« It's time to move on | Main | Cameron recruits former News of the World editor as communications chief »


Why can't I choose "other" for ideal next President? I would prefer Tom Tancredo.

The abortion question towards the end of the survey is one of the worst examples of a leading question I have ever seen.

Jorgen, there is an 'other' option at the bottom of the list, where you can name your preferred candidate.

Daniel VA,
I copied and pasted the abortion statment into the other box, and added that I also support the right to choose. Some might be suprised, but there are a lot of people out there who would never consider abortion themselves, but believe the choice should be on offer to others. Why should I force my values on others? (Incidentally I'm not at all religious, I just hate the thought of abortion).

Obama is the US equivalent to Cameron.

The republican party is dead, they have to recover some pride, and yet there are still scandal stories going on and time is running out for their..what 12 candidates now?

Hilary, despite being a lefty, seems more to the right that our current conservative party.

I'm going to stick with Hilary, however unfortunate, but the US cannot afford another impulsive president like Bush.

I've long found that the politics of America is vastly different from our own. I'm not sure if you use facebook, but the new "political compass" application would probably have declared me to be a communist based on my views regarding gun control and abortion. The Conservative of the UK is often nothing like the Conservative of the US.

I don't like the cut and run attitude towards Iraq that the Democrats are currently showing, but on the whole for a while now I've found them more representative of my views than the Republicans.

I thought the set of questions about whether one is a vegetarian, bicycle-riding opponent of abortion quite hilarious. Then I started to get paranoid. Given my home borough, cycles are a big thing. And I'm vegetarian. Then that leading question about civil partnerships ('If a friend invited you, would you go?') -- I put "no" since (1) I have no friends and (2) there's a limit to the number of cushions one can purchase from John Lewis before the staff get suspicious. Why didn't you just write 'Is your name Graeme Archer?' or 'Get out the party NOW you lefty bicyle-riding tofu-munching soft-furnishings obsessive'?

PS Am v smug on my answer re shadow cabinet appointee.

You may not have given us the opportunity to vote on grammar schools Tim but I have taken my opportunity to mark David Willetts down in the shadow cabinet survey.

Question 9 asks:
Are you?
A member of the Conservative Party
A supporter of the Conservative Party
A supporter of some other party
Living outside the UK

Perhaps you should include a couple more options:
Are you?
A supporter of Conservative values
An ex-member of the Conservative Party

Sorry Daniel.

Deborah, sorry but am LOLing at your first suggestion. I do very much think that, for the sake of existentialists everywhere, Tim should certainly include your suggested question:

Are you?

in next month's survey :-)

I couldn't get the "other" option for US president to work either (I'd go for Ron Paul!)

Didn't Ron Paul sing 'you make me feel / mighty real?' in the 70s? Is he a democrat or a republican?

Ron Paul's a Republican, but very Libertarian, check out his web site if you're interested.

You need to mend your Survey. It doesn't allow "other" for US president. (If you try to choose it, the survey just tells you that you need to choose something.)

(I wanted to choose Condolezza Rice.)

Since I can't put in "Other" for US president, and I don't have time to wait for the link to be mended, I'm going to vote for Al Gore - since he has absolutely no credibility as a candidate. I recommend that other readers do the same, so that the "Al Gore" box becomes equivalent to "Other".

I've just looked at the backend of the survey Andrew and some people have nominated other names. I'm sorry you ad Michael and perhaps others are having difficulties.

Daniel (and indeed Editor, since you apologized to Daniel),

What is supposed to be wrong with the question "Do you believe that the unborn child is a human being that deserves protection?" Presumably almost everyone that does not oppose abortion would disagree with that statement? Obviously lots of people that oppose abortion would also disagree with that statement, but why is that a problem? I was assuming that the question was trying to form some basis to compare the views of ConservativeHome readers with those of the general public as a whole, and this question seems to me to get at something interesting - our conception of the person.

Do we believe that all human beings are "people" or not? Most of those that do not oppose abortion are thereby more-or-less committed to the idea that foetuses are not people (there are a few robust people prepared to say that abortion is, like war and execution, an exception to the prohibition on taking life, but let's set them aside for now - they're a tiny minority). Some people that oppose abortion, and some that do not oppose it, consider that the issue is that foetuses are potential people and how should one draw the line between the rights of actual and potential people. Then the classic anti-abortion position arises from the view that all that is required to be a person is being a working instance of the human animal, so that one is a person from conception. (For some reason I don't understand, this view has come to be seen as a religious view, whereas I would have thought it the natural view of a non-religious materialist - all there is to being human is being a human animal. In contrast, those that *support* abortion usually, in my experience, have some quite particular religious opinion underwriting their view - e.g. that only a foetus above a certain age has a "soul" or "mind" (whatever those things are)).

Anyway - all of this is a long and convoluted way of saying that it seems like a perfectly good and interesting question to me...

Thank you Andrew.

Graeme Archer @1308,

I will rise to the bait. What was your answer on Shadow Cabinet appointee?

I am quite pleased with my answer to that question too.

Editor, "other" US President candidate is still not working. Does this mean we have to choose one of those on the list?

DVA: you're turning into an angry young man; calm down: the point was surely to identify people holding a particular view, yes?

