« 'Browneronism' | Main | McCain "disappointed" at new Tory Iraq policy »

Comments

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

I stand with egg dripping from my face to my foot. A good dose of public humiliation is probably good for the soul. Thanks Jorgen!

DVA - another misapprehension of your position - at least this time not as a (gasp) LibDem :-)

A good article from Cameron - think HF has a point on the generational change though Annabel, myself and Sally seem comfortable enough with what Cameron is doing.

I think I posted about 13 months ago in response to the Duchess that I expected a lot of huffing and puffing and cries of pain when it became apparent to the Party that change didn't just mean a new logo and pretty words - if you vote for someone who says he intends to radically change the Party that's pretty much what you should expect.

I supported change in the 1970's when it was apparent Ted Heath & co were wedded to the answers of two decades previously and we then saw an optimistic, forward thinking, less hidebound Conservative Party. Cameron is achieving the same again - and perhaps with more support in the HoC than Thatcher had.

Ted

I'm HF's and Cameron's generation but unlike you am not fond of Cameron and his mates who ironicaly (given your comment) remind me too much of Heath and the Heathites.

TomTom.All children no matter what there background or there ability should be given the opportunity to achieve there full potential. This applies to those who have ability and those who do not.
I think by setting every school free of local authority control and letting governors, parents and teachers control there own schools we can make every school in the land excellent.
Education is an extremely serious subject that deserves to be taken seriously or are you one of those right-wingers who can`t see beyond the EU, tax cuts and immigration!

I take it you were reading that thread on PB.com the other day then, Ted?

And to be fair to Her Ladyship, she was huffing and puffing and crying in pain all the way from Cleveland all those 13 months ago - at least she was consistent, unlike the people who voted for change and then grumble as David Cameron delivers it.

Interesting how recently UKIP has started to gain credibility.

Why is this?

Mark Fulford @18.47 "I stand with egg dripping from my face to my foot. A good dose of public humiliation is probably good for the soul."

I couldn't possibly comment - without rattling HF's CCCO cage.

Over the last week or so members of the United Kingdom Independence Party have become 'drunk' on the oxygen of publicity that recent press coverage of defections and big money backers has given UKIP.

However, UKIP members are slowly waking up to the realisation that their Leader Nigel Farage and his new found tory friends are moving UKIP away from being a proper political party and moving UKIP far more towards being a pressure group. Everything the party does and says is about influencing Conservative policy on the European issue.

The statements from defecting Tories back this up too - they aren't joining because UKIP has a strong ideology, they are joining in the hope of changing the Tory party from the outside or because the Tories have changed.

If the Conservatives do change direction on the issue of Europe then these new found friends of Nigel's will skuttle back to the tories and desert UKIP faster than you can say BOO.

UKIP is like a bath with no plug, as Nigel Farage tops it up with his new tory friends, real longstanding UKIP members are leaving in disgust.

"Interesting how recently UKIP has started to gain credibility. Why is this?"

I'm not sure I would agree with your use of the word 'credibility', but UKIP are probably getting more attention than they used to as a result of the comparatively charismatic Nigel Farage succeeding the wet fish Roger Knapman as leader.

It won't do UKIP any good though - no amount of lipstick will make that pig of a party pretty.

"It won't do UKIP any good though - no amount of lipstick will make that pig of a party pretty."
Daniel, you have now given me a reason to smile about UKIP!

"I supported change in the 1970's when it was apparent Ted Heath & co were wedded to the answers of two decades previously and we then saw an optimistic, forward thinking, less hidebound Conservative Party. Cameron is achieving the same again - and perhaps with more support in the HoC than Thatcher had."
That is exactly the reason that I now feel so optimistic about the party under Cameron.

Has anyone seen yet how Cameron is going to restore Britain's opt out of the European Social Chapter?

Londoner wrote "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."

They were joined in the SDP by Anna Soubry, A lister and now the PPC for Broxtowe. Priti Patel joined the Referendum Party but is now Tory PPC for the new safe seat of Witham (i.e. another A lister).

Two pokes in the eye for those of us who were loyal to the Party!!

