The Daily Mail: The Conservative Party must unite behind the best leader it has had in years

Most Daily Mail readers will have gained a very negative sense of the current position of the Cameron project from their newspaper this morning.  Ben Brogan has written a page six piece headlined "The Tories terrible week".  The article's three subheadings are:

• Willetts in jeopardy over grammar row;
• Outcry over red-top editor's new PR role;
• MPs' scorn over 'heir to Blair' claims.

Readers turning to pages 14 and 15 will see a double page article from former Thatcher adviser Robin Harris that is headlined: "Why does Cameron despise the Tories?"  On page 25 Peter Oborne's regular column also makes very uncomfortable reading.  The headline: "The Leader's 'heir of Blair' strategy is in disarray.  His enemies are on the prowl."

Few readers will probably read the leader column on page 14 but it will offer some relief to Team Cameron.  The leader (not currently online) notes that "the inelectable fact is that [David Cameron] is the first leader in more than a decade to make the party look electable".  The leader continues:

"If Michael Howard brought discipline, then Mr Cameron, by giving the party a new caring image, has reconnected the Conservatives to countless people who had been alienated by the perceived harshness of some Tory policies.  He has executed this stategy with both brilliance and courage."

Although critical of Mr Cameron's addiction to the appeasement of The Guardian-BBC (a key concern of Mail Editor Paul Dacre) the leader-writers warns that the party must "unite behind the best leader they have had in years."

For David Cameron the last two weeks will make him stronger if he learns the right lessons.  Lesson number one is that he must pay more attention to the breadth of the Conservative coalition.  There should be no retreat from the greener and gentler conservatism that has been so successful in attracting LibDem voters back into the Tory column.  But he must pay more attention to the concerns of striving voters and other natural Tories who would like him to address their concerns about crime and immigration and squeezed disposable incomes.  As this website has constantly argued - there need be no conflict between a compassionate engagement with the problems of developing countries, for example, and a very tough approach to border control.  The party can and should combine a massive prisons building programme with more support for the children of prisoners.  ConservativeHome believes we have the right leader for our times.  With this week's inspired appointment of Andy Coulson he now has a key adviser who can help him connect with the traditional, northern and lower income voters who are currently unconvinced by the new Conservative Party.

Comments

[spagbob]

the last few weeks have depressed me a lot, i knew the result was going to be the tories looking disunited and losing in the polls, and its happened. we are in big trouble now, especially if this continues. the daily mail leader is right, we must get behind cameron now. he knows people have strong views on grammar schools, but he isnt going to back down and we need to accept that. The so-called retreats have damaged him too, i hope the people who caused this disunity and some retreat are proud of themselves. do they even care about the conservative party winning the next election or not? please, for the sake of the party and the country, lets stop with the disunity, even if we don't always agree with cameron. he has done a brilliant job and made this party electable again. lets get behind him, back him fully and the parliamentary party please do the same. further disunity like this is just undoing all the hard work of the last few years and making the electorate think of us as nasty, disunited and too concerned with ideology than people's lives again. lets show we're united again, please!

[Patsy Sergeant]

It seems to me that David Cameron and his advisors, and including his cabinet, need to find a way, as in an army exercise, to by-pass, or overcome the inherent left-leaning self-interest of the media - TV in particular. The said thing is that the media does not give a toss about ANY of Mr. Cameron's policies, their only interest is of the 'bums on seats' type of thing, and to get a 'good' reaction, if that means someone losing their temper, so much the better! The fact that their antics do no good to politics as a whole or indeed to society is irrelevant.

[CAWP]

Yes Cameron has been a little incompetent, but the most depressing thing has been the party - MPs, members and supporters - diving into a completely optional, empty controversy, destroying the hard-gained unity we had, and reducing us to a pathetic, squabbling, vainly self-important bunch of desperate losers. Okay, Cameron's wrong on grammar schools. But we knew that ages ago. Howard wasn't substantially better, nor was Major, or Thatcher.

People were obviously angling for a chance to blast at him. Why now, just as Brown takes over, and Labour sits upon the brink...?

WTF.

[Rachel Joyce]

I've just been looking at the Labourhome blog. What a bunch of children - name calling - no real policy discussion, just anti-Tory.
We have got to get this lot out of power. 4 terms of Labour will turn this country into a police state. We do have the best leader since Thatcher and like she was, he is a man of the times. He is right for Britain. We have got to get behind him - time to move on.

[MrB]

If we all take a moment to think about it, this is true. He is the best leader for a decade, and there is no one better to replace him. Anyone who thinks there is, is clearly out of touch.

In order for a leader to develop his skills, he has to experience crises. It's a good job that an issue of such irrelevance to the majority of people (grammar schools) has created this challenge.

That is the blunt truth. Lets not squander this opportunity.

[MrB]

By the way, it's good to see some supportive comments for Cameron finally coming through on this blog. CAWP and Joyce are quite right.

There has been a disproportionate amount of trolls on these boards for too long!

[Henry Cook]

I haven't been engaged as fully as usual with politics for the past few weeks, as I've been preparing for my finals, but what I have seen from the sidelines, as it were, has been truly depressing. The impression is not at all good. The only positive that might have come out of it was Cameron looking strong in the face of harsh criticism from the right. However that has been completely undermined by the media-invented 'U-turn'.

Why on earth are we arguing about 1950s-style education? Why would we jeopardise our chances at the next election for what, it must be said, is a pointless debate? Can we not try and find new solutions for our problems rather than recycling old ones which became incredibly unpopular? I very much understand the affection in which grammar schools are held, they did a lot of good for some people. But the fact remains that the majority did not do so well out of them, and that in a society already riven with division in so many areas, it does not seem a brilliant idea to segregate the nation's children between those who can, and those who can't. Anyway, I don't want to start another debate about grammar schools, I know a lot of you will disagree, and that's fine.

But please lets not destroy ourselves over this. There are much greater things at stake.

[Perdix]

Good to see some posters who want the Tories to win. Concerning the Editor's call for the Party to "address concerns of natural Tories"......Cameron has already called for limits to immigration, more prisons and secure borders. What more does he have to do......froth at the mouth while saying these things?

[Ash Faulkner]

I personally think Michael Howard would have been a very good Prime Minister, so I'm not sure if I'd describe Cameron has the best leader. But without any doubt, he is the most electable. Yes, there's tension between the leader and the led, but I don't believe Cameron will be an autocratic premier - I don't think he'll get a majority large enough to be one, in any case.

Cameron is absolutely right to talk about society, the environment, education and health. These things matter to people, and we've spent too long infighting and muttering about immigration. That isn't to say we shouldn't talk about them. I'm on the centre-right of the party - and firmly on the right of the political spectrum - and even I can see that the lessons of the past must be to address all issues.

This tension between Cameron and the party should be enough to reassure those worried by his leadership that we won't have a Cameron Government, we'll have a Conservative Government - and that is surely what we all want?

[Dave Wilson]

The basic problem is that the repudiation of selection is only consistent with a totalitarian state. If Cameron wants to go that way he will, of course, have to ban independent schools and remove academic selection critiria from universities. Clearly he would be attempting to lead the wrong party,

[MrB]

Ash, I also thought Michael Howard would've been a fantastic PM. But, the public were never interested enough to see past the "vampire", "something of the night", "nasty party" image perpetuated by the press. So it was never going to happen. Lord Chancellor is still a possibility though..

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

It looks as if CCHQ have started to mobilise the somewhat sinister damage limitation gang, whose main strategy is to bombard all forms of media with messages of support for the Shameron. ConservativeHome appears to be the main target of the day for them.

How Nu Labour of Blu Labour.

[jorgen]

"the inelectable fact is that [David Cameron] is the first leader in more than a decade to make the party look electable".

No, the doings of the Labour Party is the main reason the party suddenly is electable.

But why this eagerness for power if the electability is due to the lack of real Conservative policies? The party is today a different party in terms of ideology: the recent Matt cartoon sums it up best: "I can't believe it's not the Labour Party", and now confirmed by Osborne's (according to Telegraph originally Cameron's soundbite though he denies this) "heirs of Blair" remark.

It is also a different party physically as Cameron's speeches undoubtedly has replaced real Conservative members/voters with former Lib Dem members/voters.

Time will show what happens, but there is not much doubt in my mind that Cameron will go into the history books as the one that caused the split of the Conservative Party.

[Andrew Lilico]

"ineluctable", maybe (i.e. not-to-be-avoided)? Or did the mail really write "inelectable" - which would be a somewhat amusing typo, in context!

[Henry Cook]

"It looks as if CCHQ have started to mobilise the somewhat sinister damage limitation gang, whose main strategy is to bombard all forms of media with messages of support for the Shameron. ConservativeHome appears to be the main target of the day for them."

How insulting. So if someone disagrees with you then its part of some conspiracy? FYI I'm a university student who has never had any contact with CCHQ. I would suggest yours is the more sinister influence, seeking to slur those who disagree with you. Get real.

[cleo]

Unite behind your leader, talk about issues that matter to people, then the party might win the next election.

Continue to oppose every new polcy platform that Cameron proposes and you won't win an election, the party will be an irrelevance.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"FYI I'm a university student who has never had any contact with CCHQ. I would suggest yours is the more sinister influence, seeking to slur those who disagree with you. Get real."

Of course you are, sonny. You should be working, not wasting tax-payers' money on your media studies course. Hark, I do hear the clarion call from the Students' Union - it's Happy Hour again - Snakebite and Black is just a pound a pint. Off you go.....

[Henry Cook]

"Of course you are, sonny. You should be working, not wasting tax-payers' money on your media studies course. Hark, I do hear the clarion call from the Students' Union - it's Happy Hour again - Snakebite and Black is just a pound a pint. Off you go....."

I would tell you where and what I am studying, but it might be construed as arrogance. Suffice it to say, with the level of intellect you display on here, it was probably beyond your reach.

[Joseph]

I've just been looking at the Labourhome blog. What a bunch of children - name calling - no real policy discussion.
Rachel Joyce | June 02, 2007 at 14:08

Yes but is this not a bit like the Pot calling the Kettle black.
Where is David Cameron's policies?
One thing Brown has is an abundance of policies whether you agree with them or not.

Now,if Cameron does retreat on this grammar school saga, he is going to look weeker than ever.

Labour will have no trouble branding this guy a flip-flpopper there is a ton of evidence on that and it is sticking.

Blair is going to have a field day with Cameron next PMQ's and he has brought the lot on himself without even trying. he has wasted all the goodwill he had when first elected.

I would like to bet there is a lot of ex-tories out there saying "We told you so"

As for "What a bunch of children" there is no truer word spoken than "Out of the mouths of babes"

I think Cameron's days are well and truly numbered, the honeymoon is over and he has missed the Bus.

[Adam Tugwell]

Robin Harris was on the ball with many of his comments and there are lessons to be learned from what he has said. He has a refreshing grip on the state of the Party and the way that the Leadership should be applying itself to go forward.

Whovever is in charge, they should gracefully accept that they have just been bitch-slapped by the Party and need to remember why they are there and start thinking seriously about the job they now have to do.

As far as Coulson is concerned, yes there are questions you could ask, but his experience in coming from a red top should prove to be of great benefit; afterall we are talking about playing the lefties at their own game. (hopefully...)

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"Suffice it to say, with the level of intellect you display on here, it was probably beyond your reach."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha - crikey, you make me laugh :oD

Bit like the Tory party really.

[cleo]

Cameron tries really hard to reach out to new voters and bring his party into the 21st century but sadly the party ruins it all by arguing and going on about bringing back grammar schools. Quite frankly who would want to lead this party?

[Perdix]

Stephen Talkingthru*ss 15.56 - you presumably have no interest in the success of the Tory Party. Get lost.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes Joseph @ 16.04 - Brown may APPEAR to have 'an abundance of policies', as indeed did Blair, BUT, and it is a very big BUT, how many of them progressed beyond hot air??? AND! how many of them progressed beyond a few weeks or a few months AND thousands of pounds of tax-payers money, to actually have any effect at all. And indeed even if they did continue, how many screwed up the particular area that they were meant to affect, instead of being any real help at all???? Answer any of that!

[Torygirl]

I notice that everyone still keeps harking back to the "Nasty Party"!

That was one of the most stupid remarks ever made by someone supposed to be a shadow Minister. The media have never forgotten it, and trot it out everytime we have a disagreement.

[Denis Cooper]

Has Cameron learned anything from this episode? If not, he's doomed and/or
the Tory party is doomed to a fourth general election defeat. Any number of injunctions to get behind him, whether he's right or wrong, won't change that.

[Yet Another Anon]

But, the public were never interested enough to see past the "vampire", "something of the night", "nasty party" image perpetuated by the press.
The first two of those of course were said by Ann Widdecombe in a bid to sabotage Michael Howard's 1997 leadership campaign and the last one was coined by Theresa May. In just the same way as things said of Gordon Brown now were originally said by Charles Clarke and no doubt some of the comments on Ming originated out of the Liberal Democrats as well. The press then just pickup on those statements whether there is any truth in them or not, they print it and keep printing it and rake in the money without having to do much for it.

[jorgen]

Has Cameron learned anything from this episode? If not, he's doomed

Of course Cameron has learned something from this episode:

"dismissed the worst row to hit the party since he became leader as mere "froth and nonsense" whipped up by the media."

[Henry Mayhew]

David Cameron has a great look and feel as a political salesman. There really is plenty of time to look at policy, and I don't mean that in a patronising way. He has been overloaded and has achieved a huge amount. Luckily there is time to sit back and let other shadow cabinet colleagues and back bench MPs come to the fore for six months while he focuses on the intellectual underpinnings of the next government. After ten years out of power there is an exciting opportunity here, but it does need focus and a lot of participation by experts and oldies as well as the young thrusters.

The country needs a genuinely aspirational conservative government. Long-time conservatives like me currently supporting UKIP will come flooding back if and when we can support an intellectually exciting platform. Leaving "Europe" instantaneously is negotiable!

If the idea continues to be to nick weakminded floating voters from the LibDems by flirting with the failed nostrums of socialism, include me out.

Is that positive, fair, moderate and the right tone for today? Do we have a deal CCHQ?

[Joseph]

Right Patsy:

Quite a few of Blair's policies have hit the skids--no argument there.

However lets take a look at some that did come to fruition--Minimum Wage - Hospital Buildings - School Buildings - Pupils having their own books and not having to share with 2 others - Unemployment down- especially Youth Unemployment - Hospital waiting lists down - more Nursery Places - more Doctors-more nurses - economy held steady after years of boom and bust.
I could go on an on...however before you come back to me with standard answer of it was "the healthy economy that they inherited" please furnish me with this answer:

If Labour Policies are so bad why is your leader trying his damndest to copy them?..his side-kick Osborne has already stated that "Cameron is heir to Blair"

Also why is he bothering to have these Policy reviews, he would save himself a cartload of money just re-printing the 1997 Labour Party Manifest because he is doing his best to become Blue Labour.

His latest grammar School Policy is one Labour has had for years.
He is going to follow labours tax spend if he gets elected.
Now for a change instead of me answering all the questions why do you not have a stab at what I have put in front of you and see how you measure up.

Last but not least look at the list that did come to fruition, Cameron voted against them all can you tell me what his thoughts are on them now--if you cannot I certainly can.

[Adam Tugwell]

'David Cameron has a great look and feel as a political salesman.'

Henry, everything you say after that whole paragraph makes sense, but great looks and that feel thing are all what Blair has been about for the last decade. As a long-time conservative you must surely appreciate that being a good Conservative leader is not all about being liked - it is about being respected and I am sorry to say that there is little evidence to suggest that DC has that at this moment in time.

You are absolutely right about the 'Lib-Dem floaters' - we need people to identify as being natural Conservatives again, and not as being people who move their vote just as soon as they hear something which sounds nice (you know, liberal stuff) from the next orifice to open.

By the way, is it true that the word moderate is a psuedonym for lib/lab leaning lefties? (Hang on, it might have been political correctness...)

[James Maskell]

Despite us pointing out how rude ameron has been regarding our objections to this grammar school policy, Cameron has again been rude and said its all froth from the media...

Could someone please gag Cameron?

[MrB]

Steven Tolkinghorne,

I'm also a university student (not media studies haha.) and all this whining about Cameron is mostly irrelevant.

Your delusional effort to portray people who comment positively as CCHQ media managers just shows how most of the trolls on here are completely out of touch and just plain rude.

We are the future don't forget. Things change, this country has changed. Grammar schools are now irrelevant no matter how good they were.

[Traditional Tory]

Here come the Cameron Gleichschaltung gang at last.

Have they been feeling under the weather this past fortnight or is the CCHQ machine working overtime?

"unite behind the best leader they have had in years."

Coming from some anonymous hack on the Mail that should raise a belly-laugh or two. It's clearly meant as a piece of sarcasm as it's probably the first time the Mail has ever pretended to praise Cameron.

Howard was a good leader, IDS meant well, and Hague was superb. Cameron is a cardboard cut-out phoney who has benefitted from Labour's problems. Now, as the Telegraph points out today, his honeymoon has ground to an acrimonious end.

Oh and of course he's not a Tory.

[cleo]

Howard, IDS and Hague all lost elections. Give Cameron a chance. This site gets more ridiculous by the day and must bear some of the responsibility for some of the current problems.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Joseph @ 17.08 - You seem to be declaring fairly clearly where your allegiances are. OK.

Your list is not unfamiliar! I have heard it recited quite a few times, on the media. However, one thing I would say to you is that 'targets and statistics' can be 'organised' to say whatever is needed. For example:- 'Unemployment down' - it depends very much on how the figures and categories are totalled. 'More doctors and nurses', I am sure you and your 'chums' believe that, I happen to have friends in that sector (and I worked in that sector myself as a nurse), and they do NOT agree. For that matter neither do the police, which is another 'improvement' often quoted.
As for 'hospital waiting lists down' - that occurs only in selected areas.
As for 'the economy stable', you didn't mention inflation, and as you well know the true results of Mr. Brown's tax and spend orgy over the past ten years (HE has been the Chancellor of the Exchequer - with control of the money - for all that time), takes several years to become apparent.
As for 'Cameron as heir to Blair', and hinting at Cameron as airy fairy, I would say that Blair started out in 1997 as an airy misnomer, preaching things that seemed messianic, but which he appeared to forget by the next day. And after a short time he was hardly in the country anyway - AS NOW!

[Downsize the NHS]

"I'm also a university student"

So you tell us. Why not come back when you've got some experience of life?

"We are the future don't forget."

Gawd help us!

[Henry Cook]

"Here come the Cameron Gleichschaltung gang at last. Have they been feeling under the weather this past fortnight or is the CCHQ machine working overtime?"

Is this really the best you can come up with? It is, as I have already said, highly insulting to simply dismiss anything that anyone says which supports the leadership as CCHQ propaganda. How can I/we persuade you otherwise? Would you like to see our phonebooks and email records to show that we are genuinely, wait for it, speaking our minds? Frankly its a pathetic line of attack, and its only aim is to shut down all debate. Anyone would think that 68% of Tory members hadn't in fact voted for Cameron on a ticket which declined to support grammar schools.

[Traditional Tory]

As for 'Cameron as heir to Blair',

Well Patsy, you should read Andrew Pierce in the Telegraph today.

He confirms that in 2005, at a private dinner in Blackpool just before the leadership election, Cameron twice stated that he wanted to be 'the true heir to Blair'.

When this appeared in print Cameron twice denied he'd said it.

Pierce calls that a lie, and so do I.

[Cynical Voter]

but he isnt going to back down and we need to accept that.

So that's why they gave up trying to dissuade him from invading Poland ! And the rest, as they say, is history.

Blair had a superbly supine Cabinet which gave him support in all his decisions so we know now he made no mistakes - he wasn't prepared to back down - and we now have victory after victory in Iraq....I expect to see Conservative supporters cheering him in the streets - to do otherwise would be to undermine the nation.

In fact Cameron should come out in full support of Blair and Iraq - to do otherwise would be treasonable. Blair isn't going to back down - Cameron has an obligation to be 100% supportive of the nation's leader with British troops fighting for our national interest.

Yes Spagbob, Joyce, Rachel, CAWP you are right - we should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with The Leader and defy those who would criticise Blair - after all Cameron is Heir to Blair and he must be utterly loyal to The Leader of The Nation, Father of The People !

[James Maskell]

Being a university student really doesnt make you any more important than anyone else. I avoided university and Ive probably acheived more than I would have done doing a degree.

[Traditional Tory]

How can I/we persuade you otherwise?

Just because you may be genuine doesn't mean all the others are, especially the ones with silly IDs.

So where were you all skulking when all the world was raising its hand against your hero?

[Policy Dog]

So, if students are the future, does that mean you haven't got one when you leave education? - suddenly the relevance of DC's Oxford days become oh so clear...

Hello foetus my old friend...

[Henry Cook]

"Being a university student really doesnt make you any more important than anyone else. I avoided university and Ive probably acheived more than I would have done doing a degree."

Of course you are right, but when people accuse you of being CCHQ stooges, you feel obliged to tell them they are wrong, and one way of doing so is to tell them what you actually do.

[MrB]

Downsize the NHS,

Thank you for highlighting once more the arrogance and rudeness of many here.

I would think that having gone through the state education system extremely recently, coming out with good grades and hearing of absolutely NO ONE in my uni who has been to a grammar school gives me the right to speak on this subject as much as you.

Yes, we are the future which is why we can see grammars are irrelevant and you can't see past your own selfish arguments.

[Editor]

Let's stop this getting personal please?

[TomTom]

I would think that having gone through the state education system extremely recently, coming out with good grades and hearing of absolutely NO ONE in my uni who has been to a grammar school gives me the right to speak on this subject as much as you.

Care to express your pride in which University you are referring to ?

[TomTom]

I take it noone in your Univesity has come from a public school - though of course they are a lot more Public Schools than there are Grammar Schools

[MrB]

It's quite difficult Editor when people who dare try and comment positively are accused of being CCHQ plants!

[Henry Cook]

Sorry Editor, but its irksome to be accused of things which are untrue. Will stop now!

[Policy Dog]

If you don't want to play the game MrB, get off the field and let everyone else enjoy themselves.

[James Maskell]

Going to University doesnt mean you are automatically right...

[cleo]

Quite right MrB, this seems to be a forum for those who attack the leadership for everything it does and harp back to the past rather than accepting that this is the 21st century. Principles,it seems, can not be made up-to-date amd relevant and attractive to the British people. The way to winning elections is apparently appeasing the grassroots.

[Traditional Tory]

hearing of absolutely NO ONE in my uni who has been to a grammar school

I never attended a university (or even a 'university') but I must admit that I also know of nobody at my place of work who attended a grammar school.

More to the point I haven't a clue where any of them went to school. We don't talk about such things.

Have you been running a questionnaire on the campus? If not, how would you know?

[Editor]

BACK TO THE THREAD!

[richard]

Cameron is not the best leader the Tories have had for ages. He is inexperienced, modish, so 'right on' that it is beyond parody, and short fused under pressure... What I want to know is who will be leader when we lose the next election, probably as early as October.

[Henry Mayhew]

Thanks Adam.

In victory, magnanimity.

My job in politics should be to shadow David Willetts. He is a real asset who needs a picker-upper to sort things out before his findings are presented as policy. He really is clever but unfortunately in a very non-political and extremely narrowly-focussed way. He would be great as a member of a team.

As I have posted on CH before, I have sort of worked with him through being on the pensions policy panel, but really felt like chewing the carpet with frustration at having my ideas based on the work of a gold medal winner of the institute of actuaries pooh-poohed. Pensions policy could be a real winner and could counterbalance housing as a store of people's wealth, and as a means of replacing the Welfare State with something that encouraged saving (I would be happy to write on this editor!).

DW just couldn't see it. A tragedy really as he knew a lot about the detail of the current system.

It would be great to have a maverick ideas section on CH that could be completely disownable by the party but would be a repository for expert papers and forum for debate.

[Joseph]

Come come Patsy, you will have to do better than that.
For starters I have never made any secret where my political loyalties lay, so do not wriggle out of this with that argument it does not wash.
Next I do not need any reminding about unemployment figures--there were 3 million drawing unemployment benefit in 1997-those were only the figures of the people who could claim, a lot who were not paying full stamp at the time eg: married ladies were not even on the registar, not to mention those that were syphoned off as on invalidity pensions to disguise the real figure.
Your politicians do not dispute the figures regarding Doctors Nurses and the Police force so why should your friends?.
If Blair was to give out wrong numbers for those people it would be recorded in Hansard and oh boy! would the Tories jump on that with a vengeance.
Also wrong about the waiting lists. Plus the fact prior to 1997 Brown and Blair had well and truly worked out between them exactly which direction they wanted to go in, as your leader well and truly has admitted, that is why he is so in awe of Blair and terrified of Brown.
Now I have covered all the points you have come back with, do you think you might answer the questions I asked or are you struggling with it?
If Labour is so bad why do your front bench as well as your leader wish to turn the Tories into Blue Labour and why does Cameron wish with all of his heart to clone Blair?
They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, how Cameron does flatter Blair.

[simon]

Cameron has 'months' to save his 'leadership'. The reshuffle of the shadow cabinet and the policy announcements MUST show a coherent stance toward Government. If the policy announcements are 'Wright Stuff' lite,(as i suspect the new shadow cabinet will be), then Cameron must go- asap. His future is in his hands...

[Not So Great Gatsby]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most LEA's, including my own in East Yorkshire, do not have grammar schools. What is more, there is not great demand - this whole thing bores the pants off most of us. Talk about the things that go on, or should go on in schools, rather than the damned name you give them.

You would all do well to remember that all schools are mixed ability schools and all classes are mixed ability classes.

[Traditional Tory]

Cameron is not the best leader the Tories have had for ages. He is inexperienced, modish, so 'right on' that it is beyond parody, and short fused under pressure

And yet he is also the man who refuses to join the Carlton Club because women can't be full members (yet belongs to Whites where they don't even allow them through the door), who rides to work on an eco-friendly pushbike (followed by a gas guzzling lino empty except for his papers), and who argues for 'gay' equality (despite, as Peter Hitchens discovered, having published a newspaper article branding such policies 'loony left')

In short, he's a phoney, and according to Andrew Pierce, a liar too.

Heir to Blair indeed...

[Sally Roberts]

It really is a great shame that the moment we start to do well in the polls and seem to be moving forward, we invariably shoot ourselves in the foot!!!! This appears to be one of those moments....

[TomTom]

Most LEA's, including my own in East Yorkshire, do not have grammar schools. What is more, there is not great demand - this whole thing bores the pants off most of us.

East Yorkshire ? A population of 314.000 or so with no major cities....sorry, Bridlington. This is vast wastes of nothingness - there are no metropolitan boroughs.

No Grammar Schools ! I am surprised it has any schools at all out there. You do have a third-tier Public School like Pocklington though don't you ?

Any others ? Or does that about cover anyone who can read and write in that part of the world ?

You're right it is a sad place....no decent schools - I see Beverley Grammar School became a "Specialist Comprehensive".....well it can't be helped. I suppose anyone gifted has to commute to St Peter's in York.....

I can see why there is no joy out in that bit of Humberside

[Michael Hewlett]

I'd agree with many of the above postings that state the last few weeks have been depressing and lead to a state of weariness. My despair however is not with the current leadership but rather those who take pride and pleasure in attacking the current leadership team.

The bile directed towards Cameron and Willetts is out of proportion.

Cameron, Willetts, Osbourne and Letwin have done more than anyone over the last 10 years to decontaminate the Tory brand.

It is the electorate that decide elections not bitter Tory supporters with axes to grind...

[Denis Cooper]

cleo @ 18:09 - " ... accepting that this is the 21st century."

So you've noticed that the number of the year now begins with 20, not 19 - does that mean that everything has changed? But wait, if everything has changed, did it change at midnight on December 31st 1999, or was it December 31st 2000?

[East Yorkshireman]

TomTom @ 1849 - there's no such place as Humberside.

[601]

"......Cameron has already called for limits to immigration, more prisons and secure borders. What more does he have to do......"

I remember one time when he was asked about immigration and he said today was about the NHS and the NHS was more important than immigration. Doesn't he get it? Immigration affects every aspect of our lives.

Anyway even if he did talk tougher it would not be covered as much by the TV news.

Thats why The Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph is so important.

[601]

"If the policy announcements are 'Wright Stuff' lite,(as i suspect the new shadow cabinet will be), then Cameron must go- asap"

What do you mean by this?

[GU (Given Up)]

If all the mush that Dave has produced, was reflected in a large poll lead, despite traditional Tory's gripeing, then he would have been right.

But there is no poll lead worth talking about, against an absolute shambles of a government, so the public isn't buying him and most of his party is not either.

He is in short a failure.

[Bill]

I've just read the Robinn Harris article in the Mail and for me it perfectly sums up everything that is wrong with David Cameron's leadership.

[Joseph]

But Sally:
It really is a great shame that the moment we start to do well in the polls.....

it is not because people were pro-Cameron it is more that people were anti-Blair. That is more the reason for the slender Tory lead.
The Tories are in a different ball game now and at this stage of the cycle Blair had a huge lead. Never ever from the moment Blair took over the leadership did he take his eye of the ball as Cameron has done. Nobody from day one of the Blair leadership has ever made him eat his words.
They say pride does go before a fall and Cameron certainly did have a lot of pride, he has egg on his face now.
Thinking cap time I presume. Cameron is an amateur and far too inexperienced it is now showing big-time.

[Goldie]

The Daily Mail editorial is wrong. Robin Harris' column is right.

Mr. Cameron is, in fact, very talented, especially for the TV-era in which we (unfortunately) must live. He is intelligent --one does not get a first in PPE at Oxford by being stupid, articulate, good on TV and a decent (if not brilliant debater). His wife is an asset, his children, including Ivan, ground him and give him, despite the world of privilege in which he grew up, some gritty life experiences.

It was for these reasons that when I first saw him on television, some time around 2000 or 2001, that I told all my friends that I had seen the next conservative prime minister. It was for this reason that I was a "May Cameroon", i.e. a supporter of his leadership ambitions before he had even announced his candidacy. But intellectually, morally and politically he turned out to be a coward.

He is throwing it all away. I don't think it's irredeemably lost, and I don't see anyone in the parliamentary party who could possibly lead the Tories to success, but as I have saying on this site (probably ad nauseam) for months now, if he wants to succeed, he will have to CHANGE.

His current course is a course born out of political and moral cowardice. (Unnecessary) fear of Labour, fear of the BBC and the left-liberal media, fear of being seen as right-wing.

Let him study Sarkozy and become like him. That is the way of the future. Sarkozy is practicing a form of (French) "Conservatism AND..." that works.

There are two questions:
Can Cameron win?
And if he win, is it going to matter?

Right now, the answer to both questions is no.

[Andy Cooke]

Joseph at 18.23:

You claim that there were 3 million drawing unemployment benefit in 1997.

Actually, there were 1.9 million.

Note that there were 1.9 million also receiving Disability Living Allowance at that time.

Now unemployment is about a million. And those in receipt of DLA is at 2.85 million.

So unemployment is down by about 1 million; receipt of DLA is up by about 1 million. Not so much of a miracle of New Labour, is it?

(To be fair, maybe there hasn't been a drift of people onto the latest "benefit of choice"; the same effect could be obtained by the Government going around systematically crippling the unemployed ...)

Note - I am by no means suggesting that all those on DLA are deliberately chasing benefits. There are many genuinely needy and disabled people out there - who suffer further from the fact that there is an element of society who do chase benefits and who have chosen their benefit as the most rewarding path, poisoning public opinion towards the benefit in question.

[Andy Cooke]

Sorry, update to my above:

I misread a "6" for a "9".

1997:
Unemployment benefit claimants: 1.6 million
DLA claimants: 1.9 million.

2007:
Unemployment benefits claimants: 0.9 million (down 0.7 million)
DLA claimants: 2.85 million (up 0.95 million).

[Perdix]

Joseph (for the Labour Party) 18.23 - who is copying who?
NHS - Tory govt had Fund holding - Lab cancelled it, then reintroduced after mess up as Practice commissioning.
Education - Tory govt intros City Tech Colleges, Blair copied with City Academies (with Tory support).
Tory govt said no to Euro. Bliar said yes but lacked the b*lls to push it thru ie: kept Tory policy.
Labour govt did not repeal Tory privatisation.
So, Labour stole many ideas from the Tories - Cameron says our ideas will work better with greater freedom from bureaucrats and the State's dead hand.
Tell me this is not true!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Traditional Tory @ 17.51 - I haven't got round to reading the Telegraph yet today - been too busy, and was just about to prepare some supper and came back to the PC first, so just a quick reply. I don't know who said the phrase 'heir to Blair', and I am not interested in speculating about it, but I do think it is one of those phrases which can mean something, or nothing; the kind of phrase tht is better not made in the first place.

When you have a load of vultures hovering around waiting to pounce, dissect and destroy anything you say, it is fairly grim, but it does mean that 'off the cuff' comments, phrases and statements are a mine-field.

[Not So Great Gatsby]

TomTom

You are, as the RSPB now have to say, a ****. See the Daily Telegraph letters page if you are confused.

[Matt Wright]

Re Stephen Tolkinghorne at 15.56. Editor - We are trying to attract younger supporters to the party and Stephen writes this nasty piece to a student.

Matt

[Traditional Tory]

it is not because people were pro-Cameron it is more that people were anti-Blair. That is more the reason for the slender Tory lead.

Exactly. How many times do we have to repeat this.

Any Tory leader would have benefitted from the Blair negative effect and a decent man like Davis would now be streets ahead.

[Tory T]

The Daily Telegraph leader today has summed up the whole thing perfectly

"No doubt this has been a difficult couple of weeks for many in the Conservative Party, still getting used to the need for change in order to become electable.

But the good news is that Mr Cameron has not been tempted to wobble. His core point remains that grammar schools are a red herring in the education debate.

No grammar schools are likely to close under a future Tory government; perhaps one or two will open, but the overwhelming emphasis of education policy will be on incorporating the grammar-school ethos of excellence and competition into a new model of state education."

[Traditional Tory]

Sounds like another leader-writer is on the payroll.

He's clearly a dab hand at shutting the stable door...

[Rachel Joyce]

Joseph is having a laugh isn't he.
The question is whether he believes all that spin or not - suspect by the fact that he doesn't give his full name that he knows it is spin.
Just to answer the bits I am very familiar with.
1. No, unemployment has not gone down - in fact there are more long term now because of the shift to long term disability benefits (you need to count the 2 together). As a doctor I can tell you that most people on DLA are perfectly capable of some kind of work - in fact it has been shown to be beneficial for people's mental health to get back to work. Get real.
2. More doctors and nurses - they have trained more in a dumbed down way (not same quality now, so have to have lesser roles and be more supervised). However, the WHOLE TIME EQUIVALENT has not changed - just the headcount. Moreover there is about to be mass unemployment of junior doctors due to Patricia Hewitt's autocratic cock-ups.
3. Waiting lists down - average waiting lists are not down, the only difference is that clinical discretion to put an asymptomatic toenail behind a painful gallbladder on the waiting list has been lost because of autocratic "targets". Hospital acquired infections are out of control, hospitals are dangerous dirty places and doctors and nurses are offering servies with less training and are being pressured not to refer patients onwards. Moreover, Manchester (Labour) receives almost twice the funding per head of population as Hertfordshire (Conservative). Insufficient account is taken of the needs of the elderly in their allocation formula, so Labour heartlands win out. The funding wouldn't matter so much if we weren't wasting so much of it on autocratic bureaucracy and distorting targets.
4. As for school books - they are paid for in my children's school by the PTFA. Labour are shutting down special needs schools and dumbing down education. The max class size of 30 only applies to 2 years of education, and has risen in secondary schools. Independent research against objective standards (cited in Civitas report) shows categorically that gcses have become easier year on year.
What a joke. I don't suppose he will understand that.
And as for policy - we are conducting detailed policy reviews based on evidence. Labour just come up with GB's latest knee jerk target idea and no-one questions it until all can see it has failed. We are mature enough to be able to debate politely and look at the evidence.
However - we do need to pull together and stop calling ourselves and our leadership names. We don't want to act like them. We are the party of integrity and we can tolerate a broad church - unlike the autocrats at NuLab.

[simon]

601@19:18- Have you not watched the PC facicstic channel 5 talk-show 'The Wright Stuff'? A show where heaven help you if you disagree with Matthew Wright! A show where 'ok yah' conservatives add to their coffers ( appearance fees over serving constituents)- and of course agree with just about everything MW says! This is where the Party is going..... Watch it (once will do) and grimace.

[Andrew Lilico]

I've been struggling to follow this thread, but I think I've got it now:

- The "Camerloons" claim that the "delusional headbangers" want the Party to lose.
- The "delusional headbangers" say that they don't want the Party to lose - that's precisely why they believe that Cameron must change or go - and say that the "Camerloons" are only saying that because they are secretly in the pay of CCHQ.
- Everyone agrees that someone called "Bliar" is evil. The "Camerloons" think that we need to copy "Bliar", but the "delusional headbangers" allege that we haven't copied him successfully enough, because he did being a liar and a cheat much better than our leaders have, and because of that the voters liked him.
- Meanwhile, the "UKIP trolls" and the "Lib-Dem trolls" argue over which have the larger warts.

I'm glad I cleared that up...

[Joseph]

Andy:
Sorry mate absolutely and utterly wrong .
There was 3 million unemployed and I was reluctantly one of them.
I was on RMP scheme(Redundant Mineworkers Pension Scheme) what infact this was , was a con to take us off the unemployment registar. So 84.000 miners in my area alone (not country wide), did not even come into the count and whatsmore we were not the only people that this happened to. All those allied to the mining industry had their redundancies treated likewise.
I do believe ours was not the only Occupation/Trade that was treated this way.
Ladies whether married or not all pay full stamp now, so the ladies would be on the unemployment figures of today. However they were not included in the figures in 1997.
As most of our textile industry went into sharp decline just prior to the 1997 election, and as it was the ladies who were mainly employed in that trade, goodness only knows how many females were unemployed or what the real figure would have been had they been included. Some people said at the time that the figure was nearer 4 million than 3. Who really knows or cares now for that matter.
As for those on DLA allowance, we have always had the social security malingerers, but try arguing with a Doctor's paper and see where it get you. I do however agree with you that this does not apply to all and sundry. There are sadly a lot of genuine cases these I would suggest were by far in the majority.

Perdix:
The very first time I heard of one party stealing another party's policies was back during the time of Harold McMillan, I mentioned this only a day or two ago so there is nothing new about that.
What is New!! is nobody has done it quite so blatent as Cameron, now that is new.
He actually adnmitted that he was the heir to Blair and Osborne stated the same just a few days ago in fact the ink is hardly dry on the Newspapers so that cannot be denied, we all read it.

[TomTom]

TomTom @ 1849 - there's no such place as Humberside.

Posted by: East Yorkshireman | June 02, 2007 at 19:18

I know it has gone ...1996...but I still find it hard to believe in imaginary places like East Yorkshire.......Ridings are Three.....but "East Yorkshire" is such a leftover - and such a contrived entity - after all don't you have Humberside Police rather than East Yorkshire Police ?

[Joseph]

Yes Rachel Joyce:
We are the party of integrity and we can tolerate a broad church - unlike the autocrats at NuLab.

I can see that just by reading this thread alone, Who's kidding who.

You and I should do a deal Rachel, I will not insult your intelligence by believing you believe all you have posted here. As long as you do not insult my intelligence by thinking I would believe a word of it.
In the meantime if Labour is so bad why does your leader and his shadow cabinet want to be Blue Labour. Nobody has given me an answer to that yet.
Actually Joseph is and has been my name for the last 74 years what difference my surname makes is neither here nor there. It does not take away or add to the debate. Can you point out to me where it states that I must put my surname on, I must have blinked and missed it.
The Editor has my surname and my e-mail address that satisfies him that I am genuine so that should be sufficient for you. Only the petty minded would think otherwise, those sort of ploys are normally used just as mudslinging is when ground is lost.

[TomTom]

A show where heaven help you if you disagree with Matthew Wright!

He first found fame as showbiz journalist originally for The Sun but later as columnist with the Daily Mirror through the Brit Pop years,

But, like Morgan, Coulson, 37, is a graduate of the Sun's Bizarre showbusiness page, which in the 1990s became something of a finishing school for future tabloid editors. Aware that the power of celebrity was becoming more and more important in stemming declining circulation, successive Sun editors parachuted their boldest and brightest young reporters into the role.

So Coulson and Wright have a similar background at The Sun......just who will he be digging up the dirt on, and who will be smeared ?

[Not So Great Gatsby]

TomTom

They have a saying in Portugal, it applies to you:

nunca tem um homem meen em mais necessidade de uma foda boa

Is your life really so empty that you have to say stupid things to provoke people. You used to make me angry, now I pity you.

[Cynical Voter]

The Daily Telegraph leader today has summed up the whole thing perfectly

Poor Will Lewis...not one of the comments on his editorial agreed with him.....

[TomTom]

Is your life really so empty that you have to say stupid things to provoke people. You used to make me angry, now I pity you.

You didn't need to put it in Portuguese....and the answer to your proposition....is NO.

[MrB]

Wow, this thread has been particularly venomous today. It was mostly due to a stream of unusually positive comments at the start...one or two from me. Although I don't consider myself a "Camerloon" or a "Headbanger". I wish some people would be able to accept there are some who aggree with our new direction, even if we arn't entirely comfortable with it.

Strong arguments have been put forwards on all sides, but I remain of the view that we must indeed unite around Cameron. Crises like this will only strengthen him, which is a good thing. His effort to decontaminate our brand is working, and he is the only one who can do it.

[Andy Cooke]

Joseph at 21:35.

Cite, please.

Claimant count of 1,619,000 in May 1997 was from the Guardian. As it's a newspaper and thus not a reliable source, RP098/10 from the HoC library of research papers shows the (non-seasonally adjusted) claimant count in December 1998 as 1,391,380 (which is consistent (seasonally) with the May figures and does show a drop.

Claimant count as at December 2006 from RP06/10 was 955,334. A 9-year drop of about 430,000 (and, assuming the Guardian initial figures to be true, an overall claimant drop of about 650,000).

From the ONS at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=429&More=N&All=Y
, we find deeper unemployment figures. The ILO (International Labour Organization) unemployment figures (which do go beyond the claimant count) were 2,027,000 in 2nd Quarter 1997.
They were 1,675,000 in 1st Quarter 2007. A fall of about 350,000 overall.

Your figures don't stack up. The claimant count has dropped by about 650,000; the underlying unemployment figures by 350,000.

DLA has increased by nearly a million. Are people really that much less healthy after 10 years of Labour?

[Traditional Tory]

We are the party of integrity and we can tolerate a broad church - unlike the autocrats at NuLab.

I think Rachel Joyce must be one of these Tories who think we are still living in the 1950s ;)

Ever heard of Graham Brady and Patrick Mercer?

And we can't simply blame Cameron for the new despotism, much as we might like to. Ever heard of Howard Flight and Ann Winterton?

The party I joined many years ago was certainly a tolerant broad church. In recent years it's become a roost for dictatorial PC control freaks.

But we're going to change all that. The march of democracy has already begun.

[TomTom]

Ian Dale reports...

Writing in tomorrow's NEWS OF THE WORLD, Graham Brady launches a savage attack on David Cameron's grammar schools stance. He accuses him of picking a fiWriting in tomorrow's NEWS OF THE WORLD, Graham Brady launches a savage attack on David Cameron's grammar schools stance. He accuses him of picking a fight with millions of ordinary working families by turning his back on grammar schools. He calls the policy "badly thought-out" and "absurd". Brady said he was warned to "shut up on education" if he wanted to keep his job in Mr Cameron's frontbench team after the Tory leader ordered chief whip Patrick McLoughlin to "bring me into line".ght with millions of ordinary working families by turning his back on grammar schools. He calls the policy "badly thought-out" and "absurd". Brady said he was warned to "shut up on education" if he wanted to keep his job in Mr Cameron's frontbench team after the Tory leader ordered chief whip Patrick McLoughlin to "bring me into line"..

[Traditional Tory]

His effort to decontaminate our brand is working

The word 'decontaminate' is an insult to all Conservatives who have worked loyally for the party for decades.

If the parliamentary party was contaminated it was contaminated by utter incompetence and by financial and sexual sleaze.

Not only has Cameron failed to prove his competence (notably over the last couple of weeks); he has actually given the green light to sexual sleaze of various hues.

This party used to set an example to the country . Just because Britain under Blair has been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of filth and immorality does not mean that we should be swept along with it.

[MrB]

It is not an insult to the members becuase it is not their fault. You have to go back more than a decade until you can say our party (or any party) was an example to the country, as you rightly imply. Such a long period of scandal does 'contaminate' a party.

[towcestarian]

This whole thing is little to do with Grammar schools, but a pent up outporing of disatisfaction with the way that the former Conservative party has lurched under The Boy Cameron. Playing it down as a bit of froth is massively naive on The Boy's part and is guaranteed to make things worse. Maybe the upper class twit needs to take lessons in listening properly to us proles, rather than assuming that all we need is a bit of gentle persuasion to start reading the Guardian and liking the BBC.

[Ted]

To quote Andrea on Politicalbetting
"new poll in Sunday Telegraph
Con 37 Lab 32
Tories retaining their lead on education"

So the last 18 days haven't changed much, out in the real world.

[Ted]

Telegraph accompanying story is damaging - but its a 3% improvement on the last ICM poll in the Guardian which had Conservatives down at 34% to Labour's 32% (Sunday Telegraph compares it to last months ST ICM so shows a 1% drop).