I would also like to register a complaint about the US presidential question. Surely it would be more in keeping with the finest traditions of Conservative Home to have included an option for re-annexation of these rebellious colonies? Obviously the Editor has been lent on by Cameron again.....

I was taken aback by some of the last questions but will be fascinated by the answered.

I make it odds on that Michael Gove comes top of the Shadow Cabinet question given the HIPs publicity. I'm intrigued by Graeme's pick though.

Andrew Lilico: Surely a better way to phrase the question would be something like "In the realm of abortion, do you consider yourself to be pro choice?" (since an either/or option isn't available).

[email protected]:34

Interesting suggestion. Do anti-abortionists think of themselves as opposed to "choice"?

Andrew Lillico,
As I said at 12:58 I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. I felt that I had to make that explicit in the survey, as I didn't know how the data would be used. With the question as it was, the data could easily be spun to say "x% of the site believes that abortion should be illegal"

Did I just miss the questions on Grammar Schools?

We decided not to ask any Chris.

The question about the American presidential candidate is quite badly messed up - it wouldn't let me name an alternative candidate, and anyway, shouldn't there have been an option for 'I have never heard of most of these people and can't stand the few whose names I recognise'?

Also, what's the point of that open-option box underneath the 'social' questions?

Actually, I suspect that this whole survey, so silent on anything that matters to the party right now and mildly loopy on everything else, is a cry for help. Perhaps someone should try to work out whether the first letters of each question spell out anything ...

Disappointed to see that there were no questions on the grammar school fiasco.

I, like many others, will just have to take it out on Willets. Oh well.

I don't understand the need for the last set of questions (on abortion, vegetarianism eating-disorders, religion and suchlike).

These things just don't feature in most peoples' daily lives.

I'm fundamentally pro-choice on everything; What car you drive, who/how many you sleep with, where you go on holiday, what you eat, what drugs you take, where you send your kids to school... just so long as you're paying for your choices out of your own pocket.

Conservatism to me is all about freedom-of-choice.

I have had to answer "Don't know" to far too many of the persons on the shadow cabinet list. What I really wanted to say was "Who he/she ?" - With the amount of sh*t flowing from New Labour at the moment, we should be in their faces and on radio and in the press on a daily basis, hammering our message home.

If you don't know how that could be done, look at the campaigns 96 - 97 such as "Tory Sleaze" remember that one ? I bet you do. EMULATE !

"What is supposed to be wrong with the question "Do you believe that the unborn child is a human being that deserves protection?""

It's phrased emotively.

"Do you believe that abortion is acceptable?"? would arguably have been better (although admittedly still flawed, for a reason I'll come on to) instead of loading the question with guilt-inducing terms like 'unborn child', 'human being' and protection, and implying that disagreement with the premise of the question is tantamount to endorsing infanticide?

My other problem with the question is that it is a clumsy attempt at eliciting a Boolean response from a complicated issue.

"DVA: you're turning into an angry young man; calm down: the point was surely to identify people holding a particular view, yes?"

Angry? No.

Increasingly alienated from a site I have supported (even financially) and defended enthusiatically for nearly two years? Yes.

(Cue onslaught of mindless mockery and abuse from hardline malcontents and trolls, saying that's exactly how they feel about the Conservatives under the current leadership...)

I still have the utmost respect for the editor and deputy editor of this site and I apologise to them for becoming a bit of a grumpy old bore of late - fings ain't wot they used to be...

I have to agree Daniel VA, especially after taking part in this survey.
I was happily ticking the appropriate boxes until I came to question 8 and I am sorry to say I was so infuriated I actually said "none of your bloody business". I felt uncomfortable at the way the questions were phrased and why they needed to be asked in this survey particularly when you then ask for my email address.
What was the purpose of those questions and how will they be used?

But Daniel, you only think that your preferred question is less emotive than the actual question asked because you think the former question is just a way to ask the latter. In fact they are asking quite different things...

Cue onslaught of mindless mockery and abuse from hardline malcontents and trolls, saying that's exactly how they feel about the Conservatives under the current leadership...

Too true!!!

For the record I detest abortion and I think it should be premitted only in the most extreme cases where the mother's life or sanity is in danger.

I have never understood how anybody claiming to be a Christian could take the contrary view.

It's strange how the pro-abortion elements are often found to be opposed to capital punishment.

Abortion is capital punshment...of the innocent.

It's strange how the pro-abortion elements are often found to be opposed to capital punishment.

Abortion is capital punshment...of the innocent.

Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 01, 2007 at 01:08

Coherence may be over-stated as an important human trait (though very important in terms of induction). Plenty of people hold the converse views, don't they? Though one doesn't often find right wing Tories slagging them of (wonder why).

While it would help if you phrased your message in plain English, I think you are trying to say that right-wing Tories often oppose abortion and support capital punishment.

Why should one have a problem with that? Capital punishment of guilty criminals is upheld by most world religions and was enshrined in almost all the legal systems of the civilised world until relatively recently.

I would like to see the return of the death penalty and my view has always been supported by the vast majority of the Tory grassroots.

That's why they call us 'hangers and floggers'!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker