I'm not sure how often Bruce Anderson gets up from the lunch tables of London's finest restaurants and actually meets grassroots Conservatives but my guess is not very often. Trying to explain David Cameron's modest opinion poll lead he decides to blame Conservative Party members for the party's troubles in his Monday column for The Independent. He compares activists to "perverts" who hold fantasies within a "locked room" in their brains. 90% of Tories apparently believe in the following:
"In their dreams, Britain is no longer in the EU. The coloured population of these islands is less than a tenth of its present total. Instead of being allowed into government, the leaders of the IRA were shot. Every town has a grammar school: every schoolmaster a cane. The death penalty has been restored and crime is under firm control. The state is only spending a quarter of the nation's income. Margaret Thatcher is still Prime Minister. If you were to make a speech advocating all that to 100 Tory activists, 10 would disagree. Thirty would cheer. Another 30 would agree but keep quiet. They want to be councillors and there might be a spy reporting to Central Office. The final 30 would also have agreed, after one more drink. But Mr Cameron would be firmly among the 10."
Such a description of the average Conservative activist is incredibly unfair. There are some Conservative members who object to multiracial Britain but a diminishing few. When I go to Tory gatherings I find people much, much more likely to talk about schools'n'hospitals than hanging'n'flogging. Conservative activists are selecting more diverse candidates and they are actively involved in community action. It is true that most Conservative activists want a smaller state, a tough approach to terrorism and strong discipline in schools but the Tory cause is not helped by painting the party workers as extremists. It just isn't true. I'm think of using the next ConservativeHome survey to survey Tory views on global development, human rights and care of the elderly. Any suggestions for questions would be welcome...
What exactly does Bruce Anderson mean by the "coloured population of these islands"?
Perhaps it is a reference to the florid complexion of certain veteran hacks?
Posted by: Soupy Twist | February 19, 2007 at 11:56
Did he get paid to write this. Oh dear - Independent readers should ask for their money back!
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | February 19, 2007 at 11:59
Most Conservative activists I meet are decent, public spirited if slightly old fashioned people who simply want to make their communities a better place.
A couple of points about this article and its author. Bruce Anderson claims to be a friend of Cameron but has written several articles which have been incredibly nasty and unhelpful to the party. He also has a reputation for getting it wrong,he must have been the only person in Britain who thought a few days before polling day that we were going to win in 1997.
As he writes for the Independant not many people and I suspect only a tiny number of Conservative activists will be aware of this piece. The circulation of that newspaper which was never great has been falling steadily in recent years. I don't think it has much of a future,and neither I think does Bruce.
Posted by: malcolm | February 19, 2007 at 12:05
Possibly this is a Borat-style joke? I.e. it is so patently ridiculous that it's taking the mickey out of those who think the party is still like that.
Or maybe he just couldn't think of anything worthwhile to write so trotted out twenty years out of date cliches...
Posted by: Robert McIlveen | February 19, 2007 at 12:11
How about this for the next survey: 101 Uses for Bruce Anderson?
But perhaps this is another Cunning Plan? In the way that Simon Heffer's dinosaur-style disapproval and parody of Old Guard prejudices is meant to validate the "Change To Win" project, The Brute advocates ridiculous centreground slush propositions which no-one could sensibly believe as a way of reassuring the Tory Core. So, alongside "we must be doing something right because Heffer is against it", we have now acquired the stock phrase "Cameron couldn't possibly mean XYZ because Anderson supports it". Or am I missing the point again?
Posted by: William Norton | February 19, 2007 at 12:12
Conservative activists are selecting more diverse candidates?
Does that mean that as a Liberal I should be putting my name forward?
Posted by: TimberWolf | February 19, 2007 at 12:23
Well, what can I say? Certainly, there are *some* members who hold such views, but if they were in the majority, then Cameron would never have been elected. The 90% figure might actually be people from this site - non-members and supporters and UKUP trolls - who post on this site which, after all, bills itself as the voice of Conservative "grassroots". Ed, time for compulsory registration to weed-out all the trolls and fruitcakes.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | February 19, 2007 at 12:25
Some time soon Bruce should fill in Indy readers about his fascinating views on 'diversity' (pace "coloureds") in modern Britain. That would make 'em sit up over their morning cornflakes.
Posted by: Victim at the Travellers' Club bar | February 19, 2007 at 12:28
I'd argue that although many Tories would be quite happy to see such a programme enacted, they are pragmatic enough to know that such things are impossible in 21st century Britain. They realise that it is infinitely better to hold power and at least steer the country in their preferred direction , rather than wait in opposition (with a "principled" programme) and achieve nothing.
Posted by: CDM | February 19, 2007 at 12:41
Well...With regard to the comment about the 'leadership' he's bang on the money! The EU- bang on the money. When he refers to 'race and immigration' the comment is probably more accurate to describe the electorate's view ( the current FT poll).
