be bullied and blackmailed by multi-millionaire donors.

Just because a single individual waves a big cheque under Camerons nose should he alter his views and principles, should he change views because of a big electoral bribe?

Now that he refuses to buckle and follow these individuals own particular brand of Conservatism they chuck their toys out of the pram and go off in a strop to UKIP.

The promise of a big cheque under Nigels Farages nose has already let him dump his principles and stick two fingers up at ordinary UKIP members and NEC members and state his ‘new’ policy is not to stand against sitting Conservative MPs who sign up to the Better Off Out (BOO) campaign.

UKIP members voted at their Conference to fight all seats irrespective of the sitting MPs views on the EU. As a proper political party should be doing. Their policy appears to be to split the Conservative vote and allow Labour or Liberal Democrats to win to put pressure on Cameron. UKIP is becoming nothing more than a Conservative Party pressure group.

Since Nigel Farage was elected Leader he has decided to ignore his memberships views and turn UKIP from a political party into a Conservative Party pressure group.

UKIP is now like a bath with no plug. While Nigel Farage tops it up with ex-right wing Conservatives – ordinary UKIP members continue to flow away. Since Nigel Farages lurch to the hard right we have seen branches in Essex, Hampshire and Dorset close down, membership has dropped from 30,000 to 17,000 in just 2 years and a third of their NEC has resigned in disgust.

And you Conservatives are seriously worried about this bunch of incompetent amateur vote splitters?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Never mind DVA - you're back with us now; that's all that matters!

[Typeface checking]

did that work?

[Scotty]

DavidDPB, I must admit that a few years ago I would have been more concerned about some noisy members leaving the party. Now though I actually would prefer them to be p***ing onto the tent from the outside rather than from within it. In fact I wish David Cameron would open the door for them and then firmly hang on to it, so that they could not even slam it as they left.
The 06' local elections will be interesting and if the conservatives do as well as I expect while other minority parties struggle, it would certainly highlight what little they would bring to the table and that also it is not required.
As a great admirer of Mrs Thatcher I can't help but wonder if Tony Blair's lack of achievement after an equally impressive 3 election wins tells the story?
Did being a leader of the conservative party with confident but FIRM leadership skills help her achieve her goals?
I remember a few days ago a poster bewailing the way that Liam Fox had been silenced. It reminded of a story about a minister under Thatcher who IIRC was sacked for simple saying on QT that large majorities were not healthy!
It really is incredible how little we remember about the knives out to get Mrs Thatcher back in the early days of her leadership. I am finding more similarities between the challenges faced by Cameron and Mrs Thatcher than I am Tony Blair.

[Mark McCartney]

>>And I do wonder whether some of the people here regard Thatcher as the only Tory PM we've ever had<<

Thatcher's keynote strategy was classical liberal rather than Tory, but the real point at issue here is that, on what might be vulgarly termed "kneejerk Tory" issues, she was usually as one with the rank-and-file.

I think that she shared this important trait with Salisbury, Bonar Law, Churchill, Hague, IDS and Howard.

Again, looking at the party post-Disraeli, I would suggest that those who have not really sympathised with the grassroots have included Balfour, Heath, Major and now Cameron.

Baldwin and Macmillan were also members of this group but very adept at disguising their alienation from the groundlings.

The two Chamberlains and Eden I find a little more difficult to place. Have I left anybody out?

[HF]

Lord Kalms support for the Tory party in donations from the Electoral Commission site
2001 £90,945.00
2002 £401,533.91
2003 £7,266.30
2004 £13,000.00
2005 £5,000.00
2006 £5,000.00

The support was clearly substantial 5 years ago, but was cut back in the last year of IDS.

[Mark McCartney]

>>DavidDPB, I must admit that a few years ago I would have been more concerned about some noisy members leaving the party. Now though I actually would prefer them to be p***ing onto the tent from the outside rather than from within it.<<

That come as no surprise at all.

A few years ago the people leaving were your fellow Europhile TRG types.

Now it's the Thatcherites who are leaving. So my attitude is the exact mirror image of yours.

Is there anything useful to be learned from this kind of tit-for-tat banter? Indeed there is.

It is that underneath the current comparative calm the party remains as divided as ever between left and right.

[Matt Davis]

If it is the case, as is said several times a day on Conhome, that the political choice is solely between Labour and the Conservatives then the current opinion poll standing could just as clearly be demonstrating the widespread wholesale dissatisfaction with Labour as any "surge" in support for a Cameron style Tory party.The polls are largely unreliable predictors of election results and since they don't actually expose voting intention motivation give half a picture at best.