The headline to this thread inadvertantly uses a phrase I am coming to dislike greatly - "true Tory". Rather like those who say "so-and-so's not a real Conservative", I think it's both unwise and a little arrogant for us to think that there's one true path for Conservatives. We seem to have been a little too good at defining people out of the party in the past, it's time we were keener on defining them into it.

I thought the elements of modern, compassionate conservatism that Cameron has espoused were not incompatible with Conservative tradition at all anyway. I believe that my own MP described them a while ago as "belonging to a rich vein of conservatism that stretches back to Shaftesbury and Wilberforce" (sincere apologies to John Hayes if I've inadvertantly misquoted him, his knowledge of political philosophy is far superior to my own!!).

In any case, I welcome this effort to explain more deeply the drivers and motivations behind Cameron's position. I am sure it was principally addressed to core voters (a category I'd like to expand, by the way!) and previous supporters, to help bring them along with us as we continue to develop the broad and inclusive agenda to build the support we need to beat Labour.

You've changed your tune, Richard.

You've changed your tune, Richard.

In what way have I been inconsistent, esbonio? I'm very supportive of the changes the party has made, but I've also always been keen to explain the changes we're making and bring colleagues along with us if we possibly can.

I've just not always had as much success with it on here as I would have liked...

Interesting how recently UKIP has started to gain credibility.

Why is this?

Posted by: Henry Mayhew

Henry Mayhew is a UKIP member - his post invites us to give Chad's new friends a 'name check'. Don't do it!

Fast on the heels of UKIP's 'Free Heroin for everyone' drugs policy, UKIP are working on a 'headline grabbing' policy of 50 new nuclear power stations to solve Britain's future energy needs.

I'm sure the thought of 50 new nuclear power stations being built throughout the country is a sure fire vote winner with the general public. However if you disagree with UKIP building a nuclear power station in your back yard, UKIP plan to introduce local referendums on issues of major local concern where you can reverse UKIP policies in your local area with a public vote if you disagree with them.

Welcome to the crazy, crazy world of the United Kingdom Independence Party where chaos will reign supreme.

The futures bright with UKIP - radioactively bright.

I'd rather have reliable nuclear power than one of Dave's wind turbines.

Then don't by shy my young UKIP friend - shout loud and proud that you want to build 50 nuclear power stations throughout Britain.

Read more here:

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

"I'd rather have reliable nuclear power than one of Dave's wind turbines."
Where are you planning on putting them?

I was not aware of UKIP's views on heroin use, but out of interest what is [email protected]'s and is it his /her own? Also what's with the photo of Lord Lucan next to the post on your website? What are we to infer?

Scotty

I'd be happy to live next to one; I was brought up on a nuclear weapons base and continued to live next to one so I am not phased by the civilian use of nuclear.

Although I realise that at present the following are only promises, or less, I'd prefer:

• The strong support for family and marriage;
• opposition to regionalisation
• opposition to ID cards;
• possibility of votes for English MPs only on England-only matters as the solution to the problems caused by Labour's devolution;
• replacement of the HRA;
• leaving the EPP (which Mr Cameron is still promising – might fulfilling that promise do much to restore confidence?);
• reducing the tax burden on families and business over time (Mr Cameron is obviously more of a natural tax-cutter than Labour)
• social responsibility and less power for the state

to another Labour government. Which is what supporting UKIP could get us.

When I looked at the results of the 2005 General Election, I reckoned if it were not for UKIP, there may have been a hung Parliament, assuming all those who voted for UKIP would otherwise have voted Tory. I have concerns about Mr Cameron’s apparent social-liberal tendencies on some things and possibly more appeasing approach to islamism etc, but I’d still rather a Conservative government, which would naturally be more eurosceptic (even it wouldn't get us out of the EU) than the alternative (which is Labour, not UKIP.)

At the moment UKIP are working on their policies. They are planning to make them 'headline grabbing'

They plan to legalise drugs and hand out free heroin and other drugs to drug addicts.

They plan for 80% of Britains power to come from 50 new nuclear power stations.

They plan to legalise prostitution and allow legal brothels to operate.

Best of all they plan members of the public to hold local referendums if they disagree with any UKIP policy!