Posted by: simon | February 19, 2007 at 12:45
I think that 90% of Labour activists secretly dream of re-nationalising BT and British Gas; want to reopen coal mines all over the North of England, re-introduce obligatory trade union membership, introduce a 98% top rate of tax, and launch annual targets for tractor production as part of a planned economy.
I can also claim to be a close friend of Tony Blair having met him once at the IOD.
Can I have a column in the Indie now please?
Posted by: Marcus Wood | February 19, 2007 at 12:53
Bruce Anderson is right - it is what most of us believe.
Each one of these propositions is true - Britain would be better off and happier as a nation.
In the 1960s, anyone saying that trade unions were a menace, incomes policy was nonsense, exchange controls were unfair and state subsidy to industry was economic illiteracy was regarded as a crank, probably malignant.
The time will come when restoring the death penalty, allowing corporal punishment in schools, stopping immigration, teaching by ability, cutting taxes, executing terrorists instead of sucking up to them will be seen as commonsense.
We just have to be patient - and don't alert the BBC to what we're really thinking.
That's Bruce Anderson's only crime, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Arthur | February 19, 2007 at 13:01
This is significant. It shows that the leadership, including close friends and sources of Brute like Bridges, are very worried about the core vote not turning out, despite the public assurances to contrary.
Posted by: uhoh | February 19, 2007 at 13:01
Why are you not willing to put your real name and email address to those views Arthur? Are you for real or a Labour troll?
Posted by: Umbrella Man | February 19, 2007 at 13:04
Maybe uhoh but it is more likely that what Bruce Anderson writes is what a lot of the Cameroonies think of us.
Posted by: Umbrella Man | February 19, 2007 at 13:07
Is this Brute lashing out on his own, or the product of a happy weekend with Salisbury and Bridges at Cranborne, or licensed from Vic St?
Will Hilton be pleased that internal fears about the core vote have leaked?
Posted by: odd | February 19, 2007 at 13:11
Justin is right, Editor, it's time that registration was made compulsory on this site.
Otherwise people like "Arthur" above at 13:01 will make this site a laughing stock by confirming the worst prejudices of the media about "grassroots Conservatives" - no doubt to further their own political agenda, whether that be Lib/Lab or UKIP/BNP.
Posted by: Kevin | February 19, 2007 at 13:19
Utter rubbish, it's a wonderful stereotype to use, but if you're using that tag then Labour members are all former communists that take class A drugs, shoot hunters and wish we had 90% income tax.
There will be maybe 1-5% of members that believe in what Bruce Anderson says there, very few indeed.
Posted by: Michael Rutherford | February 19, 2007 at 13:21
Did Bruce write this after lunch?
Posted by: HF | February 19, 2007 at 13:26
I would imagine that this ?journalist wrote this article, quite precisely to get as much of a 'rise' as he and his paper can out of conservative thinking people and members of the party. And probably the paper enjoyed the prospect of drawing the eat off the delusions of this government, and indeed others who don't happen to vote for the conservative party. So just forget its there, simple!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | February 19, 2007 at 13:40
Time really has moved on. It is no longer the name of Sir Richard Body, but the name of Bruce Anderson, that prompts the sound of flapping white coats. Such sweeping generalisations are patently ludicrous and are as unfair as me saying that the sorry thing about this article is that all Indy readers will be desperate to believe it.
Posted by: Tony | February 19, 2007 at 13:43
Hells bells, this has caused a bit of a fuss! Instead of polling us 'up to it techno-wonks' why doesn't CH do a poll/questionnaire aimed at all Party members with reference to the Leadership, the Euro, etc? Then we would really see the 'opinions and mood of the party'! Not that i'd want to bankrupt Tim!
Posted by: simon | February 19, 2007 at 13:55
Tim, I agree with Justin. It is now more than time we have to register to post on CH, otherwise it will become a laughing stock, and no more than a handy crib for any passing journo with writer's block.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | February 19, 2007 at 13:58
Guess they have to fill the column inches somehow, blank spaces don't look too good. ;)
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | February 19, 2007 at 14:03
OK my head on the block
I am in favour of leaving the EU So are 30% of most opinion polls
I am in favour of capital punishment and so is every opinion poll for the last 50 yrs. Is there anyone who doesn't want crime under control?
I am in favour of setting in schools and of improving school discipline which has disintegrated in too many schools since the banning of the cane
I am in favour of reducing govt expenditure but I would settle for 30-33% of GDP
I am in favour of immigration control and want illegal immigrants deported as required by law and I am in favour of full integration of immigrant communities.
Mrs Thatcher is too old to be Prime Minister but was a bloody good one in her day.
This is NOT an extreme position. There is no part of the platform above (except the GDP share, which most of the population wouldn't understand) which would not command majority support in any opinion poll. What is extreme is the brainwashed frightened cowed reaction with which this piece of nonsense has been greeted. It was in the Independent for God's sake. How did you find out about it? Its a minority entertainment even in Hampstead and commands absolutely no votes off the Heath.
You lot are Bloomsbury talking to Islington and would be more impressive if you had rather more than 36% to show for it.