I am pleased that Cameron sees the need to keep those party members and core voters to the right of him onside as well as trying to woo the LibDems and hope that that will continue long after all the donors have decided where they stand.

[DavidDPB]

"It really is incredible how little we remember about the knives out to get Mrs Thatcher back in the early days of her leadership"

Indeed. Without the Falklands, signs were she'd have been dumped very quickly.

"Thatcher's keynote strategy was classical liberal rather than Tory, but the real point at issue here is that, on what might be vulgarly termed "kneejerk Tory" issues, she was usually as one with the rank-and-file."

Not at first. During her time as Leader of the Opposition, there were serious concerns, and even disquiet, about her.

"I think that she shared this important trait with Salisbury, Bonar Law, Churchill, Hague, IDS and Howard.

Again, looking at the party post-Disraeli, I would suggest that those who have not really sympathised with the grassroots have included Balfour, Heath, Major and now Cameron"

I'm not sure whether the policies of Salisbury and Churchill, as examples, would necessarily meet the pleasure of the grassroots today. Unless your point is that they met the sympathies as they were at the time, in which case I would note that the grassroots voted for IDS and Cameron and that according to this site, his approval rating hovers around a healthy 70%.

[Mark McCartney]

Cameron is no different from (eg) Heath in enjoying the loyalty of the grassroots which is always given to the current leader without question.

However, that does not mean that the leader and the led are on the same wavelength ideologically, indeed Cameron and his clique have until now been at pains to distance their "liberal elite" views from those of the hoi polloi.

There was indeed grassroots opposition to Mrs T at the beginning and much of this stemmed again from the loyalty factor. I was YC chairman then and recall attending some association event and speaking to our MP at the time tht he was required to "take soundings" locally.

He confided in me that he would be backing Mr T but said that I should not let the old women know or he would be lynched.

[Valedictoryan]

"Cameron is no different from (eg) Heath in enjoying the loyalty of the grassroots which is always given to the current leader without question."

I should have learned by now not to drink or eat while reading your posts. My screen is covered with coffee! In which fantasy land have you been living?

[spagbob]

sometimes im ashamed to belong to this tory party. we voted for someone who has a great chance to get the party back to power, someone who sees the views of core-vote members of the tory party as important enough to write this article for them today, and yet we treat him as though he is our enemy.

the fact that we have caused him to write this article could lead to as big problem - its now going to look like he's done a U-turn or make the public think we're disunited again. if labour gets hold of the fact that cameron has had to do this, we will never hear the end of it, from them or the press. i hope it doesnt happen but it could start to reverse all the hard work cameron has put in over the last year.

the fact is that cameron has to appeal to a wide range of voters and that includes non-core voters and non-tories. its a very hard job and people should start giving him some respect for it.

i think its great that he's taken the time to write an article like this and it shows he really cares what the core vote thinks. we may not always agree with him, but at least lets stop the venemous attacks and give him a break. he's doin what he thinks is best for the party and the country. we may not agree with everything, but he's certainly closer to our views than labour is and he deserves our respect.

oh and on the issue of UKIP, the fact is they are a minority party (who can do a lot of damage to the tory party). they will not win any seats at the next election and voting for them will do nothing but keep tory mp's out. IT WILL NOT IN ANY WAY GET US OUT OF EUROPE! so stop wasting your vote and vote for the tories who are at least eurosceptic.

cameron has not broken his pledge to leave the EPP, he never gave a timetable, and he repeated again in the article today that he plans to still go ahead with it.

[Denis Cooper]

Oh yes he did - as I recall it was going to be "weeks, not months", and it was certainly NOT conditional on forming another group. Let's cut through the lies - most likely the Tory MEPs will still be in the EPP in 2010.

[Mark McCartney]

I recently commented that Jack Stone was the only person I'd encountered who dropped his aitches in writing. Spagbob makes it two.

Or does he?

>>In which fantasy land have you been living?<<

I'm talking about the puppy-like "loyalty" of the old dears, Valedictoryan, not the views of the thinking minority.

[malcolm]

I agree with your comment Spagbob that sometimes on this site 'we treat him (DC) as the enemy'. I don't agree with Cameron about everything but he's damned preferable to any of the realistic alternatives. People on this site often seem to forget that.