"I'd be happy to live next to one; I was brought up on a nuclear weapons base and continued to live next to one so I am not phased by the civilian use of nuclear."

Esbonio, I think that when the practicalities kick in and we start making the decisions about where to place the new nuclear stations, then the debate will start to get really heated.

"I'd be happy to live next to one; I was brought up on a nuclear weapons base and continued to live next to one so I am not phased by the civilian use of nuclear."

Esbonio, I think that when the practicalities kick in and we start making the decisions about where to place the new nuclear stations, then the debate will start to get really heated.

john Ashworth wrote"Has anyone seen yet how Cameron is going to restore Britain's opt out of the European Social Chapter?

Don't ask or you'll hear that they will not want to reveal their negotiating stance.

I'd be happy to live next to one; I was brought up on a nuclear weapons base and continued to live next to one so I am not phased by the civilian use of nuclear.

This is terrible - there's such potential for comedy here, but esbonio and I have been having such a pleasant evening so far - almost a love-in by some standards here - that I feel totally unable to exploit it. I've been sapped of my powers...

If the Tories had intellectual inegrity and political guts they would come out in full support of nuclear power. I guess we'll have to wait for New Labour to do the job for them.

[email protected] is clearly better acquainted with UKIP policy than I am but whether you agree with it (and I do not agree with all our UKIP correspondent indentifies as their policies) it seems quite liberal. Weren't the Cameroons meant be liberal?

Esbonio these are the policies UKIP are currently working on.

They plan to release their policies every 3 or 4 weeks to maximise and drag out the publicity.

Each policy will have something to 'grab the headlines'

However I wouldnt worry about a nuclear power station in your back yard - UKIP plan to introduce local referendums on issues of major local concern where you can reverse UKIP policies in your local area with a public vote if you disagree with them.

I have no idea how UKIP plan to govern if the public can overturn anything they propose.

Richard

I do not praise the French for much, but getting nuclear power going puts them in a much stronger position than us when the foot is placed on our energy jugular. And if the Japanese can tolerate it having suffered the awful effects of its military use, I think we are entitled to take note.

I agree that energy security is an issue (one that I believe Liam Fox has done a some amount of work on as part of his defence portfolio). I dont believe that we should be tied in to Russian gas or mid-East oil without alternative, nor that the current state of non-nuclear renewable technologies will be sufficient for all our energy needs.

However, the nuclear issue requires careful thought and handling. We've never really got to grips with all the long-term issues surrounding the waste etc., and public questions about the safety and security issues arising from nuclear plants are not illegitimate and need answering.

I think we need to advance the state of the art in all our energy generation technologies, but I am not naive enough to believe that we are going to be able to satiate or reduce demand for energy sufficiently that nuclear power doesn't have to be in the options box at some point.

Esbonio I really would like to know exactly where UKIP plan to build its 50 nuclear power station? Do you have locations?

Esbonio I really would like to know exactly where UKIP plan to build its 50 nuclear power station? Do you have locations?

I don't think it was Esbonio that brought this one up, BT, and I'm sure they haven't thought it through to that level of detail.

It would be fun to know, though, if they had - after all, if there's ever a local election or by-electon with a UKIP opponent in the vicinity of a proposed site, it would make a great "Did you know?" box-out on our literature!

"However, the nuclear issue requires careful thought and handling. We've never really got to grips with all the long-term issues surrounding the waste etc., and public questions about the safety and security issues arising from nuclear plants are not illegitimate and need answering."

Richard, you have identified the biggest questions/problem facing all parties on this issue.
I think that selling nuclear power stations to the public, what ever their political colours is going to be much harder now than maybe even 5-10 years ago, and then it was not easy! It really is something the government (who ever is in power) should have been doing the ground work for a while ago.
I am not sure that the Labour party are going to be able to sell this to its own members and therefore might kick it into the long grass again.
Scotland on the whole is very anti nuclear, and demonstrations at Faslane are often littered with an array of politicians of various political persuasions. Some politicians (the usual suspects) can often be spotted on the local news being dragged away by the police, so that should give you an indication of how confident they are that there actions will resonate with voters.
I laughed at a recent example of this when one of my relatives remarked "now I know there must be elections soon in Scotland"!