Posted by: Opinicus | February 19, 2007 at 14:03
Umbrella Man and Kevin, I can assure you I am a Conservative - party member, activist, etc - and I am anonymous for a rather obvious tactical reason.
As long as a malignant journalist can only say "an anonymous comment on a thread said..." it doesn't have much purchase. It's weirdly unsourced and folk like you can even say "it's probably UKIP, BNP, Labour, etc." Ergo, very little harm is done.
This is a great way for fellow Conservatives to be able to talk frankly to each other, in the public realm, without giving much useable ammo to the liberal left types who run the BBC and other opinion-forming organs.
I stand by every word I said. I'm a Tory so I don't buy into politically correct crap that denies fundamental truths about human nature. Bruce Anderson, in his own clodhopping and irresponsible way, was merely pointing out certain facts, not just about what Conservatives really think but about what Britian really needs.
If you disagree with me on hanging, mass immigration, education, tax then say so - and explain why, as a Tory, you prefer lax sentencing, multiculturalism, mixed ability teaching and high taxes.
We all have to sing the 'correct' songs until we're in power - I'm a Cameroon too -then the long, hard struggle to restore this country to sanity begins.
Posted by: Arthur | February 19, 2007 at 14:04
OK my head on the block
I am in favour of leaving the EU So are 30% of most opinion polls
I am in favour of capital punishment and so is every opinion poll for the last 50 yrs. Is there anyone who doesn't want crime under control?
I am in favour of setting in schools and of improving school discipline which has disintegrated in too many schools since the banning of the cane
I am in favour of reducing govt expenditure but I would settle for 30-33% of GDP
I am in favour of immigration control and want illegal immigrants deported as required by law and I am in favour of full integration of immigrant communities.
Mrs Thatcher is too old to be Prime Minister but was a bloody good one in her day.
This is NOT an extreme position. There is no part of the platform above (except the GDP share, which most of the population wouldn't understand) which would not command majority support in any opinion poll. What is extreme is the brainwashed frightened cowed reaction with which this piece of nonsense has been greeted. It was in the Independent for God's sake. How did you find out about it? Its a minority entertainment even in Hampstead and commands absolutely no votes off the Heath.
You lot are Bloomsbury talking to Islington and would be more impressive if you had rather more than 36% to show for it.
Posted by: Opinicus | February 19, 2007 at 14:07
Bruce Anderson is being disingenuous. He suggests that dissatisfaction with the leadership is limited to social authoritarians, e.g. the Sir Bufton Tuftons of this world.
In fact, libertarian free marketeers are equally concerned by Cameron's political correctness, voodoo environmentalism and unwillingness to reform public services.
Posted by: thatcherite | February 19, 2007 at 14:09
I followed the link, read the article in full and thought it was simply hilarious; just like rants from the opposite side of politics such as those of of Polly T and Yasmin A-B. All three seem to be assiduous students of the 'Alf Garnett' style of political rhetoric. If they were members of the public rather than revered political columnists I'm sure their copy would be written in green ink.
Posted by: Henry Rogers | February 19, 2007 at 14:13
Didn't Bernard Jenkin get accused of being a racist for using the term "coloured"? It is apparently offensive from Conservatives but not the Indy then?
Posted by: DavidTBreaker | February 19, 2007 at 14:17
Bruce Anderson is such a bore and so out of touch. Frankly he missed the boat and was born too late to live in Bertie Wooster's Britain
Posted by: ToMTom | February 19, 2007 at 14:18
Actually, I always thought this was precisely the sort of programme the Brute favoured.
With the exception of expelling 90% of ethnic minorities from the UK, the rest seems fairly unexceptionable - at least as an aspiration.
Posted by: Sean Fear | February 19, 2007 at 14:43
What about the way that Anderson smeared Francis Maude and his late brother? Anderson has the capacity to say some very nasty things.
Posted by: changetowin | February 19, 2007 at 14:52
Britain is no longer in the EU
Yes
The coloured population of these islands is less than a tenth of its present total.
No, a horrible smear.
the leaders of the IRA were shot
I would have pulled the trigger myself.
Every town has a grammar school: every schoolmaster a cane.
Brilliant idea.
The death penalty has been restored and crime is under firm control.
Fantastic
The state is only spending a quarter of the nation's income.
That much? Too high!
Margaret Thatcher is still Prime Minister.
Don't even get my hopes up.
Posted by: Geoff | February 19, 2007 at 15:05
Anderson is a repulsive and insincere opportunist. His own true opinions are actually not very far removed from those he ascribes to grassroots Tories, but because he has spent the post-Thatcher years creeping up to such "liberals" as Major and Cameron he adopts a mask of progressivism.
I hope he's reading this because he should remember me. About 10 years ago one night in Blackpool I was introduced to Anderson who seemed to be well away. He apparently didn't like something I said during the ensuing discussion because he suddenly roared "People like you should be shot!"
