Can Cameron hear the concerns of Acacia Avenue?

Peter Hitchens presents a one hour documentary on Channel 4 tomorrow evening (8pm) about David Cameron.  In today's Mail on Sunday he gives a taste of what to expect:

"Rather than risk being in opposition too long, Tories have for most of the past 60 years cheerfully implemented largely Left-wing policies, from comprehensive schooling to saddling the police with political correctness and paperwork and dragging us into the European Union. I often think they would have nationalised fish and chip shops, introduced 70 per cent income tax and sent the Queen to the guillotine if they thought that would help them hang on to their ministerial red boxes.  Principles, old boy? What are they? The poor dears just feel unsettled and unhappy when they and their old friends from Eton aren’t Cabinet Ministers, much as they feel uneasy and upset about the banning of foxhunting – which arouses the only true political passion most of them have. They are angry and impatient about being deprived of their birthright. So angry that they are prepared to do almost anything, and spend almost anything, to scramble back into Downing Street.  David Cameron is their revenge. And that’s one of the reasons why his toffishness and extraordinary, semi-aristocratic background is such a big theme of the programme I’ve made about him, to be screened on Channel 4 tomorrow night.  Some people think that because I’m ‘Right-wing’ I should be pleased to have the nobility back in the saddle. Not a bit of it. Proper conservative politics come from the suburbs, not from the broad acres. The gentry have no idea how much New Labour’s policies hurt us down in Acacia Avenue. They’ve never been there and regard our privet hedges and semi-detached homes with just as much horror and disdain as the Islington Left do."

Comments

[Annabel Herriott]

What a Nasty Little Man Hitchens is. Why on earth doesnt he just sod off and join the BNP, his true home.

[ballotboy]

This is spot on - DC is not in touch, hence all the environment stuff and no talk about the issues that matter. For example, where was the stinging attack on Brown last week - it was left to sites like this, and god forbid, the BBC to lead to criticism of Brown while DC worried about his hair.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

What does Peter Hitchens know about the concerns of Acacia Avenue? Very little, I suspect. What pathetic drivel...

[Bill]

Yes, Peter Hitchens is spot on. I had hoped Thatcher had changed all this but unfortunately reflex deference in spite of the evidence is hard wired into the Tory party.

[Andrew Woodman]

Peter Hitchens is rapidly descending into a raving insanity, flitting from left to right, and then to general unpleasantness because no party meets his ideals 100%. The reason for that is the vast majority of electorate don't. It's called democracy. I expect this documentary to be spiteful, vindicitive and ignored by 99% of the sane minded population.

[sbjme19]

Thanks for telling us about this editor so I won't waste any electricity switching it on for even a minute.

[ballotboy]

How amazing are some of the posters on this site. Gordon was compared to Stalin this week, but this site is more Stalinist than the great lover of Prudence. If you disagree you are dubbed a Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP or insane. What next, am I to be sent to Siberia for doubting Mrs Thatcher's contribution to inflation control?

[Alexander Drake]

Yes.

(sorry, I couldn't resist).

[Bill]

Peter Hitchens's efforts to draw attention to this country's problems are to be applauded far more than the Tory Party's act post Thatcher.

[Mark Fulford]

Peter Hitchen's Wiki entry makes interesting reading, particularly from the "Personal Political Beliefs" secion:

He now belongs to no party and believes that none of any value can be created until the Conservatives split and collapse.

He's just a chump with an axe.

[wellness]

He is spot on.

[Rachel Joyce]

When ever I read or hear Peter Hitchens, I always feel it is such a waste. I read his book on crime, which was so well researched, and in most parts very well reasoned (in other parts, completely off-beam). Other things he says are pure common sense. But then he ruins it by ranting on about ridiculously extreme and poorly thought out ideas. He is the archetypal negative person, who doesn't offer much postive constructive comment or alternatives - it is always easier to criticise others than to actually come up with positive ideas oneself. He does himself a misservice, as buried in the complaining are often some very good points. He needs to find a way of harnessing his energies in a more positive way, or "sod off" as Annabel says (preferably into retirement).

[dave]

Agree or disagree, like him or loath him, Hitchens does not trim his views or change them for political expediency. Once of the left, the scales fell from his eyes, (as he would put it) and he became a conservative with a capital 'C'. Like it or lump it, what he believes is much closer to majority Conservative opinion in this country, than that espoused by DC and his minions.

[Modern Conservative]

"Acacia Avenue", isn't that where Banana Man lived?

Peter Hitchens fantasy government could never be elected, in fact he doesen't seem like the concept of democracy at all does he. How many normal people does he meet - not many I suspect.

[Bill]

Despite all the predictable comments, the problem is part or all of Hitchens's analysis may well be correct. Whilst only the future can tell the Tory Party's post war record is not encouraging. With the exception of the Thatcher years (which were not perfect)the Tory Party's post war record does seem one of managed decline.

[Bill]

Rachel's analysis seemed quite reasonable until its final negative sentence.

[ukfirst]

While Cameron makes out that the thing that really matters is CO2, the EU prepares constitutional changes to be brought in without risking asking the people.