[Simon]

Well, the debate proves that 'you cannot please all of the people all of the time'! The reason why a lot of us hark back to Mrs T is summed up by three main things:- results; the way she was 'got rid of' by gutless MP's when she was off in Francais; you always knew where you were with her! Politically, i'm probably nearer to Cameron but i would trust Mrs T more -even though i disagreed with a lot of what she actually did (privitisation, selling off council homes, the 'atmosphere' over section 28)! The main problem with DC at the mo is yes- he's likeable, yes- he's a better leader for the country than Broooon, yes- at least he's having a root and branch overview of party policy; but he hasn't yet earned the full 'trust' of the more suspicious of us! Fingers crossed- this will come!

[Rudyard.]

I thought Cameron promised to get out of the EPP in months,not years.

Am I wrong on this?

[Anna Turner]

Stop telling lies, "Dave."

You're not interested in cutting taxes and reducing the role of government as she did.

She actually achieved a lot less than she set out to do. People like you, Blair and Major whose ambitions in regard to tax, spending and government are so much more limited than hers, will always achieve less.

You have ideas for Sunday AM, not for government.

[Londoner]

Mark McC forgot to classify Sir Alec Douglas-Hume - just to show that I'm paying attention at the back.

He was probably in tune on some things (traditionalist and also self-confessedly simplistic in his economics); less so in others (close involvement in grouse moors and never an MP before he was PM). Also of course Foreign Sec when we entered the EEC - but that was probably "in tune" with the majority of the rank and file at that time. Decent cove though and the most loyal ex-Leader - Hague maybe has been noting his example.

"True" Tory does not mean strongly to the right or preclude liberal Toryism. It means thoroughly grounded in Tory/Conservative attitudes of mind. You can be that from almost any point in the party's traditional spectrum (or spectra?, it is not two dimensional). But true Tories, from Peel onwards, have always tried to broaden the appeal. Mrs T did so markedly, for instance, by co-opting the skilled working class - encouraging them to buy British Gas shares would have been regarding as horrific by many earlier "true" Tories who would have thought that owning shares was much too risky for the financially unsophisticated, if not to say that they would be getting above themselves by doing so.

I believe that Cameron is a true Tory, but that does not deny the need for the more free market (small State) elements to keep reminding him that there will still be lots to do on that theme to undo the Blair/Brown backsliding and Stateism. I'd much prefer it if the self-appointed zealots kept the pressure up on him on that, where the battles in the 80s are sufficiently far away possibly for Cameron to forget their importance, than on the EU, on which he was brought up politically in the 90s and is clearly EUsceptic. (Don't forget that he worked for Lamont during his Chancellorship, hardly a likely background to become a raging EUphile.)

[Esbonio]

Malcolm

Cameron is unpopular because he
says and does things calculated to be so. It's
not rocket science.

[Mark McCartney]

>>Mark McC forgot to classify Sir Alec Douglas-Hume - just to show that I'm paying attention at the back<<

Thanks for that. I knew I must have left somebody out.

Douglas-Home's selection (by the "Magic Circle")is the first Tory leadership accesion I can actually remember!

[Londoner]

The Party rank and file was generally very loyal to Heath from when he became leader in 1965 to 1973. It was only when the cracks in his economic policy, and his poor leadership leading to a second confrontation with the unions that we could not win (and he had lost power), were clear for all to see that the loyalty drained away from a significant monority from late 1973 onwards.

Even so, I was working for a Tory MP in Feb 1975 and the party workers were still 80% for Heath when he was challenged by Thatcher. Interestingly, by about a week later, they were at least 70% for Thatcher against Whitelaw. They never loved Heath as they/we came to love Thatcher though, which explains why the party quickly got over the sacking of Heath, but took about 15 years to get over the MPs' treachery to Mrs Thatcher. I would still never trust any MP who did not vote for her in the first ballot in 1990.

[Mark McCartney]

You may remember, Londoner, that at the time there was also considerable hostility to Thatcher from the YC movement, which was then dominatd by people like Gerry Wade, Clive Landa etc.

I wonder what happened to them?

[George Hinton]

Dave may well be too late coming out with this statement, his drive for the centre ground has alienated many.
Whilst he may well believe what he has said, many won't, as it flies in the face of his comments and the manner in which he has repositioned the party. Indeed, his statement offers the opposition, to exploit a flip-flop position, as to what exactly does Dave stand for or represent.
We know what B-Liar and Brown represent, the old style Stalinite dogma of jealousy and envy, combined with the demand for expropiation and nationalisation, high taxes and a fascist police state to control the proles.