I said "Would you care to repeat that?" and he did, whereupon I reached for his nose and twisted it hard and - judging by his squeal - painfully.
As The Brute fled like a scared king-size rabbit I planted one of my patent shoes up his backside. Shame I wasn't wearing hobnails.
Roars of laughter all round. I think Sean Fear may have been among the spectators.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 19, 2007 at 15:09
From the comments here, it looks like Bruce Anderson was getting at the truth very well.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | February 19, 2007 at 15:14
Andreson's article is a grotesque slur on the Party and its members, written just to get a smug self-satisfied reaction from the Indie's social democratic readers - but, as Arthur, Sean Fear and Geoff sadly illustrate, not too unrepresentative of this website. "Voice of the grassroots", my foot!
Posted by: Margaret on the Gullotine | February 19, 2007 at 15:19
It's not a smear to say we think these things - because we do.
Posted by: Peter | February 19, 2007 at 15:21
This does rather bring into question the current central strategy of pursuing the Independent and it's few remaining readers.
On the topic of requiring registration to post on CH, something that I do not support at all, I would like to ask those in favour of doing so just how that will halt criticism of the current leadership seeing as how a large body of those posting that criticism are party members who would register and continue to post in their own names as they do at present. CH is independent of the party and quite rightly values its independence. The voice of the grassroots may be an uncomfortable voice for the Blue Labour tendency but if you don't like it then just read Conservatives.com instead and remain ignorant of what the wider party, as opposed to the apparatchiks, actually think.
Posted by: Matt Davis | February 19, 2007 at 15:32
Margaret: sadly illustrate?
I'm sorry, but crime being under "firm control" is a good thing. Shooting terrorists and murderers is a good thing. Grammar schools are a great thing. Hanging killers is a good thing. Spending much less is a good thing.
Send-em-back-where-they-came-from is hideous racism and best left to a BNP blog. It has no supporters here - except for trolls.
Margaret - do you take issue with any of those points and why? As a committee member of my local Association I don't regard any of the opinions I've expressed above as being out of line with the broad church that my party represents. Do you?
Posted by: Geoff | February 19, 2007 at 15:33
If we remove the allegation of racism, then he did just describe Tory heaven.
Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2007 at 15:34
Bruce Anderson used to write sensible stuff in the Sunday Telegraph for example.
It appears that he is an accomplished cameleon.
Posted by: realcon | February 19, 2007 at 15:34
The EU is the key issue, only when it is resolved do any of the political parties carry any credibility on any other policies.
Posted by: Steve | February 19, 2007 at 15:36
WHo is talking about repatriation or deportation of ethnic minorities? Bruce Anderson's point was different.
Britain would be a happier place today if we'd let in a much smaller number of immigrants during the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s - and been much more selective about WHICH immigrants we admitted.
That observation doesn't get us terribly far but it's the truth and denying it puts us on a par with the PC liars of the political Left.
Posted by: Frank Chapple | February 19, 2007 at 15:41
I think most Tories would rather the number of immigrants had been a lot smaller, particularly now with all the Muslim problems.
That doesn't mean we agree with the BNP strategy of sending them back. Many were born here, although as we've seen with Muslim terrorists that doesn't guarantee loyalty.
I can't believe that many Tories would really think that immigration (why can't we say coloured immigration because that best describes it?) has helped relations and stability in the UK.
Posted by: Nikki C | February 19, 2007 at 15:49
Frank, Great Britain would have been a happier place if we hadn't admitted a load of Normans in 1066. The few years afterwards probably weren't fun to live through.
We always have to look for solutions to issues in the present - not look back. I've got my strong views in favour of the death penalty etc as above on this thread but Anderson's allegations of racism go much too far.
Posted by: Geoff | February 19, 2007 at 15:52
A quick fisk of your Brute quote:
"Britain no longer in the EU" - You betcha, Brute, but this is not a dream confined to Tories. It was the default position of the Old Left, and is the current thinking of fishermen and farmers, small businesses and the traditional industrious working-class Briton. Lots of folk, in fact.
"The coloured population of the UK less than a tenth of its present total" - No, Brute. Not 90% repatriated, but 90% better integrated and better educated and 90% less indulged in their counter-culture.
"Instead of allowed into government,leaders of IRA shot" - Realpolitik is not a concept exclusive to you and your type, Brute. We can cope with the fact that the murderers were returned to Westminster, but not that they draw gravy-train expenses when they don't take up their seats.
"In every town a grammar: every schoolmaster a cane" - Grammar yes, cane no. But if we are to deprive teachers of canes, let's have proper punishment alternatives and support teachers when they use these sanctions. A teacher in court for carrying out his duties as he or she saw fit should be almost unheard of.
"Death penalty restored; crime under control" - as discussed in this thread, the former is on balance a vote winner. Restoration won't solve crime levels, but must be a partial deterrent to armed criminals who are prepared to take lives knowing their own is guaranteed by law. Contempt for liberal indulgence of wrong-doers is not exclusive to the Tory core vote.
"The state spending 25% of GDP" - Meet you halfway, Brute. Let's say 37%. The balance of 12-15% will still be spent on goods and services (creating jobs and profit and tax-take), but by individuals who MIGHT JUST spend it more wisely, rather than down the dogs.
"Thatcher still PM" - As a punchline, not exactly LOL. Remembering how we dealt with things last time we got a hospital pass from Labour ought to be a help rather than a hindrance. The Tory core is not Luddite, but it respects foundations as a basis for political activity rather than hasty erection on sand.
Conclusion: The Brute is not as stupid as he looks, after all: he's half right in all his assumptions. A little less arrogance and intellectual snobbery, and we might even make a Tory of him. But one of those shallow opportunist ones, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Og | February 19, 2007 at 16:03
Good post Og. Quite funny too.
Posted by: malcolm | February 19, 2007 at 16:10
Yes Geoff @ 15.52, but what was the total population of England, letalone the UK in 1066, was it even a fifth of today's large number??? THAT is the difference. Its numbers that is important, and people keepo ignoring that - rats start to fight each other if they become too numerous in the place that they live in, that is an established fact. I am not sure that WE are much more civilised than that, certainly some are NOT!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | February 19, 2007 at 16:13
To be honest (and having already had a go at the twofaced prat Anderson) we all know that there are plenty of Tories who hold more or less 100% the views stated. Of course they usually cast shifty glances around the room before pronouncing on the "race" issue in particular.
These views tend to moderate in proportion to political ambition. Old Colonel Fart propping up the bar of the Con Club can say pretty much what he wants about anybody, but the Justin Hinchcliffes and Changetowins of this world who are looking to various "minorities" to boost their political careers are more inclined to Political Correctness for reasons of expediency.
Don't forget that most elderly Tories (and most Tories are elderly) don't tend to mix in circles where it's rude to say "coloured" and indeed things which are much ruder than that.
Possibly, because I'm relatively uncensorious about such things, some will open out to me when they would be more circumspect, say, with Richard Carey or Gareth.
So the ghastly Anderson may well have been totally off the wall after an expense-account liquid lunch, but there's more than a grain of truth in his rant.
His dear friend Dave won't be pleased, but I'm sure Labour are jumping for joy.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 19, 2007 at 16:24
Ahem, please calm down Patsy.
Demographics change, situations alter and populations increase. Things change and 1066 isn't representative of today - but a week is a long time in politics as some idiot once said.
Anderson is accusing my party of blatant racism and I completely refute that. Only trolls on this site could possibly agree with his point. We are a fair and inclusive party but this is not party-political. His slur should offend all right-thinking people.
Alex Forsyth: I am far from being a Colonel Old Fart - only 32 - but as per my post above I'm 80% signed up to those opinions. It is the racist one I take exception to.
Death penalty though? I'd string the noose myself.
Posted by: Geoff | February 19, 2007 at 16:31
As I made clear, I'm not in favour of repatriation. But I'm puzzled to know why Margaret should think my comments "sad." Repatriation aside, the remaining opinions are pretty mainstream in the Conservative Party.
Posted by: Sean Fear | February 19, 2007 at 16:40
BTW, who is this Anderson guy anyway?
Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2007 at 16:59
A big fat Scot, Josh. A hagiographer of John Major and a fawning sycophant to Alan Clark (with Cameron, his attraction to party leaders and social cache comes in the same package). A gourmand of astonishing appetite. A sworn enemy of the Heff, who you might remember was underwhelmed by Major's administration.
The Brute is not all bad, though. He has articulated some decent arguments in the past. He's writing for the Indy crowd at the moment, and they pay his restaurant expenses, so he must come up with THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.
Posted by: Og | February 19, 2007 at 17:22
... dog-whistle journalism for the Indy readership, and dogs-DINNER journalism for the Brute.
Posted by: Og | February 19, 2007 at 17:25
Its about time that people on this site understood that the vast majority of people find there racist comments and there have been more than a few on this thread not just wrong but deeply offensive.
Its about time the editor of this site had a policy of banning anyone who makes a racist comment from the site.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 19, 2007 at 17:52
The person who should be quarantined is Jack Stone who is almost rabid in his comments about race and silencing any views he disagrees with.
Perhaps you should find some other interest besides race Jack. You make no mention of Bruce Anderson's article at all - you go on and on and on about race.
If I didn't think you were a Liberal Democrat I should have marked you down as a member of a political party which twists every thread to comment on race and that would be which party ?
Posted by: ToMTom | February 19, 2007 at 17:58
"As I made clear, I'm not in favour of repatriation. But I'm puzzled to know why Margaret should think my comments "sad." Repatriation aside, the remaining opinions are pretty mainstream in the Conservative Party."
Some of them are pretty mainstream in the country as a whole.
So Margaret of the guillotine, do you deny that restoration of the death penalty is popular?