[Ulster Tory]

Hitchens reminds me of Bob McCartney, the Ulster politician. A man of integrity who is brave enough to point out uncomfortable truths on policy but is almost dementedly vituperative to those who are broadly on his side but won't go all the way with him. Bob has a fine mind but couldn't even get elected to the Assembly this time round because he's spent the last few years falling out with everyone, questioning their motives and calling them 'traitor'.

Peter Hitchens' judgement is, if anything, even more suspect.

[Umbrella Man]

Hitchens is always worth reading but his own manifesto wouldn't command more than 5% of public support. I much prefer his brother's views on the Iraq war. Hitchens' anti-Americanism is also unattractive.

[Denis Cooper]

I suspect that many of the residents of Acacia Avenue are not in fact averse to being led by members of the traditional upper class, provided that they appear
to be genuinely in touch with the concerns of ordinary people and they seem to be providing good leadership. But they can no longer expect any of the traditional deference if they're seen to be failing: then their privileged social background will aggravate the sense of grievance.

[Jennifer Wells]

Hitchens is wrong. I suspect Cameron does understand the green etc concerns of southern, suburban residents of Acacia Avenue --- where he cannot reach is the Rovers Return and inner London council estates.

[ukfirst]

Hitchens is ploughing a lonely, heroic furrow on the face of things. However, I suppose that being a severe critic of the Conservative Party while appearing to be still on its margins gives him a lucrative journalistic position to write from.

If he supported UKIP (which offers 95% of the policies he seems to favour) he would, presumably, lose his income from papers like the Mail.

[Ted]

It's great to see Digusted of Tunbridge Wells now has a column and a name.

There is as always in one of Disgusted's letters an underlying truth - it is important that our policies address the concerns of the residents of Acacia Avenue ( or middle Britain, hard working families, Mondeo Man, Worcester Woman). But Acacia Avenue in the 21st Centiry is a different place from Hitchen's memories of the 50's and 60's.

An aging population is more concerned with the NHS, costs of care so afraid of public service cuts. Families with two working parents looking for childcare, concerned about the dangers to children. How to find the good schools and get their children into them. Socially much more liberal - and if we followed Disgusted's advice much more likely to vote Lib Dem.

[Daniel VA]

Must the deranged ravings of this foaming-mouthed eccentric be given the oxygen of publicity?

Peter Hitchens's views are so outdated and out-of-touch that he would no doubt consider the works of Enid Blyton to be the epitomy of radical modernisation.

Harking back to an era of lashings of ginger ale and lashings for any child that speaks before being spoken to will not solve the problems of today.

Is David Cameron in touch with all of British society? No, of course he isn't, but he's a damned sight more acquainted with modern realities than Peter Hitchens ever will be.

[Tom]

Unfortunately he is right, he isnt in a party because he says what he thinks. The only comment i would make is I would rather have Hitchens defend a policy in public than some of our recent performances.

As ever you will find many more people than posters here assume would agree with most of his views.

[Sean Fear]

The comparison between Peter Hitchens and Robert MacCartney is a good one. Both tell a good deal of truth, but then go out of their way to alienate people who are broadly sympathetic to their point of view.

His characterisation of the record of post war Conservativism has, unfortunately, a great deal of truth about it. The fundamentally decent and sensible views of Conservative members and voters have never been shared by a significant proportion of the party's leadership. Their objection is not to what Labour governments do - merely to the fact that they're not doing it, and enjoying the fruits of office.

[Alexander Drake]

But what are the 'fruits' of office, Sean? British politics pays badly, everyone's on the sauce and don't get much sleep. Sounds like uni, actually.

It might be honours - but whereas in the old days people who cared could tell the difference between a GCMG and a GBE, no-one under the age of 60 really would now. Same applies to Right Hons.

A car and a driver? A lot of trouble for that. But where's the fun in that if you can't put a flag on the bonnet? Blair doesn't.

Scratching around after this point....

[Editor]

Nice to have you back on the blog, Alexander. Where have you been? Campaigning in the NSW elections?

[Alexander Drake]

Greetings Mr Editor. Yes I did my bit yesterday, like all good True Believers. Booth results for my seat are here:

http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/lafirstnotional.north%20shore.aspx

Although I have to say that I think the two party preferred is misleading - I think North Shore has reached a point where the 2PP is Liberal:Green rather than Liberal:ALP. It was certainly the former at my booth.

Tragically, Peter Debnam (Opposition Leader) had a reasonable swing to him, but harvested few seats...and all but one or two came from indpendents, rather than Labor.

[Richard]

"What a Nasty Little Man Hitchens is. Why on earth doesnt he just sod off and join the BNP, his true home."

That's pretty harsh seeing as he has always strongly condemned racism and the BNP. I can't imagine his small-state vision of conservatism fits in with their agenda either. To be honest I find your suggestion shocking no matter what one might think of Peter's views.

[Martin Bristow]

Peter Hitchens makes some good points and it would be as well if the a section of over enthusiastic Cameroons addressed them.It does appear that DC's whole approach is built upon telling people what he believes they want to hear.