[Jon Gale]

I could understand if DC is not euroceptic enough for some people (he's not as euroceptic as i would like - I want to leave the EU altogether) but I dont understand how people can claim he's less eurosceptic than previous leaders: Did Hague or Howard promise to leave the EPP? (in fact Howard scrapped IDS plans to leave, but offset that with his fishing policy), did Howard or IDS promise to opt-out of the Social Chapter? Or re-write the Human Rights Act? Hague wanted to save the pound, but so does Cameron. Howard opposed the Constitution but so does Cameron.

At worst Cameron is about average for a Tory leader, at best he is slightly more eurosceptic than his predecessors.

Why would euroceptics leave now, but were OK with Howard?

Ironically, David Davis who is often lauded by Cameron's critics would not promise to leave the EPP during the leadership campaign, so he would be the more Europhile if DC does leave the EPP in 2009, or the same level (but more honest) as Cameron if we don't leave the EPP.

UKIPers seem to have faulty logic circuits: They get massively upset with a leader that is either the same or better than the last one, lionise the one candidate who didn't make the EPP pledge, and then vote for a minor party when doing so will actually help europhile Labour to win!

[Londoner]

Mark McC - Sure, there were Heathite after-tremours during Mrs T's leadership, stirred by the "wets", but "the Party in the country" (including the mass of YCs, if not its leadership and, of course, there was a "mass" of them then) were firmly behind Mrs T from pretty soon after the start.

Clive Landa married Lynda Chaulker, was slightly involved in the "Charter" campaign for internal party democracy in the early 80s but otherwise took a back seat to his wife politically. Gerry Wade I don't know what happened to him. Three national Chairmen of the FCS in the late 70s, in which I was more involved, left to join the SDP when it was founded in 1982, and sank without trace. Just like what would happen to anyone going off now to UKIP I expect, only no-one would even notice them sinking.

If Cameron turns out to be as successful as Thatcher we will find that he had many friends and admirers in these early days of his leadership, nay even before. If he is not, history will record that, mysteriously, the 70%+ of party members fully supporting him were a figment of overactive imaginations.

I hope the Editor is keeping a full and enduring archive of all our ramblings for future historians to spend many hours perusing.

[Denis Cooper]

Promises, promises. I've googled to refresh my memory, and this comes up:

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/davecapitulates.asp

"THE DECISION of the Conservative leadership to delay its withdrawal from the European People’s Party (EPP) until 2009, announced by David Cameron and William Hague on 13th July, is indefensible, humiliating and wrong. It is impossible to put a positive gloss on it, so I shall not attempt to do so. A week is a long time in politics. Three years to 2009 is much the same as never.

During his leadership campaign, Cameron repeatedly stated, in public and in private, that he was committed to breaking this link with the hyper-federalist EPP which has vexed Conservative leaders since 1997. And he was very clear on timing. It would be immediate. It would be a first-week task. It would be “during his honeymoon period”.

Later, the timescale changed, but it became “Months not weeks, months not years”. Now, it’s years. Three of them. Far from fulfilling his pledge, as he has claimed, he has betrayed it - and us.

He also said that “You don’t divorce one day and marry the next”, indicating that an interim period as independents would be seemly for Conservative MEPs between leaving the EPP and forming a new group. He did not say (though perhaps he should have done) that such a move would have enhanced our credibility with future partners.

Four times since 1997 we have gone to other MEPs and said “If we leave the EPP, might you join us?”. We can’t cry wolf again. They want to see the colour of our money. Once we leave the EPP there will be many MEPs, some we perhaps haven’t even thought of, who will flock to our banner."

" As recently as June 26th, David Cameron wrote to a prominent Conservative in my region as follows: “I have made clear that the Conservative Party under my leadership will not remain a member of the EPP-ED in the European parliament, but will seek to form a new group ... we expect it to be completed in some months, not weeks, not years”. He has repeatedly said “We must be consistent. We cannot say one thing at home and do another in Brussels”. But the potential partners are there. The group could have been formed. We have chosen not to do so.

In June on the BBC’s Any Questions, Jonathan Dimbleby pressed William Hague: “Let’s be clear. If you fail to form a new group, will you still leave the EPP?”. And Hague answered quite unequivocally: “We expect and intend to form a new group, but we shall leave the EPP whether or not”. Yet we allowed the creation of the new group, and the trial-by-media of potential partners, to stand in our way.

If Cameron had in fact made leaving the EPP a first-week task, the new group would have been in place by now. We should have saved months of adverse press coverage and inner turmoil. We should have denied the EPP leadership the chance to suborn potential partners - which in the event they exploited with great skill.

Now four successive Conservative leaders have gone into bat on the EPP issue - Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron - and each in turn has retired hurt. It seems incredible that the MEP tail has been allowed to wag the Party dog; that the fuss threatened by a few petulant and reactionary MEPs in Brussels should outweigh the undoubted anger of Westminster MPs and party activists. It is not even the whole of the delegation. Around a dozen of them have decided to put their personal interests and prejudices ahead of their party and their Country. They should be ashamed."

[Esbonio]

Re George and Jon's comments of 1504 and 1505.

There is an apparent paradox with regards opposition to Cameron. I suspect however one reason for this is that Cameron's "modernising " agenda has not only alienated some core Tory voters such as myself ipso facto, but it has also inclined us to more closely examine the records and statements not only of Cameron but of other Tory MPs to whom in the past we would have instinctively given the benefit of the doubt. The latter process has probably been made worse by some MPs being emboldened to make even wackier
statements than the "modernisation" agenda required. In short some of us have come to believe that a significant number of Consevative MPs appear to be that in name only.

[Esbonio]

The later process is I think what the paychologists term "cognitive dissonance". I many respects we must ( and I am not being ironic) thank Tim and the internet for keeping us updated and thus feeding our dissonance.

[michael mcgough]

Denis;I mentioned on a post last week that John Bowis OBE MEP,Vice President of the EPP said he'd bet the Tories would still be in the EPP in 2010.I know past performance cannot be used as a guide to the future but I'd follow Bowis on this one.

[Mark McCartney]

I think most of us would actually agree that in today's ghastly milieu it's sensible for Conservatives at least to appear to modify the positions they would have held, say, twenty years ago.

What is absolutely ridiculous is the current insistence that we should be enthusiastic about this charade, and that we should adopt an attitude of extreme priggery to anybody who, say, does not regard the Notting Hill Carnival and the Brighton Gay Pride Jamboree as the premier events of the Season.

[Esbonio]

The priggery and pretence of of the Notting Hill set make sick.

[Hug a Druggie]

Does David Cameron know what he is? Is he a True Tory, a Liberal Conservative, a National Socialist, an Independent Conservative or what?
Whatever he is, he is doing a marvellous job and deserves our full support.

[Valedictoryan]

To the average punter like me, the only relevance of the EPP promise was the fact that it was a promise. There were calls for red meat and Dave made his promise either rashly or cynically.

If it was a rash promise -- he should have researched better (to find out why four previous leaders found it undeliverable) but I forgive an overworked campaign team the odd error.

If it was a cynical promise -- it’s a black mark but nevertheless I forgive him because the alternative was David Davis – and under him we’d have surely lost the next election.

So either way I forgive him. For what it's worth, I actually think the promise was rash rather than cynical. I don’t know what’s so bad about being on our own in Europe but I trust that Dave and William wouldn’t taking this heat without good reason. So (and “true tories” will love this bit of spin) I am pleased Dave has the courage to think again rather than compound his first error (making the promise) with a second error (following it through).

[jorgen]

Hug-a-druggie, Cameron are all those things you mentioned. Like Blair, his current "policies" depend on the current audience.

[Mark McCartney]

>>So either way I forgive him. For what it's worth, I actually think the promise was rash rather than cynical<<

It was both rash and cynical. Rash because if you intend to stay in the EU and the Parliament, you suffer if you go it alone. (look at what Mote has done for this very reason) and cynical because Cameron only made the promise to buy votes.

This will come back to haunt him.

[Cllr Keith Standring]

The comments about "Dave" Cameron's article on the Daily Telegraph's web site make very interesting reading. As at 4.45 p.m. I counted 61 hostile comments and a total of 15 either supportive or non-committal (mostly the latter). I appreciate that this is no opinion poll, but it doesn't look good for "Dave", does it?

This takes no account of the likelihood of the Telegraph having failed to post particularly hostile comments (as the Sunday Telegraph refused to publish my hostile but polite correction of the blatant errors and lies in its leading article on the EU yesterday).

[HF]

Michael McGough, I read that point the other day from you. Most alarming, is there a link or source for this that I can use?

Mark McCartney, I am not necessarily enthusiastic but I am determined to get a Conservative Govt in before the damage of 1m more govt workers and a massive under class dependent upon the state becomes irreversible.

Cllr Keith Standring, is it matters of substance in Dave Cameron's points above that you disagree with? His points are Euro Sceptic, removes the HRA, No ID, Strong on defence, supports families and aims to support tax cuts through growth. Do you have a problem with that or his style?

[Esbonio]

Keith

Not just today but generally I get the impression that the majority of commentators in the comments sections of the Telegraph are sceptical to hostile towards Cameron. Quite a few also seem irked by the paper itself. The letters section is a different kettle of fish.

[Richard]

I found this article to be very encouraging, assuming Cameron sticks to his promises when in power.

[Mark Fulford]

[Pedantic-post warning]

Councillor Keith, I saw your score-line

15 supportive to 61 hostile

and decided to to my own count. I arrived at

14 supportive (from 11 unique posters) to 31 hostile (from 19 unique posters).

The balance were simply banter. So what does this show? First - that I hope you approach your duties as councillor with a more objective mind! Second - that the hostile mob have more time on their hands. I wonder if that fits in with HF’s “generational gap” theory. Third - even though my post counts in the “Hostile” group, it’s simply that I am critical of some parts of David Cameron’s leadership (would it be possible to satisfy every view of every member?). I certainly am not hostile to David Cameron. I suspect that Daniel VA and Justin Hinchcliffe (whose names are currently in the Hostile list) feel similarly. There may well be others. The true score is at worst 14 to 16 which, on CH, is not bad at all.

Support
HF @ 08:17, 11:01
Mark Wallace 09:42
Tory T: 10:03
Scotty 10:23, 10:47, 13:12
A H Matlock 12:32
Matt Davis 13:29
Spagbob 14:03
Malcolm 14:23
Simon 14:24
Londoner 14:30
John Gale 15:07

Ambiguous
Simon 10:26
Justin Hinchcliffe 11:25
DavidDPB 12:48
Mark McCartney 13:22

Against
John Marsh 08:08
Michael McGough 08:22, 15:49
Tam Large 09:28
Jorgen 09:38, 11:34, 16:31
Mark McCartney 09:39, 10:05, 11:20, 12:34, 16:04, 16:38
Mark Fulford 10:18
MH 10:38
James Maskell 10:54
“Torygirl” 11:05
Justin Hinchcliffe 11:35
Michael McGowan 12:03
Daniel VA 12:22
Klamm: 12:25
Denis Cooper 14:15, 15:24
Rudyard 14:25
Anna Turner 14:29
Esbonio 14:32, 15:37, 16:10, 17:14
George Hinton 15:04
Hug a Druggie 16:25

[Daniel VA]

Too much free time, Mark F? :-)

If my comment was construed as hostile to David Cameron, it certainly wasn't intended as such - I abandoned that particular hobby horse a long time ago!

Unlike David Cameron and Gordon Brown, I am opposed to the renewal of Trident but I'm not on the verge of flouncing out of the party in a huff over such a trivial matter when I broadly agree with most of the Conservatives' current agenda.

[Esbonio]

"I'm Spartacus"

[Mark Fulford]

Too much free time, Mark F? :-)

Hmmmm. It's allowed because, at that point in my argument, I was still counted in the Hostile camp. ;-)

[michael mcgough]

"Michael McGough, I read that point the other day from you. Most alarming, is there a link or source for this that I can use?"

No,but I attended ,with a TFA colleague the UK press launch of the European Movements www.speakupeurope.eu.
John Bowis made the statement about the Tories still being in the EU by 2010 from the platform.To be fair to John I asked from the floor if I might quote him and he agreed(as long as it wasn't in something like 'betting monthly').I said I would bet too and he jokingly suggested a spread bet.I later spoke to him over lunch and confirmed I would quote him.
He seems very able which is more than can be said for Geoff Hoon who kept addressing him by another name than John

[jorgen]

Mark, note that Keith wrote about the comments in Daily Telegraph.

[Perdix]

So many posters still upset about the EPP thing!Being in or out of the EPP will not make tuppence worth of difference to how we are governed!Dave made a mistake in thinking it was easy to leave the group, but he's a sharp cookie and has learnt his lesson. Personally, I hope the Tories do set up a new group.If Dave becomes PM he will make sure that a European superstate does not develop. If we are entirely out of Europe we cannot influence this. If we were out of Europe you can be sure it would cook up something to our detriment!