"Decontamination" is a word I'm suddenly hearing/ reading a lot in connection with what David Cameron has achieved for his first year as leader. I did a pre-record for Radio 4 yesterday and was asked about the decontamination of the Conservative Party and Irwin Stelzer has used the term in an article he has written for this week's Spectator. Someone must be briefing it.
This comes from within a Wikipedia definition of decontamination:
"Persons suspected of being contaminated are usually separated by sex."
That must be the A-list phase!
Very good Tim!
Posted by: malcolm | February 09, 2007 at 12:25
Yes and worth bearing in mind that if many of the posters on CH - those who veer between UKIP delusion and misery, with the odd spattering of hatred at difference - had had their way, we would not have become detoxed and would continue to have had zero chance of winning a general election.
The "sex" thing is a very old joke in epidemiology All of our subjects were broken down by age, and sex. Lucky subjects!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 09, 2007 at 12:53
The way they ignore Maggie, after she told the truth in Statecraft, you'd think she was contaminated with something... Eurorealism, perhaps?
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | February 09, 2007 at 13:21
Thank goodness, for a second there I thought this was going to be a bird flu feature!
Posted by: Richard | February 09, 2007 at 13:58
Perchance are they refering to "The Night of the Long Knives", some sort of ritualistic cleansing of the stables of ne'erdowells and undersirables.
Is DC subconsciencously indicating that he has carried out a Hitleresque coup and rid the party of those that are a unfaithful or unaccepting to the new mantra?
It is a strange choice of word and needs to be used with care, decontamination has some odd associations, with the Nazi's and death squads and the camps.
Posted by: Geoerge Hinton | February 09, 2007 at 14:53
Yes. A word with extremely unpleasant associations, rather like ethnic cleansing.
Strange how people like Graeme Archer labour under the delusion that large numbers of Tories are people just like him.
I've got news for him. They aren't.
By and large they are exactly the same people who voted for IDS in the days when the party was (allegedly) The Nasty Party. They haven't changed at all. All that has altered is the Cameroon window-dressing.
What goes round comes round. Quicker than you might imagine we'll be flushing out Dave's Augean stable.
I've already got the champagne on ice.
Posted by: Mark McCartney | February 09, 2007 at 15:10
As most of the grass roots Conservative Party members hate the EU and support the policies Dave has ditched, and they are the people who provide the money and hard work: this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
As as for the voters, Dave has thrown out his chance to win the next election by adopting hated Blair politics as his own.
I note the use of the word "deconTAMination", and wonder if they are referring to me :-) I feel honoured.
Posted by: Tam Large | February 09, 2007 at 15:13
Tam Large - now that youv'e quit the Tory Party, joined ukip, had a letter in the Torygraph and got your five minutes of fame, why don't you clear off and post on the ughkip site?
Posted by: Perdix | February 09, 2007 at 15:48
Decontamination = purge of the traditional right and Eurosceptics.
Posted by: thatcherite | February 09, 2007 at 16:23
Really 'thatcherite'? Tell me exactly how many 'traditional rightwingers and Eurosceptics' have been 'purged'. Please feel free to go into as much detail as you like!
Posted by: malcolm | February 09, 2007 at 16:35
The typically unpleasant Mark McCartney writes
Strange how people like Graeme Archer labour under the delusion that large numbers of Tories are people just like him.
It's not me, Mr McCartney, who reacts with spitting hatred to anyone who's slightly different from himself. But don't let me spoil your enjoyment. Unlike you, I don't get frightened by not seeing serried ranks of Tories identical in my image.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 09, 2007 at 17:01
Well Malcolm, let us start with Diana Coad (the excellent candidate in Stourbridge in 2005) being booted off the Approved Candidates List.
There were few Thatcherites on the Priority List. Of those that were on it, a high proportion were gay....
Three Thatcherites seeking reselection (after excellent results in 2005) were deselected in favour of Cameroon insiders.
Need I go on....
Posted by: thatcherite | February 09, 2007 at 17:15
"The typically unpleasant Mark McCartney writes..."
More like Monday Clubber I think.
Posted by: Surely not Monday Clubber! | February 09, 2007 at 17:20
Yes I think you should. Who are the three Thatcherites desiected in favour of Cameroons....
Posted by: malcolm | February 09, 2007 at 17:21
>>I don't get frightened by not seeing serried ranks of Tories identical in my image.<<
Well that's good to know Graeme, or you'd be quaking with terror every day of the week.
Sorry anonymous friend but I've never been a member of the Monday Club. I was once a member of the Bow Group, however, signed up by the delectable Jenny (Viscountess) Enfield as I recall.
I wonder if she's still in the party?
Posted by: Mark McCartney | February 09, 2007 at 17:39
Mark McNasty writes:
"Strange how people like Graeme Archer labour under the delusion that large numbers of Tories are people just like him.
I've got news for him. They aren't.
By and large they are exactly the same people who voted for IDS..."
Well I for one, based purely on his posts on her because I do not know him, think Graeme Archer appears utterly reasonable and sensible and just the sort of person who does, and if not should, support the Party. And I am someone who voted for IDS. But please do not be under the delusion that everyone who voted for IDS shares any anti-freedom social agenda, would be a member of Cornerstone etc. Many of us would have voted for Portillo at that time if he had not been knocked out by stupid MPs who did not realise that the party in the country was never going to vote for Clarke because of his divisive views on Europe.
IDS won because he was the ABC candidate, just as Hague did in 1997. Then the MPs had the cheek to blame the Party membership for it, although since the Party membership's strong support for Cameron in 2005 (how does that fit with your theory, Mark?), we have heard less of that.
Posted by: Londoner | February 09, 2007 at 17:41
Oh, and to address the innuendo directly, I forgot to say that I am not gay. Mark may have forgotten that every gay man or woman has a mother and father, often brothers and sisters, work colleagues and heterosexual friends. And they would have the same expectations of their political views, based on background, intellectual conviction, circumstances etc as they would have of the non-gays they know.
I am more surprised that so many of those with irrational dislikes of whole categories of their fellow British subjects appear to support the Conservative Party, a party of individualism, choice and shared national loyalties.
Posted by: Londoner | February 09, 2007 at 17:52
I never imagined for a moment that you were gay Londoner. Why should you suppose that?
You are also in error in supposing that I was referring primarily to Graeme's >>ahem<< orientation. Having taken the trouble to read his website I can only say that however well he may fit in at Hackney he would make a very singular Conservative in this part of the country.
As for what may be termed the "permissive" agenda this has been going on for years. Remember Woy Jenkins?
By and large it is Tories who have stood up for traditional values and Socialists who have promoted sexual licence.
That has nothing to do with my personal value judgments. It's a simple fact.
Posted by: Mark McCartney | February 09, 2007 at 18:06
"By and large it is Tories who have stood up for traditional values and Socialists who have promoted sexual licence."
Sexual licence? Sounds like something the Home Office would try to introduce, so the Treasury can then impose a pleasure-tax on us.
As a party which believes fundamentally in individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility, it really surprises me that we don't attract more of us non-traditionally-sexed types.
Posted by: Tanuki | February 09, 2007 at 18:19
The innuendo I was referring to was about Graeme (I still think you are implying: why is a gay a Tory?, despite your denial) than any suggestion that you were implying that I am gay. I agree it's probably unusual for a Tory to have a blog but on a quick look just now I couldn't see anything unTory about his website - one of the most prominent things are links to Tory sites. But, Mark, you are doing a great job publicising Graeme.
If over the last 50 years there have been more Labour MPs who are/were gay or bisexual than Tory MPs I'd be amazed. Now, they might not have gone on the same extent about the issue in public - the conservative disposition is to be more private about such things - but why should the voters be any different?
Posted by: Londoner | February 09, 2007 at 18:49
I loved Graeme's response. If the conservatives had any prospect of winning the next election then I for one wouldn't be feeling nearly as doomy and gloomy as I am.
I've still yet to see any real sign that the detox strategy has worked. Most people seem to see the Tory Party as a party with a leader who is profoundly out of touch with his base. (He may also be out of touch with reality, but that's just a perk of the job!)
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | February 09, 2007 at 19:24
Editor, this site has lost it frankly,
Matt
Posted by: matt wright | February 09, 2007 at 19:31
"Most people seem to see the Tory Party as a party with a leader who is profoundly out of touch with his base."
Oliver, on ToryDiary that's how it may seem, but this corner of this site is not representative of Conservative opinion. CH's satisfaction rating for the leader is 71%, which is probably more accurate.
"Editor, this site has lost it frankly,"
Matt, I think it's just one or two apparent idiots driving away the intelligent comment (quite possibly to deliberately harm CH). James Maskell, James Hellyer, James Cleverly, Oberon Houston, A-Tracy, Daniel VA, Selsdon Man, Kenneth Irvine, various Robs, etc, etc are mostly still around, and you see comments from them elsewhere on CH, but very rarely on ToryDiary. I imagine they can't be bothered to waste their time on (frequently ad-hominem) arguments that can't be won and often end up looking foolish.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | February 09, 2007 at 20:21
Londoner thank you for those kind words. I am a party member, and have been for 21 years, through being North Cunninghame YC chairman, Tory student member at Glasgow university, member of Conservatives Abroad during my years in Italy, member of Harlow Conservative association and elected the first ever Tory councillor for Potter Street in Harlow in the late 90s, ending the election of Labour councillors to that ward for the first time in Harlow's history (I believe we may have had the biggest swing in Essex that night but that might just be an urban myth!) and now a very very happy Tory in Hackney where, of course, we won a by-election a couple of years ago in Blair's old ward.
So Mr McCartney's rants about me not being a "typical" Tory don't bother me. I am human and would prefer everyone to love me! But that's a bit of a tall order innit :-0)
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 10, 2007 at 14:28
"By and large it is Tories who have stood up for traditional values and Socialists who have promoted sexual licence."
Yeah right! Just ask Stephen Milligan, Cecil Parkinson, Stephen Norris, Tim Yeo, John Major and Edwina Curry....
Need I go on?
Posted by: Jon White | February 10, 2007 at 23:26