I have no sense that Cameron understands the real concerns of the overtaxed middle income Britons struggling daily with a repressive controlling state.It is difficult to be fair when you hail from a wealthy and powerfull background as DC does, to understand the issues.

The facts are simple.The last decade has seen a growth in the size and scale of the state apparatus unprecedented in post war Britain.Ordinary Middle earning Britons have funded this expontential growth in state activity, disprportionately.This would be fine if: our children were being better educated,if our streets were free of crime and if our hospitals functioned for us.

Faced with this litany of failure DC has chosen to address the concerns of the chattering classes with his constant and ill advised mutterings on the environment and softer social policy.This is not what people want to hear in our great northern and Midland cities were, like it or not, Hitchens arguements do resonate with experience.

We are now in the ludicrous position of proposing tax rises at the very time that Labour ,allbeit an illusion,are depicted as tax cutters! The party must address the electorate's total alienation from politics and it's practioners.Middle Britain is weary and desperately longing to be shown a new approach.DC's agenda is far too close to the Blairite settlement and whilst it may well deliver a hung parliament why are we not setting our sights higher?

[David DPB]

You think Peter Hitchens represents the concerns of Acacia Avenue? Arf..........

[Richard]

"Harking back to an era of lashings of ginger ale and lashings for any child that speaks before being spoken to will not solve the problems of today."

This is something he actually seems to accept in his article: "Many would rather tandoori their grandmothers than vote for it. Millions more see it (the Tory Party) as a weird relic from another age, like pipe-smoking or roll-on girdles, that simply has nothing to do with their lives and never could."

His point seems to be that many traditional Tory policies still hold mainstream support but that the image of the party is fundamentally damaged.

That said I don't think his solution of voting none of the above in the hope that another right-wing small-c conservative party will appear is viable. Better to wait until Cameron is in power and see if he does actually implement measures to support marriage, lessen the influence of the EU, create a border police and eventually cut taxes. If he does (and it will be very hard for him not to due to public expectation) then there is hope for Conservatism and conservatism after all.

[TomTom]

What a fascinating thread and what insight into the fevered mindset of Conservative activists.

Peter Hitchens has a viewpoint and a vote; he does not feel there is anywhere to use that vote - that is something heard everyday in conversation - people genuinely feel the political system has devalued their votes and is just sowbusiness and Adworld for insiders.

This site is definitely split into Tribal Insiders and Voter Outsiders

[Bill]

Alexander Drake wrote that "British politics pays badly,". Does it really pay badly? I think an MP's salary (not to mention the expenses) are really quite good and the more so given the privilege of representing one's constituents. The problem is too many MPs forget the latter part and honestly have ideas above themselves. If they think they can and want to earn more then do something else. Most should have their pay cut given most legislation comes from the EU. And then of course there are all the extras which come their way as MPs.

[CDM]

Why are we giving this man publicity?

What we're seeing now is the man's innate class hatred of Cameron (and other Tory toffs) that's no doubt been building since his failure to be selected for Kensington and Chelsea in 1999. Why else would he bleat on about the fact that Cameron went to Eton and Oxford? He's also opposed to university expansion, despite the fact that the one he attended (York) was founded in the 1960s.

Perhaps he should reconsider joinig the International Socialists, as at least then he'd be amongst fellow puritans and demagogues.

[Alexander Drake]

TomTom is slightly mistaken in lumping "Tribal" and "Insider" together. I think part of the problem for the Conservative Party has is that its "insiders" aren't necessarily "tribal" enough.

[Rachel Joyce]

You are right bill 1215 - I should have avoided the negative sentence. I see so much sense in what Peter Hitchens says some of the time - and then he ruins it with some mad point - which then destroys his own argument and his credibility. It would be so much better if he would come on board and be constructive, but I don' think that is likely.

[ballotboy]

Modern Conservative:

Eric Wimp, an ordinary schoolboy, living at 29 Acacia Road, Nuttytown, is the everyday incarnation of Bananaman.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Peter Hitchens, Simon Heffer, Polly Toynbee and Jacki Ashley (aka Mrs. Marr) should not be taken seriously.

They all have a love of seeing their names in print and their faces on screen. They are prepared to take reasonable arguments to the extreme in order to achieve their goals. Let's ignore them fron now on.

By the way, Acacia Avenue is in Tottenham!

[TomTom]

He's also opposed to university expansion, despite the fact that the one he attended (York) was founded in the 1960s.

Bizarre. The Robbins Report led to a major expansion of Universities in the 1960s.......to 44

John major went beserk and turned the Polytechnics into Universities so we ended up with nearer 150 but with no extra money to fund them

Sandwich Courses disappeared as did Day release and Technical Colleges started to reinvent themselves as Community Colleges and uuse the LSC to poach 6th Forms from Schools and have schools tied to local Community Colleges.

We have far too much capacity in tertiary education and need to scale it back. Major has left the price-mechanism to do it so in future there will be students carrying debt from universities which have gone bankrupt or been taken over.

The largest single employer of graduates is the public sector which is currently making Doctors redundant and by August should have created huge unemployment among one of the few groups of graduates that is in short supply

[ballotboy]

My gosh - I agree with TomTom!

[voreas06]

"Acacia Avenue", isn't that where Banana Man lived?

and Charlotte the Harlot at number 22. I think Hitchens should move there. What a sitcom that would make. I can picture it now:-
Eric doing more than his fair share for social responsibility, Charlotte doing her bit for flexible working and Peter writing that things were far better under Stalin/Hitler or whoever he was supporting that week, and that if it wasn't for that meddling toff Cameron he would have got away with his plans for a global utopia/domination.

[dog biter]

Hitchens is being what we must now start calling "toffist". "Toffism" is sadly becoming an increasingly familiar type of hatred in today's Britain, and it's no better than racism or any other kind of -ism. To hate people just because of their background, where they went to school, is just as nasty as hating them because of their religion, colour, sexuality etc. But for some reason Labour and Hitchens alike seem to think they can get away with it.

[dog biter]

Alexander Drake wrote that "British politics pays badly,". Does it really pay badly? I think an MP's salary (not to mention the expenses) are really quite good and the more so given the privilege of representing one's constituents.

Yes, Bill, an MPs remuneration is pathetic which explains the low calibre of most MPs. People of talent can earn far more in the real world. If we bunged up MPs salaries to, say £300-500k, we might at last start attracting some decent candidates.

[ToMTom]

If we bunged up MPs salaries to, say £300-500k, we might at last start attracting some decent candidates.

with free Rolls-Royce and chauffeur, and a fleet of parliamentary yachts to compete with Abramovich........and the salaries to be tax-free with pension at 100% salary non-contributory

Getting the basic salary bill up to £330 million for the Commons should be just the start

[Bill]

Dog Biter

I am sure you are being ironic.

Is money the measure of man (or woman) and his/her "calibre" to use your words? I completely reject the idea that bunging up MPs remuneration to "say £300-500k"would do any good. In the words of the song "if you want it come and get it" but preferably not care of HMG or parliamentary democracy, but in the private sector. That said, I do not think our MPs go short even if you do. There
are plenty of public servants who earn far less than "say £300-500k", and far less than
MPs (i wonder what their mean/median remuneration is?) who I would suggest are of
far better "calibre" than the sundry careerist MPs many of who have never done a decent day's work in their life.

[dog biter]

Alright, 200+ grand then. But it's got to be a decent whack to attract the right people. £57k plus expenses is not a lot of money for someone in such a position of responsibility. If the chief executive of a unitary authority can get £180k+ plus exes then surely £200k plus exes for an MP is not asking a lot.

[Derek]

"dog-biter" - are you sure you haven't been bitten?? Pay £300 -500K for 650 MPs?? Words fail me!!!!

[Bill]

Dog biter

Thanks for the concession but it ain't enough.

They choose to be MPs, a privileged position, well paid and on a dcf basis probably worth not less than 2ook already. There is (rightly) no qualification (other than negative ones of not being a bankrupt I think etc). They can run two households with interest I believe paid by HMG on one and council tax only on one. It is a mistake to assume that only the highest paid are the best qualified. Whose services mean more to you: an MP on a putative 200-550K or a GPs on 100K diagnosing a member of your family. What about our armed forces earning peanuts and putting their lives at risk. Frankly I would not mind if we only paid MPs the minimum wage. I'd do it for that.

[Bill]

PS

Were our MPs paid the 200K Dogbiter thinks they are worth, would he prevent them from earning money through directorships, consultancies, publishing etc? MPs (unlike others paid from the public purse) can earn a great deal of money from the public purse.

BTW, I think CEOs of unitary authorities are paid too much. If people in the public sector want private sector pay and perks then take away the public sector perks e.g. final salary pension rights.

[James]

Hitchens is a great writer who always makes excellent - albeit unfashionable - points. I find it bizzare that self-styled 'conservatives' should loudly throw the 'racist' accusation at him - ironically demonstrating one of Hitchens consistent themes about the permeability of cultural Marxism and sequentially the bollocks that a lot of modern Tories espouse.

I also saw someone above describe him as 'anti-American' which is also ludicrous; anyone who reads his blog knows he holds the U.S. in high regard, in a recent post he described it as the "freest country in the world" - hardly the stuff of fogeyish Yankophobes.

None of the above comments seem to cite particular examples of where Hitchens is egrariously wrong, which leads me to believe that the only reason for the unfair opposition to him is that it upsets their Cameron-driven hopes for power at any cost.

[David Sergeant]

I havn't read in detail what Hitchens has said but as a generalisation it appears clear that Cameron and not Hitchens knows what the people of Arcacia Avenue want. Hitchens may be excited by tax cuts, Arcacia Ave isn't. Cameron goes on about education, police and, at the moment, the NHS, that's what they want to hear. As for saying Hitchens is more relevant to the towns of the north than Cameron can I draw your attention to the last three elections.