Posted by: Richard | February 19, 2007 at 18:35
Jack Stone is a very obvious troll. Unlike most of the other left-wingers on this site it's evident from his ramblings that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the everyday workings of the party. Clearly he is not and has never been a party activist - not in the Conservative Party, anyway.
Have you ever heard him talk about canvassing, Conference, Ward/CPF meetings or anything of the sort? Never.
The increasingly ludicrous spelling errors are clearly an intentional smokescreen. I'm still baffled as to what exactly he is trying to achieve. My money is on a UKIP activist trying to make the Cameroons look stupid and ignorant.
It's all very well getting sanctimonious about "racism" but we should remember that what is now condemned by the bien pensants was taken for granted two generations ago and regarded as a subject for humour (remember "Till Death Us Do Part"?) by many of my own generation, left, right and centre. Johnny Speight was a left-wing socialist, not a BNP man.
I have a book I bought in W H Smith back in the 1970s which is full of jokes which would now cause a storm. It was written by a star of TVs "The Comedians" and issued by a mainstream publisher as part of a very popular series.
Given that ethnic minorities form only about 10% of the population and that this relatively small percentage is generally concentrated well away from the strongest Conservative Associations; given also that older Conservatives probably have no ethnic minority friends and that they have never undergone "diversity training" brainwashing or anything of the sort, can there be any surprise that they frequently hold unfashionable views without any embarrassment whatsoever?
I daresay exactly the same can be said of the old shop stewards at the Labour Club, so is there really any need for us to get hung up over it?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 19, 2007 at 18:42
Jack, what has been said that is racist?
Posted by: Deputy Editor | February 19, 2007 at 18:44
Jack Stone would it be possible for you to remember the difference between 'there' and 'their'. To quote you 'the vast majority of people find THERE racist comments....', in that context 'there', spelled like that, means 'over there' or 'up there', 'on there' etc:, what you wanted to mean what presumably you meant is 'THEIR' which means 'of theirs', 'belonging to them' etc:.
I apologise if this offends you but you make this mistake over and over again, which means that everybody else has to work twice as hard to understand what you are saying. Is it worth it?
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | February 19, 2007 at 19:13
1) Change To Win is not a genuine person, but rather a cipher for whichever teenager at CCHQ, generally Tamzin Lightwater I believe, is charged with articulating the Blue Labour line on CH on any given day.
2) If we are going to get into the deeply unpalatable business of requesting the Editor ban people from the site then I would like to nominate Jack Stone himself as the first to be banned on the grounds of his complete intolerance of any view but his own and propensity to continually play the "racist" card.
Posted by: Matt Davis | February 19, 2007 at 19:17
I suppose,to be fair, Bruce is only voicing the distain that Dave has for real conservatives.
Posted by: Richard | February 19, 2007 at 19:21
Wasn't Jack Stone the guy who hadn't a clue how many MPs "their" were in Southend, where he claims to live?
Hot dog!
Posted by: Stone Jack Stone! | February 19, 2007 at 19:23
I think this headline is a bit rich coming from a UKIP infested blog that misrepresents itself as the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party's grass-roots to a wider media. Some of the reactionairy "Conservative" opinions voiced here smear both party and membership to a far greater extent than Bruce Anderson's pathetic publicity stunt.
There was a marvellous suggestion the other day along the lines of making clear exactly who posters intend to vote for alongside their postings so that The Times et al can't take the whimperings of few malcontents as the beginnings of some sort of civil war within a rejuvinated party.
I really used to enjoy the exchange of views on this website but the concerted anti-Cameron, anti-Conservative contingent makes it utterly tedious.
Posted by: Buckers | February 19, 2007 at 19:25
"There was a marvellous suggestion the other day along the lines of making clear exactly who posters intend to vote for alongside their postings"
Great idea. But people must use their real names otherwise it will be impossible to check their credentials.
Were you born Buckers, or did you change your name by deed poll?
Posted by: Sherlock | February 19, 2007 at 19:45
Arthur:
"The time will come when restoring the death penalty, allowing corporal punishment in schools, stopping immigration, teaching by ability, cutting taxes, executing terrorists instead of sucking up to them will be seen as commonsense."
Well, thinking in terms of common sense rather than the Rousseauean inalienable human rights of terrorists etc, some of these are still debatable. Personally I think it's worth looking at these empirically.
1. Death Penalty - the availability of the death penalty seems to significantly reduce murder rates, but once it's available, its frequent application doesn't seem to have much additional impact. It seems to be more awareness that the State reserves the ultimate sanction, rather than the statistical likelihood of its actual application, that has the primary deterrent effect.
2. Corporal punishment in schools - not a big fan personally, but to my knowledge the research indicates that it does help greatly to maintain order and discipline among boys and has no serious ill effects, but has a deleterious effect on girls and should not be used on them. Our big problem with schooling in general is the feminising of education, these days girls and boys are both expected to behave like girls, and pathologised if they don't. Treating girls like boys isn't a good idea either though, they're different.
3. Stopping immigration - some immigrant groups bring significant economic benefits, mostly middle-man minorities fleeing persecution, like the Ugandan Asians. The biggest priority with our system is that it encourages immigration from 'failed states' via the asylum system. These are by definition the worst places in the world to source immigrants from!
4. Teaching by ability - this really is common sense, I don't think there's any non-Marxist argument against it.
5. Cutting taxes - it does seem to spur economic growth, providing more money for services as well as more money in people's pockets. Investment in infrastructure can be beneficial, but there's no doubt our tax rates are far above optimum.
6. Executing terrorists - this is something that is viscerally extremely attractive - eye for an eye - yet unfortunately the evidence is that this is actually the least common sense of the proposals! Certainly I think terrorists deserve to die, but unfortunately executing them creates martyrs and aids terrorist recruitment. Where executing bank robbers has a big effect on reducing bank robbery, unfortunately the evidence is that executing terrorists has the opposite effect. Once you start this kind of escalation the only successful approach is Syria's 'Hama Solution' of killing both the active terrorists and every terrorist supporter you can find, which may be tens of thousands of people*. The evidence is strongly that de-escalation seems to be the most effective solution to terror campaigns.
Now having said that, just because it's not a good idea to execute terrorists doesn't mean you should let them out of jail, either.
*Sometimes a terror campaign has a narrow leadership base, eg the El Salvador insurgency. In these cases, wiping out the terrorist leadership can destroy their movement. Successful examples I'm aware of have all involved extra-judicial executions rather than trial & punishment, though.
Posted by: Simon Newman | February 19, 2007 at 19:48
I see a court case "lingering" soon, soon soon.
Posted by: LJ | February 19, 2007 at 20:06
Sometimes Conservative Home reminds me of Amy Winehouse. The irony in this set of posts is nearly enjoyable.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 19, 2007 at 20:23
Matt, 19.17 - Your excellent Tamzin theory about changeeverythinganythingsolongasiwin fails on one point - he/she/it hates being ridiculed and lampooned, and reacts. Tamzin wouldn't care, because she wouldn't take it personally.
Posted by: Og | February 19, 2007 at 20:24
Sound like you should have been shot Alex. If you had done that to me at conference you wouldn't have lived to tell the story, mate. But then I'm a northern lad and don't take fools gladly,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | February 19, 2007 at 20:52
Mind you, looking at some of the odd-looking people on 18 doughty street who really shouldn't be out in public, Tory activists do have a touch of the "Addams Family" about them, with the Editor here making an excellent looky-likey for Lurch.
Posted by: Bullingdon Toff Tory | February 19, 2007 at 20:54
When reading about that 18 month old toddler being raped and murdered, the words hanging'n'flogging weren't far from my mind. By believing that the perpretrator of this vile act should be hanged and flogged, then I confess to being a unreconstructed, old style, reactionary tory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe this monster needs to be 'understood'. Amazing that one of Mr Anderson's slights at the membership, is that we want crime to be under control! Perish such a thought, uncontrolled crime should be a modern Conservative party aspiration, it shows we're 'in touch with modern Britain'.
Posted by: yogring | February 19, 2007 at 21:19
Tamzin Lightwater doesn't work in CCHQ but works in DC's office in the Commons and is well known! I won't embarass her.
Posted by: Sino | February 19, 2007 at 21:56
What do you expert from Bruce Anderson, an opinion editorial writer from The Independent, a loss-making far-left wing communist newspaper. Besides of the rediculous comment that he says of Tory attitudes towards "coloured" people (whatever that is) and his ideas of the ambition of a Tory member, it is an accurate description of a Tory and we should be proud of it. We are not liberal elitists Notting Hill toffs who have never worked for anything in their lives, who like to hang out and be dictated by members of eco-terroist organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of my Ass. We are however part of the mainstream middle class who pay the largest proportion of taxes in the UK, and who are constantly ignored by society.
Posted by: Ismail | February 19, 2007 at 23:01
Sometimes Conservative Home reminds me of Amy Winehouse. The irony in this set of posts is nearly enjoyable.
Apparently Amy Winehouse (I've never heard of her before) is a Jazz singer.
Please explain what you mean.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 06:42
Sometimes Conservative Home reminds me of Amy Winehouse. The irony in this set of posts is nearly enjoyable.
Apparently Amy Winehouse (I've never heard of her before) is a Jazz singer.
Please explain what you mean.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 06:42
The death penalty should not make a return. There are far too many examples, even with DNA, of mistakes being made...
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | February 20, 2007 at 10:32
I'm sure that if Anderson spoke to any person in the street, irrespective of their race, creed, colour or political persuasion, most would respond in a similar manner.
We all want peace, prosperity, crime free streets, decent education, a criminal justice system that works, local services functioning efficiently and cheaply and people in this country legally, paying taxes, and subject to legislative constraints, not free to rob and rape and kill, so as not to interfere with their human rights.
Well done Bruce, finally articulating what everybody wants, though he just couldn't fail to try to spin the story into the usual mess that one expects from his bloody rag.
Posted by: George Hinton | February 20, 2007 at 12:24
Seems a pretty good dream to me, with a little modification of detail:
#Mrs Thatcher was very necessary & effective in the circumstances of the time. Those particular circumstances no longer pertain.
#Delete the bit about the coloured population. If an immigrant (dusky or otherwise) assimilates and acts British then he/she is ordinary British as far as I'm concerned. Descendants should additionally sound British (ie a concession to the first generation, in fond deference to the postwar British Poles I worked with who assimilated fully but never quite mastered the accent!). My objection is to multi-culturalism imposing upon everyday life, as opposed to celebrating one's origins - whether Scottish, Polish, Indian, whatever - socially as a leisure activity.
#Interpret ".. every schoolmaster has a cane.." as meaning teachers able to assert authority without being done for infringement of human rights, etc.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | February 20, 2007 at 13:16
Spend some time on Conservative Home and you soon realise that Bruce Anderson is on the money with his article.
Posted by: Adam | February 20, 2007 at 13:51
Actually I think virtually every "Conservative" Party activist I've ever met would be in the 10 per cent, including the overwhelming majority of posters here.
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | February 20, 2007 at 15:00
"Sometimes Conservative Home reminds me of Amy Winehouse. The irony in this set of posts is nearly enjoyable"
Graeme at the risk of bringing TL out of retirement to claim we are the same poster, must admit I thought the same listening to her album a couple of days ago.
But when reading through the Conhom comments thread I would recommend listening to the Kaiser Chiefs last album, always helps to place some posts right up there in the twilight zone.
Posted by: Scotty | February 20, 2007 at 15:52
Which song Scotty,'I predict a riot' perchance?
TL/Alex Forsyth/Mark McCartney and probably otherss= same troll I suspect.
Posted by: malcolm | February 20, 2007 at 16:29
Malcolm good choice, but I also like Modern Way and Every day I love you Less and Less.
But for all those UKIP trolls out there my favourite is Na Na Na, which is the message the public will send to their party come the local elections.
Does the fact that being a fan of Cameron despite being an ardent supporter of Mrs T back in the 80's combined with my musically tastes moving with the times mean I am a lost cause?
Posted by: Scotty | February 20, 2007 at 16:43
Does the fact that being a fan of Cameron despite being an ardent supporter of Mrs T back in the 80's combined with my musically tastes moving with the times mean I am a lost cause?
It means, Scotty, that politically you are probably sui generis
Musically...well I'm not sure that "music" is the appropropriate term for whatever it is that you are talking about.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 20, 2007 at 16:51
Those Alleged Tory Policies in Full:
1. leave the EU
2. remove 90%+ coloured population
3. IRA leaders out of govt, shot
4. grammar schools reinstated
5. corporal punishment in schools
6. death penalty restored
7. crime is under firm control
8. state spends only 25% of national income
9. Mrs Thatcher for PM
1 is unrealistic and probably not desirable. 2, 5, and 6 I consider to be highly undesirable. 9 is unnecessary and not necessarily desirable. 8 is good for a daydream, but unrealistic as 25% of state income doesn't pay for good enough services. Why is taxation a virtue in itself? You tax as much as necessary, not as much as possible. 3 is good for a daydream, bar the shooting, but not pragmatic. That leaves 4 (grammar schools) as the only policy I'd actually like adopted.
Oh, and as for 7: "Bruce Anderson writes exclusively in the Indie in favour of out of control crime".
Posted by: IRJMilne | February 20, 2007 at 23:19
Sorry for the delay in this IMPORTANT topic! Some posters on CH remind me of Amy Winehouse because whenever I read them lamenting the changed party they find themselves part of, I hear
they wanted me to go to rehab, but I said no, no, no
Greetings from beautiful Verona!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 21, 2007 at 09:25
whenever I read them lamenting the changed party they find themselves part of
Graeme. Listen very carefully, I vill say this only vonce.
There is no changed party.
It's the same old party. Everybody's just a couple of years older. What you mean is that we have a new and objectionable line in bullsh*t from David Cameron, the man who wrote our "extremist", "banging on" &c. manifesto from the last election.
In case you've forgotten...
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | February 22, 2007 at 08:10
Well, let's turn this on its head. 10% of Tories apparently believe in the following:
"...Britain no longer exists, having been entirely subjugated by the federal EU. The white population of these islands is less than a tenth of its present total and is rapidly facing extinction. Instead of being shot, the leaders of the IRA were allowed to govern over the people of Northern Ireland despite being violent terrorists and thugs. Every town is full of bog standard comprehensive schools: every schoolteacher is completely subservient to his/her pupils and is completely powerless to fight bullying and bad behaviour. Crime is rampant. The state is spending three quarters of the nation's income. Tony Blair is Eternal Prime Minister, the tripleplusungood Margaret Thatcher having been erased from history."
Basically, Bruce Anderson is an idiot. Enough said.
Posted by: Richard Field | March 11, 2007 at 00:25