Some politicians (the usual suspects) can often be spotted on the local news being dragged away by the police...one of my relatives remarked "now I know there must be elections soon in Scotland"!

I have much to learn from political campaigning in your neck of the woods, Scotty - I have advised candidates to do many things, but never to get themselves arrested!!

Mind you, for an opposition candidate to do that; I can think of a few occasions when it might well have been considered conducive to the public good...

john Ashworth wrote, "Has anyone seen yet how Cameron is going to restore Britain's opt out of the European Social Chapter?

Perhaps he could commit the next Conservative Government to remove the UK from the EU, based on a referendum of the British people? The cost/benefit analysis alone would massively increase the Conservative Party's chances of GE victory.

I am more than happy with DC. You lot have no patience.Two years from now, he will have firmed up the policies, taken the reports of the various groups on board, sorted out the EPP problem etc. You cant do these things all at once. They have to be phased. Thats when being an old trout of over 70 has its advantages. One has lived long enough to observe the bus coming back the other way.

"Thats when being an old trout of over 70 has its advantages. One has lived long enough to observe the bus coming back the other way."
Annabel, the party would not function without the imput of people like you!
My parents are now firmly in the conservative camp for the first time in their lives, both are in the same age bracket, and they saw Cameron winning before I did!

I reckoned if it were not for UKIP, there may have been a hung Parliament, assuming all those who voted for UKIP would otherwise have voted Tory.
Even if they had all voted Conservative and another smaller party such as the Green Party had been vapourised and their votes redistributed to the Conservative Party then Labour would still have got an election and the fact is that short of a party only getting a few votes there just isn't a situation in which all a parties supporters vote for another party, some UKIP voters otherwise might vote English Democrat or Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, SNP - there will be quite a range, if the Conservative Party did not exist some of it's voters would switch to Labour, people have their own reasons for doing things.

Summit

The 65 Justice/Interior Ministers in EU Summit at Dresden are discussing:-

a) EU-wide DNA databases

b) Zypries claims 80% Europeans polled want EU-wide laws on family matters such as divorce, marriage, inheritance

c) Frattini claims 73% polled want internal security handled by the EU

d) Im kleinen Eifel-Ort Prüm war dieser im Mai 2005 von zunächst sieben Staaten geschlossen worden – neben Deutschland von Österreich, Frankreich, Spanien und den Benelux-Staaten

In May 2005 7 EU members - Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Benelux - signed the Prum Treaty to integrate police activities and databases............this Dresden Conference wants to impose this on all 27 EU countries through the EU Commission

I don't know why the italics won't switch off.

Anyway there is a complete misperception floating through this list of postings. And a minor one:

(*) One of those posters who consistently goes out of his way to use language unpleasantly suggests Scotty lives in Hackney. I'm sure his hatred of difference has just lumped anyone he disagrees with into the same target-pot. I live in Hackney and am Scottish: Scotty doesn't. We're not the same person. Would that I could believe that of all the oh-so-textually-similar pro-UKIP I'm-a-lifelong-Tory-but-what-with-this-popular-centre-right-leader crap that gets posted here. As Scotty says, no-one actually ever meets a real UKIP voter suggesting that the polls which show them to be statistically irrelevant are correct. I'm still waiting for the evidence to uphold the constantly repeated claims that associations have seen members leave for UKIP. Where? Who? When? Don't believe it.

(*) More interesting. [To be honest, I'm getting tired of having to rebut UKIP drivel every time I want to discuss Conservative politics on Conservative Home so despite myself I'm starting to agree with Justin]. Some people have suggested that Cameron's article in the Telegraph suggests a change in direction. It does not. He's just gently pointing out to the readers of the Telegraph, who are treated on a daily basis to an agenda of spitting anti-Cameron hatred by its demented new editorial stance, that the agenda of a centre-right liberal Tory party which Cameron has been so successfully pushing since he took over is exactly consonant with traditional Tory thinking on a whole range of issues: maximum freedom of individuals and empowerment of communities to make their own decisions; an absolute repulsion of any concept of central-ID card nastiness; a commitment to reduce the proportion of the state-take over time.

