« Talk of ousting Cameron is crazy | Main | Immigration and security concern voters most »


"That's a political strategist talking -"

Oxfordshire is under water and he is going to Rwanda.

As they say, you couldn't make it up

I don't know about "comfort zones". Dave seems to be living in his own little parallel world. The one where everybody loves him and thinks he's wonderful.

Meanwhile those letters are going to keep piling up until Der Tag

Why isn't David Cameron dealing with this...............

Labour figures' bizarre link to paedophile groups

Their involvement with an organisation to which two groups campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia were affiliated has come back to challenge three leading Labour Party figures.

Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham.

NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of the People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.

Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on.

The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974. The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate. In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O'Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to 'deplore' the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.

Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a 'straight', in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for 'relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.' The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. 'An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,' the motion went on. It was duly passed.

Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented: 'It is timely that the ghosts of the 1970's past should come back to haunt these three leading Labour Party politicians. Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt were in their mid- or late-twenties at the time, but that cannot really excuse the way NCCL came to regard paedophiles as an oppressed minority whose civil liberties needed to be fought for.

'All three of them really need to explain why they were so friendly toward so many out campaigning homosexual paedophiles in their youth. Why did they allow the NCCL gay rights sub-committee to be stuffed with them? Why were they happy to work with paedophilia supporters on the NCCL Executive? It cannot have been sympathy with child-molestation, so was it a complete lack of judgment or was it moral cowardice?

'NCCL has now been rebranded as 'Liberty' and is doing great work standing up to the Government to defend the civil liberties of us all. But thirty years ago some rather peculiar things went on, and I think we should be told why.'

The sad fact even with all these comments under the leadership of Dave he will never be the Prime Minister of Britain like most of the political commentators with the media across the board not many give him a prayer.
It is important to realise the choices are quite clear run with Dave and be prepared for years in opposition he seems to be a nice man but totally ineffective if he had a good team around him he might stand half a chance but so many of them are figures of fun does the public really think Letwin, Grayling, May, Maude, Duncan, Willetts, Villiers connect with them, their media appearances are poor. The other alternative is to bring in a leader that has respect from day one and start addressing the real concerns of the majority of people in Great Britain trips abroad for media opportunities does not impress or fool anybody unfortunately I feel we have not got a leader in the party to woo the Public to elect a Conservative Government.
I wish I did not hold these views as nothing would please me more than to have a Conservative administration but I am a realist and years in business tells me it will not happen with Dave and his yes men. A tip for Dave before he rushes away on another trip charity begins at home.

Whilst I fully support Camerons wishes to broaden our political constituency, he needs to recognise and understand that that brings its own problems in that balancing the two sides becomes more difficult.

While Cameron is desperate to capture what he calls the centre ground, I am stuck having to explain to local Members why Cameron is abandoning them and to try to account for the apparent lack of solid policies. This task is being made harder each month.

Will Cameron be announcing any policies on his trip to Rwanda? For that matter, will he be announcing any policies in Britain?

While Cameron is desperate to capture what he calls the centre ground, I am stuck having to explain to local Members why Cameron is abandoning them

An absurd situation since seats are woin at constituency level and it is there that facts need to be made on the ground not in TV studios.

Unless people who loathe Cameron can be persuaded to vote for Conservative policies he is sunk and that is why they must fight each election locally and not nationally.

Dominic, I agree. The Conservative Party has been a dream opposition for the Labour Party for over ten years. Even in Government, their famous pragmatsim usually consisted of implementing the policies of the left. In 1997, I predicted that they would be out of office at least as long as Labour and sadly I see no reason to revise that view. On second thoughts, why do I say sadly?

It seems to me that, in heading for "the centre ground", DC is alread focused on the real comfort zone!

Nice post Mr Weatherill.

*If* he loses a general election, purely theoretically, what should Cameron do, consistent with his honour, and, the party's electoral expediency? I think Kinnock did the right thing in staying on in 1987, but I don't think that the comparison is telling for Cameron, if he loses, in 2007 or whenever the poll is. Cameron was a proposition: 'follow me and you won't like everything I do, but I see further than you, and I can deliver what you want but cannot get yourself, i.e. office'. There's a strong case for a leader like that who wins, but for a leader like that who loses, the only case we're likely to hear is the self-interested squeaking of the small clique round him.

Cameron wanted to extend the Blairite public service "reforms" and make them work. Probably an impossible task. In the event Brown has effectively abandoned Blair's agenda and returned control of education and health to the local authorities and NHS trusts.

Cameron doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about Brown. He can knock him about at PMQs but Hague did the same to Blair and what good did it do him.

The comfort zone is the acceptance of the left's narrative. It will deliver short term popularity with the media but inevitable electoral defeat. Unless Conservatives present an realistic alternative view of the country's future there doesn't seem much point to voting for them.

Surly it is time to have a leader who is competent and is liked by the electorate. Perhaps Colombey les-deux-Rushcliffes!!

One of the problems with Project Cameron is that it is not creating a broader based party. There is a good deal of talk of Lib-Dims who might come over - though not that many will - but no mention at all of the dissatisfied Labour voters who would have become Tory under Thatcher. OK, OK, I am sure a lot of people on this forum will say we don't want to go back to Thatcher (though the Lady did win elections) but there has to be a way the Conservative Party can benefit from dissatisfaction from Labour. Think of all those votes that went to the BNP in Sedgefield. If Cameron really wants to broaden the party's appeal he should be thinking about that.

I've just written a bit about this on Stephans article, but the basic point I've made there is that Cameron needs to engage with his party on what the mission is before shooting off with the strategy. Up until recently he has been about preparing the ground and letting people know we've 'changed'. Before detailed policy he needs to get those in the party to agree on what the mission is before going forward. I think that will do wonders to unite the party.

The joke is I don't think the Tories have changed and why should they if it is all some vacuous positioning exercise.

Yes Oberon but we need to map some practical ideas that shape that mission and which illustrate what we stand for and why its capable of really enthusing the voters. I don't think its about massively detailed policy menus. What we need to do is scan all the policy group stuff first and look for patterns. There is a great opportunity to come up with a coherent framework of bold practical ideas to take Britain forward. Armed with that framework we can put across our mission clearly. It shouldn't be a menu it should be an insight that augments what we stand for clearly.


I do struggle with this line that we have changed? what does this actually mean?.The leadership's supporters arekeen to talk up the fact that the Conservatives have changed but are defining the parameters.

Just exactly what was it that was wrong with us in the past?which policy from the 2001 and 2005 Election campaigns does the leadership now believe was so totally wrong.It is fair to say that presentation and tone can always be sharpened but core principles are timeless are they not?

The leader talks about "social responsibilty" but this is no new idea.We are simply drawing attention to the fact that a smaller state sets people either individually or collectively free to solve their own problems free from the overbearing influence of the state.

Persuaive as this is as concept to us,electors need to have it translated into a programme of policy substance.A belief in a smaller state must be accompanied by a reduction in the functions and scope of government.This fundamentally leads to assumptions around tax and spending which contrast markedly with the Labour approach.Why don't we take the fight to labour on the level and scope of tax since 1997 highlighting the massive growth in quangos and outrageous salaries paid to public officials.

We should pledge to reverse this and puts some numbers on the analysis.The low paid should be taken out of tax altogether and the benefit system restructured to support work and married families.It should besimple to cost and qunatify a plethora of new Labour sacred cows that could be slaughtered to fund our tax cutting agenda (ID Cards etc)

If we continue to promise to "share the proceeds of growth" we will never excite an electorate willing to see the state get out of their lives and give them more real choice.

We gave the electorate that choice 3 times and they rejected it. We could just continue to threaten public services and hope that all their employees and the great army of bureacrats and welfare recipients will not bother to vote against us. All the people who do not pay tax have no incentive to reject a high taxing government.

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