Hitchens, and others like Heffer, are of a type. They just want to bitch at someone and Tories are more gentlemanly about their reaction than the left so they hit the Tories. Bitches about Cameron's background is an issue Brown is trying to pick up so it pays to join in.

[Bill]

All things being equal, would it better for today's compassionate caring (meritocratic?: I wonder) Tories to be lead by someone with a massively privileged (?) background or someone who has not had all the advantages (?) David Cameron has had in attending Eton, going to Oxford, being a member of the Bullingdon (yawn) and working for the Tory party at a time when many of us might prefer to have more fulfilling (but nevertheless no more important) jobs.

[Modern Conservative]

Ballot Boy -

Acacia Road - Well I was quite close, I see from Wikipedia that Eric had the strength of "twenty men... twenty big men" .. lol .. they don't make cartoons like that anymore.

As Bananaman was a parody of a superhero, Hitchens is a parody of a columnist and we should treat with an equal level of seriousness.

[John]

I love the way Peter Hitchens hurls abuse at the educated elites; he is, after all, one himself. He has his own agenda and the only way he feels he can sell it to people is throw muck at David Cameron et al, its rather distasteful to be quite honest. If he is the voice of ordinary people, why do ordinary people consistently ignore what he has to say? He simply gets more and more absurd: when DC was running for the leadership he predicted that he would be the death of the tory party, now he has been proved wrong he feels the need to - yes - argue that all the opinion polls are being rigged.

[John]

I love the way Peter Hitchens hurls abuse at the educated elites; he is, after all, one himself. He has his own agenda and the only way he feels he can sell it to people is throw muck at David Cameron et al, its rather distasteful to be quite honest. If he is the voice of ordinary people, why do ordinary people consistently ignore what he has to say? He simply gets more and more absurd: when DC was running for the leadership he predicted that he would be the death of the tory party, now he has been proved wrong he feels the need to - yes - argue that all the opinion polls are being rigged.

[Chris Hughes]

How many of those who have hysterically denounced Peter Hitchens actually read the article?

The point of the piece was to illustrate Hitchens's documentary. Nobody will be surprised to know there is more than one person in that documentary.

I've picked out these sections of Hitchens's article:

"the first person we interviewed was Robin Harris, the scholarly gent who hired Mr Cameron for his first job at Tory Central Office. Under pretty mild questioning, Mr Harris suddenly declared that he didn’t think David Cameron believed anything at all."

Who is Robin Harris - what could be his agenda?

"Michael [Gove] is quite keen on the new ‘inclusive’ Tory agenda. He seemed to me to be rather taken aback when I produced accounts of his leader’s rather recent public endorsement of laws to ban homosexual propaganda in schools and his even more recent mockery of windfarms as ‘giant bird blenders’"

What accounts are these? Wouldn't it be interesting to find out more of what Peter says he has discovered?

I don't agree with Peter on all that much. But there is something much more infuriating that a reactionary expressing his opinion, and that is witnessing a whole load of Tory hacks subjugating all intellect in some masochistic competition to act etre plus royaliste que le roi

[Andy Stidwill]

I'm afraid Hitchens is telling the truth when he says that the upper classes and the Islington left have the same dismissive attitudes towards middle-class people, who are without any doubt at all the backbone of this nation.

[dog biter]

You only had to watch Hitchens the other night on Question Time and study his pinched mouth and strange expressions to realise he is a very angry man with, presumably, endless personal agendas as well as Cameron hating. Gawd knows what's going on in that head, but it ain't pretty.

[bill]

Maybe, dog biter, if as you suggest Peter Hitchens is angry, it is because he not only has the perspicacity but also the integrity to be angered by what he sees.

[dog biter]

Oh dear, oh dear. Very dodgy justification that, Bill.

[Simon Lamb]

Wasn't he dismissed as a 'drink-soaked popinjay' by George Galloway, or was that a different Hitchens?

[Editor]

That was Christopher Hitchens, his brother, Simon.

[The Watchman]

Well, well. Hitchens's programme hasn't even been broadcast yet and he's managed to wind up the bien pensant wing of the Tory Party. After trawling my way through a lot of personalised and pathetic abuse, very few have actually wanted to address the core of Hitchens's argument: that there ain't much difference between New Labour and the Cameroon Tory Party. His 2000-3000 word critique of the Tories over the last half century a while ago on his website was original, thought-provoking and superb. Plenty of people, according to repeated opinion polls, hold robustly unreconstructed Conservative opinions. Who are they to vote for?

I came to this conclusion in 2005 and allowed my Tory membership to lapse when Cameron was elected. I was simply not prepared to support any party in the business of apeing New Labour like the New Tories. The truth is that the political class, whether Tory, Labour or Lib Dem, has more in common with each other than with the rest of the population. When someone has the temerity to point this out, like Hitchens, he is subjected to the vile abuse as churned out above.

Yes, Hitchens is a maverick. So what? As for being in touch with Acacia Avenue, at least Hitchens wasn't for stinging the middle classes when we try to go on holiday. I'd happily bet that Hitchens has one of the biggest mailbags in the whole of the national media. He's right: plenty of conservative minded people who hate New Labour and all its works are repelled by the Cameroon set which we see as a blue-blooded Jobs For The Boys outfit, desperate to get their noses into the trough. I hope some day to have a party worth voting for.

[Daniel VA]

"What accounts are these? Wouldn't it be interesting to find out more of what Peter says he has discovered?"

Well I can't recall off the top of my head anything about David Cameron publicly endorsing Section 28, but it is true that he compared windfarms to giant bird blenders at one of the leadership election hustings.

Not his finest hour it has to be said, but the installation of a wind turbine on his roof since those uncharacteristically ill-judged remarks would appear to indicate that he has since adopted a more sensible perspective on the merits of wind power.

[CCHQ Spy]

Some of us DVA remember what you used to write about DC during the leadership election!

[Daniel VA]

Further to my previous comment, it seems the 'bird blender' remarks came at the Scottish hustings in Perth, according to Oberon Houston's report.

As an aside, whatever happened to Oberon? His moderate, reasoned contributions would offset the mindless drivel posted by the trolls and malcontents nicely.

[Traditional Conservative]

In 2000, Mr Cameron said that the Blair government was obsessed with a "fringe agenda... including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools".

Two years later, he told a Guardian fringe meeting at a Tory conference that he backed the repeal of the legislation - only to vote for the Conservative motion to keep it a year later.

He also opposed adoption by gay couples under a three-line whip, but has backed civil partnerships. He missed several other key votes.

[Bill]

It is just soooooooooooo.............. tedious how criticism on this site degenerates into name calling with one side of the argument always so prevalent.

[Traditional Conservative]

Yes youre right Bill. They seem to be so bery touchy.

Im really looking forward to what promises to be an excellent documentary

[Martin Wright]

First a defence of the Editor. Ballotboy at 10.24 accused this site of being Stalinist. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the great attractions of this site is the broad range of opinion on offer. Another is the Editor's tolerance of some pretty forceful expressions of opinion without nanny intervening (c.f BBC newsboards). From what I can see, a poster has to be pretty obnoxious before the Editor deletes the message or bans the poster.

The value of someone like Hitchens (or at the other end Toynbee) is that they challenge our set opinions, provoke debate, perhaps even some fresh thinking.

As for this particular theory, isn't it fairly similar to a recent peice by Peter Oborne about Britain effectively being a one party state?

If all three main parties cluster too closely in the centre (in my view left of centre), they risk leaving representation of traditional right or left wing views to nutters and extremists (Farage, Griffin, Galloway et al).

[dog biter]

Hitchens and Oborne. Aren't they the same person?

[Ted]

DVA - Agreed. Oberon & James Hellyer both gave great reports of the hustings. Another regular now not posting (who used to co-edit Belief in Britain with James) Matthew Oxley I see is now in the US from his other blog.

Quite a few regulars dropped out during the invasion of the Ukippers last year but James and a few other genuine conservative critics of Cameron with reasoned arguments seem to have stopped posting altogether (with exceptions like James Maskell) and are missed.

[Martin Wright]

Daniel VA: "the installation of a wind turbine on his roof since those uncharacteristically ill-judged remarks would appear to indicate that he has since adopted a more sensible perspective on the merits of wind power."

Are you being serious? Most large scale windfarms are not economically viable and rely on subsidy. The only people who make money are the snakeoil salesmen who promote these schemes. I'm all in favour of carbon-free power, but lets concentrate on HEP, tidal and of course nuclear.

[Lord Cashcroft]

"Thanks for telling us about this editor so I won't waste any electricity switching it on for even a minute."
Not watching Dave can save the Planet?.......What a good idea!

[Daniel VA]

"Some of us DVA remember what you used to write about DC during the leadership election!"

Yes it's true that I was a critic of David Cameron back then - I seem to recall coining the Hitchensesque term caviar conservatives to describe his cabal - but I never did make it to Damascus (with apologies to the Editor...)!

"Quite a few regulars dropped out during the invasion of the Ukippers last year but James and a few other genuine conservative critics of Cameron with reasoned arguments seem to have stopped posting altogether (with exceptions like James Maskell) and are missed."

Sean Fear is the other reasonable regular Cameronsceptic, Ted.

"Are you being serious? Most large scale windfarms are not economically viable and rely on subsidy. The only people who make money are the snakeoil salesmen who promote these schemes. I'm all in favour of carbon-free power, but lets concentrate on HEP, tidal and of course nuclear."

I can't quite grasp the logic in your pooh-poohing windfarms on the grounds of reliance on subsidy then calling for concentration on nuclear power...

[matt wright]

I find Hitchens very frustrating to be honest. I find myself agreeing with some of the things he says but he goes so far with it that it starts to become nonsense. He has taken a personal dislike to Cameron in the same way that Heffer has and it has become very silly and obsessional really. I think we all know people like this, people who make strident black & white staements about things and think only they know best. In real life we all know such people can be a pain and are quite often completely wrong as life is often more complex,

Matt

[ToMTom]

people who make strident black & white staements about things and think only they know best

I recall a Prime Minister who fitted that description..... There Is No Alternative

[TomTom]

I can't quite grasp the logic in your pooh-poohing windfarms on the grounds of reliance on subsidy then calling for concentration on nuclear power...

Then I suggest you buy a Physics textbook and learn about turbines and the efficiency of size in generating sets....and the difference between Base-Load and Peak-Load, between Uptime and Downtime, and in Load-Balancing.

The fact is generating electricity is more efficient in large generating sets and the reason the big power sets were built on Northern coalfields. One of the most expensive ways to generate base-load is gas - but fortunately we have almost run out of North Sea Gas and must now import our heating source and means to generate electricity.....so living standards must fall to compensate, ie Consumption should be cut back

[Observer]

I love the way Peter Hitchens hurls abuse at the educated elites; he is, after all, one himself.

No one person can be "an educated elite". What Hitchens does is comment on trahison des clercs and the treachery of the political and media elites toawards the people of the country, made worse in this country by the London-focus of politics, media, and government; unusual in any country outside Russia and France.

Those who attack Hitchens clearly have not spoken with orinary people in the street - try talk to strangers and people in ad hoc situations and ask them, and let them start to talk.....you might be very surprised

[Martin Wright]

Daniel VA

At least nuclear power is capable of delivering power continuously rather than 30% of the time which is the best that windfarms can do. Nor do they require back-up power stations to cover for when there is insufficient wind (70% of the time). what sane businessman would buy a piece of machinery that was so rarely available that he had to buy a second machine as back-up? That's doubling his capital investment, doubling his running costs and reducing his profits for no good reason.

[sbjme19]

Aaagh I didn't escape. Hitchens is on the Radio Four programme "Start the Week". I suppose I should have foreseen that, although this is a Channel 4 programme, the BBC would give an attack on Cameron plenty of airtime.

[Daniel VA]

"Then I suggest you buy a Physics textbook and learn about turbines and the efficiency of size in generating sets....and the difference between Base-Load and Peak-Load, between Uptime and Downtime, and in Load-Balancing."

Thanks for the lecture, Dr. Einstein, but I still fail to see how buying a physics textbook would make me overlook the inconsistency in dismissing wind power on the grounds of reliance on subsidy and calling for subsidy-dependent nuclear power instead.

"At least nuclear power is capable of delivering power continuously rather than 30% of the time which is the best that windfarms can do."

Well done on changing your argument.

"Nor do they require back-up power stations to cover for when there is insufficient wind (70% of the time). what sane businessman would buy a piece of machinery that was so rarely available that he had to buy a second machine as back-up? That's doubling his capital investment, doubling his running costs and reducing his profits for no good reason."

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that nuclear power is cheap and/or profitable. News flash: it isn't.

As well as being expensive, nuclear power is also unsafe, unclean, unsustainable and unreliable (in terms of guaranteed supply anyway, which would appear to be the new line of argument you're trying now that your inconsistency over subsidies has been exposed...). Next!

[Bill]

I thought the interview with Hitchens was tame, but then he was on being interviewed on the New Establishment's best friend, the BBC.

If you don't like fission power, let accelerate fusion research.

[Sean Fear]

Thanks, DVA, for your kind comment.

Alexander Drake - actually, I think our MPs are reasonably remunerated for the work they do, given that they are not barred from additional forms of employment, and having "MP" after your name helps enormously to win consultancies, directorships etc.

£57 K, plus generous expenses (effectively adding up to £50 K to your salary, if you employ a family member), plus excellent money-making opportunties is not a bad package.

[Michael McGowan]

Whatever Peter Hitchens may be, he is no BNP or UKIP supporter. He is a consistent critic of both and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. While he is too socially conservative and isolationist for my taste, he is a very astute observer of the way in which the Conservative Party has in fact behaved in office for most of the post-war period: making centre-rightish noises while implementing failed and expensive centre-leftish policies. In many ways, his criticisms of David Cameron are no different from those of people like George Walden.

Alexander Drake doesn't think there's lots of money to be made in politics. Perhaps he could explain the affluence of Portillo and Hague then....neither of whom exactly ranks as one of the great politicians of the last century.

[TomTom]

Poor DanielVA seems to combine comments from several people into one - Well done on changing your argument.

This comment was highly amusing in that it linked my comment with those of Martin Wright without even blinking.

Nuclear power is our least worst option. We do not have unlimited supplies of uranium and if China chooses to expand nuclear instead of building a coal-fired station every week, we may have problems.

Our geography is poor for solar energy and our conurbations too densely populated for anything but wheeled power through a Grid.

The efficiency of wind turbines is low. The producers are in Germany sustained by a high subsidy; even in Britain there is currently a levy on electricity to subsidise wind farms. I would favour an experiment - taking say the city of Oxford and cutting it off from the National Grid so it can survive for a year on wind power.

Few people like the idea of power cuts - I remember the power on/power off rota from the Early-1970s with 4 hours on, 4 hours off on a cycle. I don't know how people would like that today with homes full of more energy consuming appliances.

The simple fact is Ferranti showed in 1891 that large AC-generating sets with step-down transformers was the most efficient way to generate power and that high-voltage transmission reduced losses.....

Maybe if you look at your electricity bill and read how many kWH you consume each quarter you could then extrapolate from the puny output of a windmill and work out how many days you have a Force 10 gale to provide kinetic energy

Windmill

[TomTom]

Poor DanielVA seems to combine comments from several people into one - Well done on changing your argument.

This comment was highly amusing in that it linked my comment with those of Martin Wright without even blinking.

Nuclear power is our least worst option. We do not have unlimited supplies of uranium and if China chooses to expand nuclear instead of building a coal-fired station every week, we may have problems.

Our geography is poor for solar energy and our conurbations too densely populated for anything but wheeled power through a Grid.

The efficiency of wind turbines is low. The producers are in Germany sustained by a high subsidy; even in Britain there is currently a levy on electricity to subsidise wind farms. I would favour an experiment - taking say the city of Oxford and cutting it off from the National Grid so it can survive for a year on wind power.

Few people like the idea of power cuts - I remember the power on/power off rota from the Early-1970s with 4 hours on, 4 hours off on a cycle. I don't know how people would like that today with homes full of more energy consuming appliances.

The simple fact is Ferranti showed in 1891 that large AC-generating sets with step-down transformers was the most efficient way to generate power and that high-voltage transmission reduced losses.....

Maybe if you look at your electricity bill and read how many kWH you consume each quarter you could then extrapolate from the puny output of a windmill and work out how many days you have a Force 10 gale to provide kinetic energy

Windmill

[Daniel VA]

"Poor DanielVA seems to combine comments from several people into one - Well done on changing your argument."

I did no such thing. Martin Wright changed his argument and that point was addressed at him.

I apologise if I inadvertently encouraged you to gain the mistaken impression that I was deliberately seeking to conflate your comments with those of Martin, although I note that you chose to enter this particular discussion by addressing the point I raised about Martin's inconsistency regarding subsidies.

[TomTom]

I still recommend you buy a good Physics textbook or simply buy this one

Book

[Martin Wright]

Daniel VA. Ok, so I changed the argument, but who doesn't from time to time (I've not noticed our esteemed politicians being entirely consitent)? Equally I notice that you have deflected attention from the weakness in your advocacy of wind power by attacking me and then TomTom.

I regret adding nuclear power in my original comment to you. So let's separate things out.

HEP certainly is economically viable, while tidal and wave power have potential to be so. They are also effective in that they provide power predictably and for substantial periods of time. In contrast wind power is uneconomic, unpredictable and only available for a short proportion of the day.

Nuclear power is far superior to wind power, as it has much greater "availability" (i.e % of time available for production) and predictabilty. Nor does it require back-up plant "foe when the wind doesn't blow". I doubt if it requires as much subsidy as windpower. As I understand it nuclear running costs are low - the problem lies in future decomissioning costs.

So for a combination of efficiency and effectiveness Hydro gets two ticks, nuclear gets one tick and wind power gets a big fat zero.

[Peter Crawford]

"Perhaps he could explain the affluence of Portillo and Hague then....neither of whom exactly ranks as one of the great politicians of the last century."

Heath made a packet as well

[Having just seen the programme on TV...]

Well that was a rather worthless and lazy piece of journalism.

The smug pomposity of Hitchens was rather distasteful.

Does Hitchens make some (less than half)good points? Yes.

Does he undermine them by his insistence that everything must be the way he see's it otherwise it's wrong? No worse than wrong, despicable, in his eyes.

I believe we (Party Members) were described as "worthless idiots" or something very similar.

Very kind of him. Happily for me he will always be a socialist who changed his spots.

Tim, would you have contributed to that hatchet job (admittedly by offering a reasonable point, and one I happen to agree with) if you had known how it was going to turn out?

[Bill]

I thought Hitchens could have been a lot more harder. The first few minutes of the programme with extracts from Cameron speeches seemed like Forrest Gump meets Being There.

[John G of Acacia]

Wow, all those vitriolic comments on Peter's prgramme a day before it was aired! We could have used these seers' skills before fighting the last couple of elections. Peter is of course bang on as usual. Blair hijacked Labour solely to get a personal fantasy gig and now DC sees how easy it can be done. Whatever happened to the men and women with true vision and grit?

[Richard Weatherill]

"Good in parts" was my verdict. Hitchens had some telling points, but others were less valid and there were a few glaring inconsistencies. I'm afraid I didn't think M Gove came across very well at all.

Much more fun would be a programme by 'Hitch' (aka the 'real' Peter Hitchens - see Guido) on the same subject. Would definitely have to be after the watershed though!

[Bill]

I did not think much of Gove's performance.

[Bill]

I did not think much of Gove's performance.

[Bill]

I didn't quite get the bit on Etonians on the front bench; how many of his fellow Etonians has Cameron surrounded himself with? Does anyone know? And was the (Pauline?) Osborne in the Bullingdon as well?