What an extraordinary rant.

As my family lived for years in or close to Hackney it certainly doesn't concern me whether one of the other posters here comes from Hackney. Why should you find that suggestion so unpleasant Mr Archer?

Well I am a lifelong Tory, and I voted for David Cameron. I am sorely disappointed in him and although I'm not yet ready to vote for UKIP I can understand why others are.

Does that satisfy you, Mr Archer?

I don't find it [Hackney] unpleasant Larry and I suggest you read my post again. I love Hackney and live here very happily. I was pointing out to one of the earlier anti-Cameron posters -- who had been implying that I and "Scotty" are the same person -- that he was wrong. I think it's important because I don't feel the need to adopt various pseudonyms in order to give the impression that the pro-Cameron segment is numerically larger than is the case. Would that I could say the same for the anti-Cameron brigade. As I said that's a minor point.

My major point is the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis "Cameron's strategy makes it less likely we'll attain a Conservative majority" which we read here all the time. I'm very sorry that you're not finding your very own personal Conservatism reflected in the party leadership and that you might therefore waste your vote, but in terms of my own "satisfaction" concerning what I would call the UKIP-hypothesis, the disappointment you write about, or what you believe might happen to other people whose mindset you believe to be similar to your own, doesn't change the empirical support for the validity (or lack of) the UKIP hypothesis by an iota. The only extant evidence re the UKIP hypothesis is antithetical to it since we have more Conservative votes, more Conservative councils, more Conservative opinion poll leads under Cameron than we did beforehand. So this notion that his strategy is (1) causing floods of lifelong Tories to leave and (2) makes it unlikely we'll ultimately win is not supported by the data to hand.

As I've written elsewhere, proper evaluation of any hypothesis is conducted through a marriage between one's prior belief in the hypothesis and the evidence held within relevant data. What I keep reading on this website is prior belief only. UKIP-supporters can dislike Bayes' theorem all they like, it doesn't change the fact that the inference they are drawing is not supported by data and is not the product of a valid methodology. Most textbooks on inductive logic call such behaviour "incoherent".

Anyway it's my birthday so can't sustain this pooh-bah attitude, which doesn't suit me anyway. Genuinely hope you have a good day Mr Green & thanks for the discussion.

Happy birthday Graeme!

As I haven't a clue what Bayes' theorem is, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge.

However I can't imagine how or why any rational man would be convinced by the "prior belief" of a third party. A flat earther may have a much stronger faith in his theories than an expert on Black Hole Theory, but so what? It's important to him but irrelevant to me. I know the earth's round. On the other hand Black Holes MAY exist.

However, there does seem to be a great deal of "prior belief" in a Cameron victory, which is actually not currently supported by the poll evidence. Who knows? He may win. He may not.

My main position is that I simply dislike the policies (or rather pseudo-policies) which are coming over at the moment from David Cameron and people associated with him. Maybe Cameron never did say "Hug a Hoodie" but it just does seem to sum up the man's outlook as a liberal do-gooder.

I didn't join the party for that.

How did Mitzy get membership of the Party?

[email protected] wrote

At the moment UKIP are working on their policies. They are planning to make them 'headline grabbing'

They plan to legalise drugs and hand out free heroin and other drugs to drug addicts.

They plan for 80% of Britains power to come from 50 new nuclear power stations.

They plan to legalise prostitution and allow legal brothels to operate.

Best of all they plan members of the public to hold local referendums if they disagree with any UKIP policy!"

There is no proof for these allegations. I hope that Editor will ban this troll who is becoming tiresome. We should be debating facts not tosh like this troll posts.

I have had about enough of Justin Hinchcliffe and his sneering anti-semitism.

I am going to report his 12.10 post to the editor.

"sneering anti-semitism"? You're nuts!

Re: Ban the Trolls 17.00

Don't shoot the messenger. Please email your Chairman David Campbell-Bannerman and ask him what is being considered.

UKIP are considering legalising drugs, handing out drugs to drug addicts, legalising prostitution and brothels, building enough nuclear power stations to provide 80% of Britain's electricity needs and the policy of local referendums is in UKIPs local election manifesto 2006.

You should be in the BNP Mr Hinchcliffe.

I suppose you don't think Jews should be allowed to be members of the Conservative Party

You're a vile little homophobe, Mitzy. You label anyone who dares to disagree with you as being anti-semitic. You're a pathetic excuse of a man. Most Jews I know would abhor your double standards. I really hate you. Please don’t post here again.

Justin, Larry,

Please simmer down now, both of you - I don't want to have to shout for Tim or Sam to have to come and moderate this thread. If comment guidelines have been broken, they'll be enforced by the editorial team in due course!!

There have been a lot of constructive points made on here, from overall policy direction all the way to energy security, which present our party in a good light - please let's engage on those, and don't lets's spoil it by failing on basic decency and courtesy!

Why are you calling Larry "Mitzy" Justin?

It annoys him.

David Cameron knew what being a Tory meant; he help write the best General Election Manifesto in Conservative Party history for the last election. The only reason why we didn't win the last General Election was because of the extreme liberal bias of the news TV media, in particular the taxpayer funded, BBC and government owned Channel 4, where they believe the government should run every part of our lives. Now thanks to over payed 180 grand a year Mark Bowles (I think thats his name) who came up with the unpatriotic idea of setting up a Conservative party focus group, which consisted of members of the (eco-) terroist organisations Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to debate the issue of updating Trident, DC is a raving liberal elitist. DC now cares more about style than substance. He continues to campaign the cause of tackling "climate change" where we going to see more unnecessary increases of tax and the government will control every part of our lives, in what we eat and do. He believes we should give a hug to a hoddie, even though they continue to terrorise residents especially the elderly who have all their lives worked and given their lives for this country. He hasn't said one thing in Parliament about helping our military who are overstreteched in Iraq and are not treated and payed well. Instead he likes courting celibrities like Bob Geldoff who doesn't even have an O-Level, and who has used the "Make Poverty History" Campiagn for his own personal gain. The words Liberal and Conservative don't go well, it is an oxymoron. Only in Australia, can the Liberal Party be a traditional Conservative Party which is why John Howard has been sucesssful in being the longest serving Australian PM in history, because he is a true straight talking Conservative, in the mold of Lord Norman Tebbit and Margaret Thatcher.

And a comment to Justin Hinchcliff, why do you continue to stifle debate on nearly every issue on today's Conservative Party on this website. If you want to toe the Notting Hill DC line thats entirely up to you, but stop complaining about what open minded and also traditional Conservative Party members comment on this site. I'm sure every Conservative member whatever their believes will support your cause in Tottenham, where Labour have for years taken advantage of its residents.

Also Justin, why do you have the greeting "Welcome" on the front page of your Tottenham Conservative website in 14 languages (I think)? I'm sure the majority of Tottenham residents can speak English. As shown by a recent report in Newsnight, it doesn't help integration when local councils spend millions of taxpayer money in translating written services in English. Its the precise reason why soo many people are turning to the BNP espically the white working class, when they should be voting Tory.

DC does not need to defend himself and should not need to re-emphasise he is a Tory. He obviously is and indeed he is extolling a highly recognisable Conservatism with a modern and more positive twist. The voters like it as seen in the polls and local by-elections. It is undermining the Lib-Dem vote, stealing Lab voters back and making right-wing headbangers even more right wing. We are in danger of being the mainstream party again. Lets just get on with it!

Matt

In the last General election, the Tory Party came second where as a result we are the party in opposition. Thats pretty mainstream to me. The Respect Party, the British Communist Party, the SNP (nationally) are not in the mainstream. Also, we were more mainstream than the Liberal Democrats prior DC. If we are soo mainstream under DC, why did we nearly lose Bromley in a by-election even though it was a safe tory seat and we had a traditional Conservative Party candidate running for the seat.

Lets just get on with it!

I'm at risk of sounding dangerously tory-boyish, Matt, but still I can't resist: Hear, hear, hear...

It's interesting that you mention "stealing Lab voters back" - I mentioned the "core vote" above as a group I'd like to expand. There are a large number of ABC1 professionals that have voted New Lab since '97 who used to be a key component of our base, and I for one would like to bring more of them back to us!

Mark McCartney is spot on, that Mrs. T won our loyalty because she shared our values.
No perv power, no Eurogrovel, no egalitarian education emissions, capital and corporal punishment, now those issues would resound in the hearts of the people if Cameron were a real conservatvie. But he ain't.alas.

Sorry Ismail, but our great PM John Howard is not our longest serving Australian PM. That honour goes to the great Sir Robert Menzies, who was prime minister in 1939-40 and from from 1949-66.

John Howard's appeals to the punters because:
1. He's not Paul Keating, and doesn't share Keating's hangups.
2. He has delivered low interest rates than the searing 17% under Hawke and Keating
3. He recognises that the American alliance is Australia's ace card , and acts to protect it in every way.
4. He is seen to act in the national interest and people like (or are used to) his relaxed approach.

Alexander Drake - you forgot that he is an avid cricket fan and Australia has the world's best team seemingly throughout his tenure !

"You're a vile little homophobe, Mitzy. You label anyone who dares to disagree with you as being anti-semitic. You're a pathetic excuse of a man. Most Jews I know would abhor your double standards. I really hate you. Please don’t post here again."

This strikes me as an utterly appalling venom-filled post from Justin Hinchcliffe, who adds little of value to this site at the best of times.

I am not an expert on such matters but I would have thought that persistently calling a Jewish person by a Yiddish-style nickname in order to upset them could be classed as a Hate Crime.

Ismail, we lost votes to new Labour and the the Lib Dems from the late 90s. Both attracted previous Conservative voters. There are very clear signs that we are attracting those people back. Without that mainstream we cannot win and conversely if we become too shrill we frighten them away. However I am firmly of the view that this should not mean we have to be bland. We are best when we innovate and look forward with fresh eyes. That is what I liked about DC and I feel that is why we have made progress. However I think it is generally agreed that we need to flesh this out a bit, not so much with policies, but practical representations of what modern Conservatives stand for. Social responsibilty is the ideal starting point and it also is correct in that if we are going to address deep problems in the UK nad take the country forward we have to build up the ability of communities to help themselves,

Matt

Kindness. We need to show one another more kindness, or it becomes too unpleasant to read these strands, let alone contribute to them. That means: don't try and find a form of words designed to hurt someone. We don't know each other. The person I decide to verbally attack, because they've written something to enrage me, they might not be this aggressive ogre of my imagination, they might be a quiet decent person who used a word phrase which strikes him/her as amusing, not hurtful.

(I admit I get it wrong sometimes, this note is for myself as much as anything. I started having a go at someone yesterday, went and made a cup of tea, and thought "is that the sort of person you want to be Graeme? Like a sixth-form debater whose only goal in life is to score a verbal hit? Pathetic").

"Perv power", "anti-semite", "hateful" ... these are not words I want to read on a grown-up centre-right political discussion website.

And please, we must stop telling each other "you're not a true Conservative". It's such nonsense, on so many levels, to believe that a reader of a post has the power of insight required to state this with certainty.

Graeme I'm afraid that your view of human nature is not one I would share.

Would you spend all your time being kind to the Labour Party for instance? They'd walk all over you.

Just because some political nasty chooses (probably for rather questionable reasons) to flaunt a Conservative membership card doesn't make him any less of a nasty just because you belong to the same club.

Justin Hinchcliffe is always abusing other posters. Other "Trolls" are banned. Why not him?

I'm not a troll, Ian. Are you? Everyone knows who I am; I don't hide my identity and work hard for the Party. Do you call everyone a troll with whom you disagree with? It's funny how Mitzy says I should be in the BNP and another poster attacks me for having the word "welcome" in 14 different languages on our website. Very BNP. Not!

Im not going to waste my time argueing with you, Mr Hinchcliffe, as you are beneath contempt. If, as you say, you are working hard for the party I assume that it is purely to gain some political or other advantage for yourself.

I had never heard of you until I encountered you here but last night I was "filled in" on your controversail past history.

Since you appear to be fond of Yiddish you should know what I mean when I say your activities show you to be a total klutz.

Thansk, Mitz.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

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:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker