« Cameron speech aims to reassure traditional supporters | Main | The 14% pinstripe radical »


""" And that’s the problem. He and many of his colleagues simply don’t understand ordinary families."""

Unfortunately, the SUN is absolutely right and that is exactly the problem.

Good for Melanie Phillips. If she says that Cameron and friends are "in panic-stricken disarray." then I have no doubt that they are in panic-stricken disarray.

However I don't take the Mail. I'm reading the Telegraph article, the sycophantic tone of which is in strong contrast to the Sunday Telegraph's realistic assessment yesterday.

Apparently Cameron, speaking in Tooting, (!!!?) where no doubt he will address the massed ranks of the Tooting Popular Front, is to promise a 'massive extension of right-to-buy'

Right-to-buy what? Who is going to build the houses that tenants will have the right to buy?

The Tories?

What rubbish, John Coles. If these ordinary families weren't having so much of their disposable income grabbed by Gordon Brown's Treasury and its stealth taxes then they might have that extra tenner or two. Whose side are we on for crying out loud?

Melanie is correct in her analysis. And Trad Tory, you don't have to take the Mail you can read the article on-line.

If these ordinary families weren't having so much of their disposable income grabbed by Gordon Brown's Treasury

Yet all the way up to the £60.000pa household Tax Credits are available.....

Wouldn't worry too much. Melanie Phillips' column is yet another example of the ridiculous hyperbole with which is becoming her trademark. It used to be on display only when she wrote about Israel ,now it's everything.
Mucvh more important is the Mail's claim that Brown will offer a referendum. If this is true (and given the way it has been reported it would be very difficult for Brown to fudge)this will mean a very early break with the Blairites which will be good for us. It could of course simply be a negotiating ploy but if Brown fails to follow through the Mail will react vey badly to being misled.

How can Gordon Brown be said to understand ordinary families when in 56 years the man has never learned to drive? No wonder he treats motorists with such disdain.

Mail article details show that Brown has yet to decide whether to allow Britain to have a referendum on Europe - so why the title 'Brown To Allow UK To Have A Referendum On Europe.'?

The Mail is playing around with semantics. Brown has not promised a referendum. He is posturing.

Osborne is reported as saying referendum 'if' powers are to be transferred by the 'treaty'. If he really did use these words, why the 'if' and why limited to this 'treaty'?

Cameron clearly said that before any powers are to be transferred to Brussels, there should be a referendum. His speech yesterday repeated a clear policy on this.

Where us mere mortals live, the subject most discussed is the damage being done by mass uncontrolled immigration. However the nearest Dave gets to the subject is by using that most fashionable of words, cohesion.

We should have a referendum on the EU in any event. Perhaps it should be regular event.

Ridiculous affection for Brown over Cameron? In a youguv poll yesterday Brown outscores Cameron on most measures. It's because many people think he is more principled and stronger than Dave, there's nothing ridiculous about thinking that. Maybe that partly explains Paul Dacre's soft spot for him. Much as I can't stand the socialism which the Labour Party stands for, Brown is a man of principle and takes economics seriously. Cameron as evidenced by recent U-turns appears to have no principles at all and downplays the importance of economics and tax and spend decisions. Has Brown ever said that 'general well-being' is more important than GDP? If we had a higher GDP, more prosperity and lower taxes our general being would improve a lot Dave! He doesn't have to worry about paying off the mortgage does he?
It's been said before that the Tories would be making a big mistake in under-estimating Brown and recent trends have shown that.

Why do politicians publish their speeches in advance? Telegraph Headline today, "Cameron reveals his blueprint for Britain." Well, I`ve read it and it is not going to set the world on fire.
Like Tony Blair, David Cameron can deliver a good speech, but like Blair, he leaves you wondering at the end, yes, but what did he actually say?

To have to go through it again tomorrow is too much for me; and much of it reads like Blue Labour.

Yes and the Mail is also making a big mistake in under-estimating the ability of Brown to make things a lot worse in Britain. Many of the current domestic policy problems trace back to Brown while Blair has been fighting his wars overseas,


Good cartoon in The Times today. Elderly man walking his dog, which is tugging at the lead, says to his neighbour 'We call it Cameron because it's always changing direction'!
PS Dave Was PATHETIC on Breakfast TV this a.m.

Hugo Swire Puts Foot in Mouth and Quickly Removes It.

No sooner said than done. Yesterday Tory Culure Spokesman Hugo Swire floated the daft idea that the Tories could reintroduce entrance fees for our museum. Given that the amount involved (said to be £40 million, say £0.65p per head of the UK population) was not exactly huge and that the Tories are supposed to be in favour of excellence in the field of education, the pinnacle of which many of our museums represent in terms of academic achievement, this struck one as being a singularly stupid policy.

In one of the fastest U-Turns on record, no sooner had Hugo Swire, Conservative Culture spokesman, floated this idea than he was grimly chewing on the gristle of his own words. The Museums are now safe in Tory hands.

So far so good. But there is rather more to this than merely floating an idea one day to test reaction never to mention it again.

Firstly this brought down instant opprobrium from pretty well every corner, not an easy thing to achieve, even in today’s atmosphere. This was, sadly, easily predictable and Mr. Swire ought to have the nous to have realized it, not least because even middle-class families can do the maths and would work out that they would find it just as difficult as a poor family to visit our first class museums with a clutch of children if this piece of idiocy were to come to pass.

Secondly it enabled papers to take a swipe at the background of Mr. Swire:

“But within hours the Old Etonian had been stamped on by the Tory leader's office, and issued a humiliating retraction.” The Daily Mail

“An aide to Mr Swire, who was educated at Eton and is a former auctioneer at Sotheby’s,….” The Times

“But Mr Swire, a former head of development at the National Gallery and director of the art auctioneers Sotheby's, was forced to make a humiliating U-turn within hours amid a backlash from MPs and senior figures from education and British cultural life." The Independent

“With Tory poll ratings nose-diving and David Cameron reeling from the grammar schools debacle, another old Etonian on his front bench has a brilliant idea: Scrap free admission to museums. Yes, you read it correctly. Axe the most universally popular initiative of Labour’s entire period in office.” The Sun

This all goes to remind the electorate of the image of elitist Tory Toffs pulling up the ladder behind them as they go. Quite why this particular clique does not get it at all will be a matter of puzzlement to all the rest of us who either went to bog standard comprehensives, Grammar Schools or decidedly more meritocratic Independent Schools.

Thirdly, where was new signing Coulson while this little disaster taking place? One supposes he is not yet in post, so why did Swire not wait a while before stuffing his foot deep into his chops? It was particularly inept, given that Mr. David Cameron was on the point of making a major speech on the direction he wishes to take the Conservative party.

If this was an isolated example, then one would be minded to ignore it as of no consequence, but coming after the Grammar Schools fiasco (which appears to have done a significant amount of damage to the Tories as the latest polls seem to be suggesting) some Tories are beginning to look more critically at Mr. David Cameron’s judgement and his choice of Lieutenants.

Might this and Brown's arrival not be a good moment for Mr. David Cameron to get out his stalking rifle and cull the Front Bench of some of his Old Etonian chums and appoint some new faces of rather more meritocratic bent to their place?

'Brown is a man of principle'....Richard Woolley. Really Richard? Which principles are those?
Remember he is the architect of most of Nulabours domestic policy during the last 10 years including the ludicrously 'spun' budgets, PFI, the Wanless report etcetc. The Editor may well be right that Brown has some rabbits to pull out of the hat when he takes over he is after all a formidable politician.But a man of principle ? I don't think so.

I intended fisking Cameron's speech but it was so laughable I couldn't take it seriously so I ripped it to shreds by humouring him instead.

A lousy politician, he'd make a good stand up comedian.

Brown may take economics seriously, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily got the best policies. He could probably raise more funds for his beloved tax credits if he actually cut certain rates of tax, but I imagine that to him, any real tax cuts are anathema.

This all goes to remind the electorate of the image of elitist Tory Toffs pulling up the ladder behind them as they go.

Good point Huntsman. And exactly the point that was so trenchantly made by Davis Mellor a couple of weeks ago.

People like David Mellor and Lord Gowrie - neither known for their ultra rightwing views - added lustre to the Tory benches because of their love of culture.

Do we have anybody of their stature today?

)this will mean a very early break with the Blairites

How that ?

It would mean simply that Brown upholds the 2005 Manifesto on which the government was elected.....it is the Opposition which has ditched its 2005 Manifesto.....not Brown

And Blair ruled out a referendum at the weekend Tomtom.

The fact that Traditional Tory can put the words "stature" and "David Mellor" in the same context is conclusive proof that he is a Labour troll.

I just hope that Brown hurries up and gives Dacre his knight hood. He certainly has been earning it in Brown's cause.

This story re Lords judgement on ECHR and army has been ignored by everybody.


The absence of meaningful action from the Conservative Party, senior MPs, and the mythical (ie. not real) "Conservative Movement" shows a) why UK is finished and b) why there's no point whatever in voting Tory.

Senior MPs consistently refuse to do anything about this and refuse to pledge withdrawal from the ECHR. For this reason alone you are unfit to govern and are contributing to the destruction of the armed forces.

Erm, Packyourkitandgohome, David Cameron has pledged to withdraw the ECHR from domestic law...

Having read this thread I think I know now why there are apparently so many attacks on Cameron; they're scared we might actually win, and the grumpy old men might be confronted with the party getting to govern again and actually changing the country. After all, much more fun to moan that we've either already gone to the dogs or are well on our way rather than think about meeting the new challenges the country is presented with.

"People like David Mellor and Lord Gowrie - neither known for their ultra rightwing views - added lustre to the Tory benches because of their love of culture."
Traditional Tory

Beyond parody in one case. Unfair on the other chap.


Some of us are not grumpy old men but like many other people in this country we think an awful lot is wrong after 10 years of Labour government and Conservative useless opposition. Now of course there are people who think everything is fine, and if they do they might as well vote for Labour. What we don't want is a Tory party whose essence is Labour Lite.


You are wrong. DC has pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act giving effect to the ECHR. He has explicitly rejected withdrawing from the ECHR itself. He has said he will pass another Act giving effect to the ECHR which he hopes domestic and Strasbourg judges will interpret a bit different. This is merely a hope - and a foolish one.

Formal Tory policy could do nothing about the problem of the Lords ruling - simply because the Lords are bound to interpret any UK law on the basis of the ECHR BECAUSE PARLIAMENT HAS TOLD THEM TO.

The only way to remedy this problem is to withdraw from the ECHR.

My comment is not merely ignorant whining. It is a statement of fact about the legal position and the Tory policy.

This explains why you do not see the likes of Davis complaining in the media - they know they will not do anything about it therefore they do not wish to give these issues prominence. That is why they are unfit to govern.

You are wrong. DC has pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act giving effect to the ECHR

No the HRA has no effect on the ECHR whatsoever - it simply permits British Judges to adjudicate on it in place of Strasbourg and thus saves the Uk Government from being one of the most frequent defendants in the ECHR.

The UK could withdraw from the ECHR by withdrawing from The Council of Europe it set up in 1950 - that would make it the only country in Europe apart from The Vatican State not signatory to the European Convention

However there is now a body of Case Law in the English legal system which permits English High Court Judges to refer to those decisions.

The Law Lords can innovate in any way they choose and there is no court in England can overturn their decision, indeed not even the ECHR in Strasbourg can overturn an English Court decision

It was in response to Hitler that the ECHR came into being. I take that those wishing to do away with the ECHR and HRA are seeking a return to Nazi Germany?

What an overblown remark. Are you suggesting that pre-1951, there were no civil liberties ever in Europe? In any case, if you read the ECHR, you will see that there are huge caveats on all the freedoms which it contains....so much so that it is very doubtful whether it would have provided any sort of defence against a real dictatorship. It certainly provides unelected judges who want to play politics with a great deal of room for manoeuvre.

There is an absolute right not to be tortured, there is no caveat on this. Britain's mistake was not incorporating the Convention into domestic law until 1998. It is still seen as something foreign. Had it been incorporated much earlier there would have been 50 years to get used to the idea.

I'm actually correct in my statement. DC has pledged to repeal the HRA which gives direct effect to the ECHR in our courts. If he does this then it will no longer have effect, hence TomTom's statement that

"not even the ECHR in Strasbourg can overturn an English Court decision".

I'm fully aware that this won't nuke the existence of the ECHR but it will have an effect on the decision to which Packyourkitandgohome refers.

In relation to the policy, I was initially a cynic but having read the (excellent) papers about his idea for a British Bill of Rights on the Conservative Lawyers' website I am actually being sold on it as a great way to allow the courts to give greater effect to the need for people to recognise they have responsibilities as well.

Bill @ 12.24
I quite agree with you that there is much which needs to be remedied. It just seems that I want to get into power to stop it happening and be in a position to rectify things whilst you would rather we snipe from perpetual opposition.

Why has the Tory opposition been "useless"? Because it hasn't managed to stop what Blair et al have done, presumably. What's the solution? Surely to win so that whatever nasties they have up their sleeve now can be stopped...

Torture and the abolition of capital punishment are about the only rights that are absolute. Freedom of speech and thought are not, nor is the right not to have one's property confiscated, nor is freedom of choice in relation to education. I haven't noticed anyone here advocating the reintroduction of torture or a return to capital punishment so ditching the ECHR does not lead inexorably to the Third Reich as you suggested earlier. The issue is whether sweeping policy-making powers should be transferred to unelected, unsupervised judges.....which of course they love. This has nothing to do with whether the ECHR is "foreign" and everything to do with democratic accountability.

It was in response to Hitler that the ECHR came into being. I take that those wishing to do away with the ECHR and HRA are seeking a return to Nazi Germany?

Posted by: jailhouselawyer | June 18, 2007 at 13:53

Actually it was not. It was a response to Stalin's incorporation of Central Europe into The Realm of the Damned and designed to embarrass the Communists for their lack of freedoms.

Your comment is fatuous. The League of Nations had all sorts of Charters when Germany joined in 1926 and became a Permanent Member of The Council and Hitler simply withdrew in 1933

Incidentally this is an interesting footnote to The League of Nations September 23, 1930 First session of the Commission of Enquiry for European Union.

I haven't noticed anyone here advocating the reintroduction of torture or a return to capital punishment so ditching the ECHR does not lead inexorably to the Third Reich as you suggested earlier.

There is still the UN Charter, the Directives of the EU, the Social Chapter, the Equalities Acts, - all of which are applicable in English Case Law.....and anyone appealing directly to Strasbourg as Mr Miller is doing over the Law Lords £5 million divorce settlement, can still seek redress
against what seem to be arbitrary judgments.

After all if Parliament does not pass an updated Divorce Law for 34 years and lets English Judges make the country the most liberal payout regime in the world; someone somewhere has to have some means of getting matters reviewed

I am more than a little disappointed to read one or two of the posts today, as yet agina there seem to be the collection of head bangers, those of think they are true Conservatives, but aren’t and usual splattering of Lib Dems who decide to post some sort of limp wristed criticism in an attempt to divert our attention away from their leadership crisis.

Traditional Tory continues to snipe from the side whilst obviously failing to listen to all the speeches that have been delivered on the issue of extending the right to buy, where all those extra houses have been identified. I think that this was also talked about by Michael Howard as well.

Richard Woolley on the other hand shows his true colours in his last sentence of his post by saying, “It's been said before that the Tories…” what an interesting choice of language. I wonder why did he use term collective ‘We’? One can only draw the conclusion that he is not really a Conservative. I hope I am wrong but we will have to wait and see, watching his future posts and if they continue to attack rather than support.

It is astonishing that the last monthly poll for the fab site wanted a more aggressive stance taken on Labours decade of inaction, dither and sheer incompetence yet again there are those raking over every detail of every speech. When they think that they have found the tiniest thing that they disagree with, they charge off against the DC and his team like Don Quixote and tipping his lance at the windmills.

When will we learn?

Tapestry is right when he says Brown has not promised a referendum. It seems that those including the Mail have fallen victim to Labour’s spin machine again and that even without the presence of Campbell and with ‘demob’ Tony can still hoodwink even many Conservative supporters.

Only DC has committed himself to a referendum – its as simple as that!

I do agree that Swire blundered on the museums issue and I must say this. I think this was a gaff, but then what was positive was the speed that he realised that it was a mistake and how quickly he reversed this mistake. So often we criticise those in power for not listening, for adopting a policy that is wrong and, out of sheer bloody mindedness keep ploughing on with that policy. Swire made a mistake, big deal, he corrected it and if that is the worst thing he does as an MP, our Culture Spokesman and hopefully a Government Minister or Secretary of State then I he will have done a very good job.

I will just expand a little on this point just to make sure that everyone is clear by posing this question, Would you rather have someone like Hugo Swire who made a statement and then corrected himself before any harm was done, or would you rather have someone like Gordon Brown who has pillaged our pension system once the envy of the World to the tune of £5 billion a year, has received several Parliamentary and independent reports about the scale of this huge catastrophe of his making and yet still refuses to either admit he made a mistake of amend the current policy?

Brown is clearly enjoying a small and I suspect what will be a short-lived honeymoon period and as Conservative we must not let him rewrite history, like Winston Smith. Brown’s Treasury is no ministry of plenty and we must not let him shift the blame from his broad shoulders to those of the out going PM.

"It was in response to Hitler that the ECHR came into being. I take that those wishing to do away with the ECHR and HRA are seeking a return to Nazi Germany?"

What an ignorant comment!

Good post Ali T.

Yes Ali and Malcolm, its interesting the way in which certain people who post repeatedly on this site are over the moon when something is seen to have gone wrong for the party and upset when things are going well. In between time they scrape around for everything they can to whinge about. I suspect they are actually UKIP supporters but unfortunately the site continues to allow them to cause mischief and in the meanwhile the press use it against us,


CDM @ 09.59
Ever tried driving a car with one eye shut?

Sussex Tory

Great article from Melanie Phillips again! I especially like the "Heir today, gone tomorrow". Yes, let us hope he will be gone tomorrow.


My uncle uncle who lost one eye in the 30s was still driving forty odd years later, but I think it was more difficult.

"How can Gordon Brown be said to understand ordinary families when in 56 years the man has never learned to drive? No wonder he treats motorists with such disdain."

Excellent point CDM. I guess you therefore agree that is probably why Cameron doesn't understand the needs of those who aren't born into near-nobility?

Johnson @ 18.28 clearly has the aim of using the site to promote ideas that cause maximum damage to the Conservative party. Anyone who seriously suggests switching leaders yet again when that leader has helped put us ahead in the polls, is intent on mischief. Its a new name to add to the usual stirrers...ho hum


Matt Wright, burying your head in the sand may help you personally, but does not make the problem go away. Cameron is finished.

Of course he is not, Johnson. A leadership crisis would finish the Tories forever. We need to help Cameron to succeed. Let's stop the sniping and be constructive.

BP, huh? Save Dave is in operation. The man is clearly finished as his authority is in tatters.

What you failed to spot is that Blair created the phoney war that gave Dave the air to breathe. Brown wanted to rip him apart 18 months ago and won't hesitate to do so once in charge.

Considering Dave is already on the ropes after grammargate, propping up the staggering punch-drunk is not going to deliver victory.

"bluepatriot": DCHQ hard at work to "Save Dave"?

Elements in the party need to learn that changing leader so regularly is a cop out from facing up to ones own responsibilities in working to build a more modern representative party. The public would most certainly sense that. All ways round it would, as Bluepatriot says, spell total disaster. At the end of the day we are going to have pretty much all the same people on the same journey so we better get used to working as a team or face a permanent Labour administration,


Brown, raided pension schemes pauperising thousands, he ignored ombudsman reports and legal rulings telling him he is responsible. He lies regularly to the House of Commons including when he stole (I think "stole" is a fair description) the pension money. Being largely incompetant in order to look competant he regularly manipulates statistics and pretents his targets that he missed were different. In order to "shoot Tory foxes" he doubled the tax low income people pay so he could pretent to lower other taxes. And there's more. . . .lots more.

Cameron agreed that if an authority already had grammar schools under population expansion there was the possibility of building more - something Willetts had not referred to - and everybody yelled U turn.

How come then Brown is seen as having more principles than Cameron. I would suggest that while Labour do not critisise Brown and support him at interviews etc., many Tories are more than happy to critisise Cameron. It looks as if the idiots of the "right" are noticed by the electorate and put them off voting Tory even if they like Cameron.

Unlike some Tories, I am no fan of New Labour, its policies and its methods. Gordon Brown will however be a formidable opponent for Cameron. The latter will need well thought out policies with traction. The electorate have had enough of Blairite spin so relying on that won't get Dave anywhere, the more so when he will be up against a heavyweight like Brown.

I think the "Elements in the party" that "need to learn" are those who elected a person who chose to attack the core voters and the core members instead of attacking Labour.

But anyway: there is nothing to save in Dave. He has now lost the last bits of credibility.

David, I think you are right. It is unlikely anyone would agree with the full package of any leader we have. There are however a very determined minority, some of whom post over and over again on this site and whose clear aim has for months been to undermine the party. Some of them are clearly UKIP supporters and even admit it. Unfortunately the media pick up on all this as the web site is so high profile and has Conservative in the title.


Re "How come then Brown is seen as having more principles than Cameron." I think despite all his faults the electorate respects Brown's achievement. This has comprised economic stability, sustained growth combined with increased public spending. We all know where the fault lines are and the public I suspect does too. But until the public finances bust and people lose their jobs Brown can continue to enjoy the benefit of the doubt and seem "principled". It is hard for the Tories to appear principled, the more so when they appear to be reversing or flip flopping their policies.

David Sergeant. When was the last time Brown publicly insulted his party members by calling them delusional?

Here we go again: "idiots of the "right"" and on another thread reference headbangers. So be it. It was however the idiotic centrist socialist consensus pursued over decades which got this country into the mess which Maggie had to rescue us from. Unfortunately she was so busy sorting out the economic mess and existential threats to our country that she wasn't able to tackle the corrosive effect of cultural Marxists who have continued their undermining activities with impunity. I don't see Dave or his fellow travellers doing anything about that.

Exactly, Bill. Dave's ingenious tactic was to attack all traditional Conservative values when and where he met them. That was a dangerous tactic and it failed. "Save Dave" won't work - "Boot Dave" is the only way forward.

Some of them are clearly UKIP supporters and even admit it. Unfortunately the media pick up on all this as the web site is so high profile and has Conservative in the title.

So (asking for the umpteenth time) where are all the loyal Cameron supporters? Why don't they come to the rescue and - to coin a phrase -'Save Dave'?

The only UKIP supporters likely to post persistently will be ex-Tories, in other words people we want back.


If I believed the small band of disruptive but voluble posters on this this site was at all representative of the Conservative Party I would leave it. Some may well be members of the party - we are a broad church - but any references to BlueLabour or Call me Dave signals to me a UKIP sympathiser or a Labour sock puppet (I tend towards the latter for some who repeat Labour spokesmen's rhetoric nearly word for word).

If they are members then they represent a minority. The core voted for Cameron's vision not David Davis's, the core go out and work for a Conservative victory, they don't try to bring down the party leadership, the core are the good men and women who play an active role in voluntary work, in local activism and like Cameron see the importance of society and individual action, not the state directing.

It's the core that keeps me Conservative, those wonderful like minded people, who I might differ from in policy specifics, but who share the Party's underlying belief in strong national institutions and personal responsibility with concern for the disadvantaged, the weak and the needy.

The core voted for Cameron's vision not David Davis's

That was then. This is now.

Brown, raided pension schemes pauperising thousands

Rubbish. He abolished tax relief on dividends in pension schemes, which puts them on an equal footing with the dividends you and I receive.

Rather like the abolition on tax relief on insurance premiums, and which party was responsible for that?

Today's pensioners (other than those have nothing more than the state pension - but we hear little about them) have money coming out of their ears.

Why do you think Cunard, Carnival etc keep building the biggest and most hideous cruise liners the world has ever seen?

Not to mention the gigantic boom in 'equity release'.


I am sure we all believe in personal responsibility and are concerned about the "disadvantaged, the weak and the needy". As for the "Party's underlying belief in strong national institutions": it depends. Our armed services retain much of their former greatness despite the depredations of New Labour. The NHS does a great job but would be much better if properly reformed. Our education system continues its post modern decline. The police can't do their job. The rest of the criminal legal system won't do their job. The BBC should have been privatised twenty years ago. And of course our parliamentarians decided more than 30 years ago to hand their powers to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, something they have never sought to reverse. However the RNLI and the Dogs Trust both do a fine job.


There may well be people posting here as agents provocateurs. But there are presumably many other traditional Tories like me who would sprinkle polonium-210 over our cornflakes rather than vote for Tone's Tory admirers. If Cameron was to win an election tomorrow nothing significant in Britain would change. If that sounds pessimistic, just look at the plaudits directed at Cameron from the same "feral media" that once sucked up to Blair. Why does the BBC, for instance, give Cameron such
an easy ride? It's because they know that deep down Cameron is a fellow traveller.

Bill's point of 20.08 about the rise of cultural Marxism is also important. There are many areas of national life, I can think of education and law and order off the top of my head, where the Left has long been in ideological control. Where is the evidence that Cameron even recognises the problem, let alone is inclined to tackle it?

Welcome back Ted, you've been gone too long. Sensible comments as always.

The Watchman

You might as well source some polonium cos its either Cameron, Brown or Ming ( though perhaps Ming will be replaced by Clegg or Huhne).

So 8 more years of Labour? or perhaps you prefer a Labour / Lib Dem coalition in three years time? Some posers seem to revel in the thought.

What's your definition of traditional Tories? When I first joined traditional Tories were the tradition of Churchill and SuperMac. Margaret Thatcher was certainly not a traditional Tory - she was if anything a traditional Whig.

I actually read the speeches and don't just respond to media spin and Cameron's conservatism seems to me to be in the tradition of conservatism, its certainly not in the tradition of social democracy or socialism.

Cameron is going to be our leader for a long, long time. It isn't going to be like Hague or IDS or Howard. We're settled on him now. So if we want him to do anything different we need to persuade him - not insult him. And my guess is that, over time, we will come to see that one of the wonderful things about having Cameron as our Prime Minister (which will probably happen in the end - hopefully sooner rather than later, but later will be better than never) as opposed to Gordon Brown (or David Milliband or whomever else the anti-Cameron snipers would doom us to), will be that David Cameron will listen to *us*, the Conservative Party - not to *them*, the Socialists.

If you worry that Cameron isn't going to give you a grammar school in every town, I ask: How many grammar schools is Brown or Milliband going to give you? If you despair that Cameron isn't going, in the first year, to cut taxes by £20bn, how much are you imagining that Brown is going to cut them? Are you expecting Brown to leave the EU any time soon - are you expecting him even to oppose passing *more* powers to the Commission?

It seems to me that we've been out of power and irrelevant for so long that we've almost forgotten what it could mean to have the government. Guys! People would actually *care* what Conservative policies were, because *our policies would be what would happen*!

Even if you don't care about your future ability to influence, think about the present: Cameron will oppose the introduction of ID cards; he will oppose the transfer of more powers to the EU institutions; he will introduce a revolution (a real revolution) in public service delivery, with the little platoons marshalled as never since the nineteenth century; he will raise taxes by less than the economy grows; he will abolish the Human Rights Act; he will marshall the little platoons to resurrect fatherhood.

These and many more will represent profound and positive changes to our society. They will apply Conservative ideals to our new setting.

He doesn't get everything perfect. But if I have a complaint about him, it is that he hasn't yet changed things enough from our disasters of the past decade. But he'll have time. He isn't going anywhere.

Lilico: "Cameron is going to be our leader for a long, long time."

Then the party will split. Probably a group of MPs will leave and form a new party.

Cameron is going to be our leader for a long, long time. It isn't going to be like Hague or IDS or Howard. We're settled on him now

Sorry. I don't see the difference.

I don't know about IDS, but Hague and Howard seemed pretty 'settled' until they lost general elections. Incidentally it would be interesting to hear those who habitually bleat about 'disloyalty' to Cameron condemn the very real and vicious disloyalty which was shown to IDS, in many cases from people now backing 'Dave'.

I don't take kindly to being told how to think by a couple of privileged public schoolboys with zilch experienceof life. They have been doing exactly this to the entire party from day one and continued it - extremely petulently - over grammar schools last month.

I don't now believe that the party will split, although that was once my view. Cameron is shedding supporters every day and he will go. Make no mistake about it.

The tragedy is, if he and his supporters cling on regardless, the date of his departure may well be the day after we lose the next election.

Cameron is the only leader who has stated that 'if any powers are to be transferred to Brussels there should be a referendum.'

Brown is posturing and clearly has no intention of calling a referendum, while pretending that he would do so, as a way to pressure Blair. As Cameron said in Tooting, 'Brown will not commit to a referendum'. It's all just posturing and a good point to attack Brown.

Hague the Bildeberger is similarly playing with words around this - 'if powers which were in the rejected Constitution are transferred there should be the promised referendum'. Only Cameron's got it right - pwers going = referendum. No if's when's or but's.

Strength on policy? I think so.

Hague the Bildeberger

Let's dump these silly conspiracy theories, tapestry.

The 'Bilderberger' conferences (named after the hotel where the first was held) are just one among many other post-war institutions designed to promote democracy and peaceful co-existence among politicians world-wide.

No doubt Cameron (whom I gather you still support) will be invited to one of these events before long. Will he be on your blacklist after that?

What next? The hidden hand of world Freemasonry, or perhaps the fabled Illuminati?

Not even a theory, TT. Cameron has consistently refused to get involved. Hague's in it up to his neck. Cameron's not sucking up to Murdoch, EU, Bush or any other international organisation. He could have had a much easier ride if he had, but he is flying high without the usual props. It's his greatest strength.

The one problem I have with Cameron, is that he still has virtually the same cabinet that tossed out the Grass Root favourite IDS. He was further ahead in the polls than what we are now when he was tossed out! It is IDS and up and comers who should be there, not the current lot. David Davis, Fox, May and others are yesterday’s men and should be sent off to join Portillo and Howard.

David Cameron has named Giuseppe Garibaldi as his political hero.

It's a striking choice. Quite why Cameron would identify himself with a Masonic zealot is unknown, especially if he had been wanting to allay suspicions that he might himself be 'on the square'.

Before Cameron became a political star, and at the time of his first job within the Tory shadow cabinet, a poster to the Usenet newsgroup alt.freemasonry wrote, on July 3rd, 2003:

I'd like to congratulate my local Masonic lodge member, David Cameron MP for Witney, on his promotion to Deputy Speaker for the Conservative Party. As an extremely young MP (thirties) I expect him to be party leader by the end of his political career...

Cameron's elevation was actually to Shadow Deputy Leader of the House, but that mistake somehow made the message more credible. But a spokesperson from his office denied that Cameron was a Mason, so the veracity of that Usenet posting remains in question.

But Cameron has now linked himself with the 'First Freemason of Italy', Giuseppe Garibaldi.

An active freemason, Garibaldi had little use for rituals, but thought of masonry as a network to unite progressive men as brothers both within nations and as members of a global community.

Garibaldi "was initiated into Freemasonry in 1844, at the age of thirty-seven, in the 'L'Asil de la Vertud' Lodge of Montevideo", although he had earlier joined the Masonic revolutionary movement, the Carbonari, in Piedmont in 1834. After lodging and fighting in South America, he went north and "attended the masonic lodges of New York in 1850 and London in 1853-54".

He is credited with unifying the two Rites of Memphis and Misraïm in 1881, and he became that Order's first International Grand Master.

My point is that Cameron could hardly have chosen, as a political hero, someone more associated with miltant anti-clerical Freemasonry than Garibaldi.

Does Cameron share Garibaldi's belief that organised religion must be overthrown, to be replaced globally by Freemasonry? If Cameron became PM, how would his relations be with a) the Queen, b) the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and c) the Archbishop of Canterbury? Would he want to abolish them all?

So I hope, before the next election, interviewers will ask David Cameron, given his hero-worship of Garibaldi, his views on organised religion and Freemasonry.

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