On Saturday I posted a piece about the possibility of John Bercow defecting to Labour. Although the three sources who provoked the feature are reliable - and although I highlighted the post's speculative nature - I now regret that post. I had a long conversation with John Bercow yesterday and he assured me that he has no intention of defecting. My contacts still worry about John Bercow's intentions but I am happy to take him at his word. 100%.
Although ConservativeHome has published more than 3,500 posts over the last two years the post on Saturday is the first to cause me real regret. I had attempted to contact John Bercow before writing the piece but should have waited until my efforts were successful before writing what I did.
John Bercow promises to remain a Conservative MP. I look forward to applauding his championing of international justice issues but also to disagreeing with the positions he is now taking on issues like the family and on tax.
Then if you have spoken to Mr. Bercow well done on putting up this public apology.
As a commenter, I also apologise for having jumped to conclusions. I welcome Mr. Bercow's declared strong commitment to the party and his passionate work on international aid (although I also disagree with him on marriage, taxation and Europe).
And I thank him for having cleared it up himself. It's good perhaps to have a big tent, and Quentin Davies will regret having left that tent in a way that Mr. Bercow won't.
Thank you John Bercow.
Posted by: Tory T | July 17, 2007 at 06:57
the post on Saturday is the first to cause me real regret.
I wouldn't worry about it. 90% of Tories have long been thinking along exactly the same lines.
In all probability he has been told to stay where he is for the time, being in order to continue to cause maximum disruption.
One would like to think that his local association would move against him but their apparent impotence is proved by an anecdote I heard only last night.
Incensed by one of Bercow's disloyal outbursts, a member of the party wrote a confidential letter of complaint to the Chairman of the Buckingham association.
Within a few days he was bemused to receive a stinging reply from...Bercow himself.
I asked before whether the Tories of Buckingham are men or mice.
One begins to wonder whether they still exist!
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 07:23
Traditional Tory, I think the words you're looking for are "I got it wrong. I jumped to conclusions. I apologise for doubting your good faith.".
The man has declared himself a loyal Conservative, we were wrong and the thing to do is to accept him at his word and apologise gracefully and without reserve.
This does not, of course, preclude us from opposing his stance on various policy issues, but to paraphrase G&S, "he himself hath said it/and it's greatly to his credit" - he's still a Tory. I daresay his association recognises that as Tim does.
Posted by: Tory T | July 17, 2007 at 07:34
The man has declared himself a loyal Conservative
Bercow's pledges are as worthless as the man who makes them.
He is certainly no Conservative and as for his 'loyalty' comment would be superfluous.
I predict that we shall be having this discussion again ere long.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 08:22
So what, newspapers get things like this wrong every day.
Posted by: Pisaboy | July 17, 2007 at 08:27
I understand John Bercow was campaigning for Tony Lit in the Ealing Southall by-election recently so news that he might defect never seemed likely.
Posted by: Graham D'Amiral | July 17, 2007 at 09:09
It was a rotten thing to do, of which you should be ashamed, conducting a witch hunt against an MP who simply doesn't fit your IDS-like mould. A little responsibility would not go amiss, oh wait let's have another article baiting gays instead.
Posted by: mike | July 17, 2007 at 09:17
Dear Mike
Thank you for the gracious way you have accepted the editor's apology.
People of your generous and warm hearted disposition, from either end of the party's spectrum, are what makes reading the comments on this site so worthwhile.
But please don't think you have to sully yourself on these IDS besmirched pages any longer. The good news is that Platform 10 is coming along soon, and that lovely people such yourself can clamber aboard.
Bon voyage!
Raz
Posted by: Erasmus | July 17, 2007 at 09:35
A little unfair mike...the Editor has an excellent record in slapping down petty bigotry....
Posted by: Stand Up Throw Up | July 17, 2007 at 09:39
Good for you Tim.
Posted by: malcolm | July 17, 2007 at 09:40
Good on you for the gracious apology.
Posted by: Mrs B | July 17, 2007 at 09:47
Well done Tim. It's not easy to apologise, but you have done so graciously and unreservedly.
Posted by: Simon Chapman | July 17, 2007 at 09:56
John Bercow may not defect. But do his constituents feel that he represents their views now he has decided to become a committed europhile?
If they are happy for him to carry on representing them, that is their prerogative and in their power. But equally they should consider whether they would prefer a eurosceptic who will support Cameron's policy to demand a referendum on the Constitution.
Why are there any europhile MPs now that 90% of Conservative voters want a referendum of the EU? A Political Party is not a social event. Bercow should be looked at carefully. He is still a bad risk. I would not want him as my MP - however charming he is - as he does not represent my views on the crucial things that matter.
Posted by: tapestry | July 17, 2007 at 10:03
The Editor has double standards. He overwrites factual comments because he says they on a personalised nature. The defection smear was disgraceful and this apology is too late.
I have known John Bercow for over 20 years. He may have changed in his views, wrongly IMO, but he remains an honourable and decent friend.
I used to post here on a regular basis but now make only the occasional visit. The reason is Tim's continual promotion of authoritarian and neo-con views.
Posted by: No to double standards | July 17, 2007 at 10:04
Yes, Erasmus, gracious indeed, how we should all praise ConHome for this magnanimous act, oh wait, nobody else chose to open up open season on an MP for no justifiable reason and allow 132 comments attacking him, calling for him to be sacked, without even bothering to check with him first, so urgent it was to get the gossip out first, and ask questions later.
Choosing to highlight "gay marriage" as the last thread was such a great thing to do too, inviting the usual litany of 'unnatural', 'against God', type comments.
Posted by: mike | July 17, 2007 at 10:13
This is very decent and gracious Tim; after the original post I said that John Bercow should be asked to make a statement confirming his loyalty to the Party.
That he has done so provides evidence that he is honourable and I applaud him.
Posted by: Alex Fisher | July 17, 2007 at 10:21
132 comments attacking him, calling for him to be sacked
Doesn't that give you a clue as to his level of popularity within the party? I wonder if some of these comments have been reported in Bercow's local paper.
I'm sure there are plenty of other people who would queue up for John's well-paid sinecure in Buckingham.
Personally I'm amazed that he isn't gagging to make way for a member of some fashionable minority. That's a rule for everybody else, eh, John?
I think I told the one about the lesbian who poured a pint of beer over him. There was another memorable event when he attempted to heckle a brawny TUC official and was curtly told to 'Sod off back to Fascist Land'
Sadly, when the repartee doesn't go John's way he has a habit of falling silent and slinking off like a little mouse.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 10:23
Well done Editor for admitting your mistake but I am afraid the comment that you slap down petty bigotry is about as far from the truth as you can get it.
There is not enougth intolerance of racism and homophobia on this site and the sooner that situation is rectified and the bigots stop have the oppotunity to posts there comments here the better.
Posted by: Jack Stone | July 17, 2007 at 10:35
not sure I understand your line of attack Traditional Tory. You are accusing him of being a fascist/hating lesbians, and in the same breath accusing him of pandering to minorities.
Very odd.
Posted by: mike | July 17, 2007 at 10:36
Well, I am pleased you have made the apology.
I always get concerned about people attacking people who "might defect". It creates far more heat than light and helps the enemy.
Posted by: Benedict White | July 17, 2007 at 10:37
Our Editor is a decent Christian gentleman but I fear that those who place their faith in John Bercow are destined to be disappointed. The man's career is littered with examples of duplicity and rank opportunism.
In recent years, Bercow has moved sharply leftwards. His principles may have changed but his character - bombastic, pompous, smug and with a compulsion to launch nasty attacks on whoever his opponent happens to be at the time - remains constant.
Only a psychiatrist could fully grasp the motive force behind John Bercow's 'journey' but a key staging post was his cack-handed attempt to act as Ken Clarke's hit man during the 2005 leadership election when he launched a vicious attack on David Cameron's social background.
It was classic Bercow - an attempt to curry favour with a superior that backfired because of poor judgment. At the time DC was a minor candidate. Imagine Bercow's mounting horror as the target of his invective achieved lift off at Party Conference!
Now Bercow, one of the most dementedly ambitious people in politics, is marooned. He fears he will never be forgiven for hurling personal abuse at Cameron in the media. Does he look across the floor of the Commons at the likes of Shaun Woodward and imagine 'what if'? Does he covet a seat in the Cabinet? We can only wonder.
A couple of weeks ago Bercow made a little noticed speech on the EU Constitution - most of his speeches are little noticed these days - in which he argued for greater cooperation with the EU and ostentatiously avoided calling for a referendum. To experienced Bercow watchers it was a significant move. His Euroscepticism has long been his last real tie to the political right. If this too is now being junked then, truly, there remains no real difference between Bercow and the Blairite wing of New Labour.
Tim - instead of simply taking Mr Bercow at his word why not invite him to answer questions from ConHome readers? It would be interesting to explore the precise dimensions of his fast-evolving ideological universe and hear directly from him as to the trenchant disagreements he has with Gordon Brown.
If Bercow intends to stay put, he'll welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. However, if he wants to keep open the option of jumping ship then he will continue with his current strategy of offering extravagent reassurances in private conversation while carefully avoiding saying anything in public that could be used against him in the event of a defection.
Bercow knows that if he says certain things on the record he won't be able to defect without looking ridiculous. Yet these are all things that no Tory MP could possibly quibble with:
"The Labour Party has been guilty of serial mismanagement in government. I fear for the future with Gordon Brown running the country."
"David Cameron has the policies and the personality to be a first class Prime Minister. Gordon Brown is like an extinct volcano that's run out of steam."
"Of course I'd never defect. I have fought the Labour Party all my political life. For me to turn around now and join it would be an act of gross opportunism of the sort that gives politicians a bad name."
It's really very simple. If Bercow says anything like this in public, I'll apologise for doubting him. If he doesn't, we'll all know his game.
Posted by: Bercow Watch | July 17, 2007 at 10:38
Jack Stone - Don't be ridiculous, if you can help it.
Posted by: Deputy Editor | July 17, 2007 at 10:42
Surely the nub of the argument is contained in the final part of Bercow Watch's post:
"Tim - instead of simply taking Mr Bercow at his word why not invite him to answer questions from ConHome readers? It would be interesting to explore the precise dimensions of his fast-evolving ideological universe and hear directly from him as to the trenchant disagreements he has with Gordon Brown.
If Bercow intends to stay put, he'll welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. However, if he wants to keep open the option of jumping ship then he will continue with his current strategy of offering extravagent reassurances in private conversation while carefully avoiding saying anything in public that could be used against him in the event of a defection.
Bercow knows that if he says certain things on the record he won't be able to defect without looking ridiculous. Yet these are all things that no Tory MP could possibly quibble with:
"The Labour Party has been guilty of serial mismanagement in government. I fear for the future with Gordon Brown running the country."
"David Cameron has the policies and the personality to be a first class Prime Minister. Gordon Brown is like an extinct volcano that's run out of steam."
"Of course I'd never defect. I have fought the Labour Party all my political life. For me to turn around now and join it would be an act of gross opportunism of the sort that gives politicians a bad name."
It's really very simple. If Bercow says anything like this in public, I'll apologise for doubting him. If he doesn't, we'll all know his game."
Over to you, Mr Editor.
Posted by: Defection Watch | July 17, 2007 at 10:47
Good post Dep. Editor!
Posted by: malcolm | July 17, 2007 at 10:50
Good of you to offer him so fulsome an apology, but I don't see why your original post could be seen as a "smear".
People on the far left of the party are, logically, close to what we understood to be Blairite opinions. Bercow is one. Your sources, which you trust, suggest defection is probable. It is no smear to report this. People on the far right of the party, like Pearson, can just as easily be talked about as UKIP-bound.
Politics is dirty, and politicians as a bunch are pretty despicable. If they can't put up with the media making informed (or wild) guesses as to their political affiliations, tough.
Posted by: Og | July 17, 2007 at 10:54
As I expect John Bercow may read this, thank you for making your intentions plain. I do not agree with quite a lot of what you now say, but our Party is a broad church and I am pleased that you are definitely staying within it.
Whilst you have a right to disagree with the leadership when necessary, as you are part of the team please remember that Party members expect all MPs to do what they can to help get the Party back into power. Clearly you are doing that by going to Southall. Another helpful thing might be to support the Party vocally on some of the issues where you are 100% in tune with the leadership (without at the same time attacking others in the Party who might take the opposite view on the particular issue).
Posted by: Londoner | July 17, 2007 at 10:55
This apology is a start – but I don’t think you’re completely off the hook yet. I thought that the original article was so obviously and unnecessarily harmful to the Conservative Party that it made me question your loyalty. And while you’ve made an apology, it’s somewhat lukewarm -- defensive of your sources and clearly leaving space for the story to remain true.
Although the three sources who provoked the feature are reliable...
I think you should really reconsider whether those sources are reliable. It seems to me that they’ve got an agenda, with you doing their dirty-work. If so, you're their pawn, not their friend.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | July 17, 2007 at 11:09
Dam it .I put money on him defecting tommorow.
Posted by: 601 | July 17, 2007 at 11:18
The key test is: will Bercow say in public what he's said to the Editor in private? If not, why not?
When was the last time he attacked Gordon Brown? Bercow has never been slow to heap vitriol on the heads of his enemies yet he's strangely reluctant to criticise Brown.
If you can't work it out...
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2007 at 11:29
The naivete of some people makes me weep - "As I expect John Bercow may read this, thank you for making your intentions plain."
For the last time let me say it, HE HASN'T MADE HIS INTENTIONS PLAIN!
Bercow has promised on a stack of bibles that he won't defect - but he's done it in private to people who he will never need to speak to again if he joins Labour.
The real test will be if he says on TV or to a leading journalist on the record that he deplores Gordon Brown's damaging policies and that he regards defectors with contempt.
If he IS being prepared for defection by Labour Party handlers they won't allow him to say these things because they would tarnish and devalue any subsequent move to Labour.
Bercow's silence speaks volumes. Those who are failing to ask him the hard questions are being taken for fools.
Posted by: Derek Gross | July 17, 2007 at 11:39
I'm glad you've printed this apology and admitted that posting the original piece was a mistake - this reflects well upon your decency and honesty and you are to be commended for setting an example that your peers in the media and the blogosphere would do well to follow.
While I don't agree with the claim that ConservativeHome is 'the voice of the grassroots' (rather than 'the voice of a particular strand of Conservative opinion'), I won't deny that ConservativeHome does carry a lot of influence, and with that influence should come responsibility.
I hope the lesson has been learned.
Posted by: Daniel VA | July 17, 2007 at 11:45
I agree with Derek Gross that Becow can end this but if he has been out in Ealing Southall I think that says it all.
Re the Editors sort fo apoolgy. ConHome libelled me last year by repeating defamatory made by a third party. A journalist would have rung me up and got my side and tried to write a balanced view. After the post I said to Iain Dale that would not be commenting as I did not wish to add fuel to the fire. This was then translated by posters on his website and this one that I was hiding away.
Blogs have their place but they are no substitute for decent journalism
Posted by: John Pope | July 17, 2007 at 11:48
I am sorry to hear that the Bercow defection is not going to happen (yet?). And I don't think Tim should regret his original piece.
We learned again from Bercow's own mouth last Sunday that he does not believe the membership should be listened to. Nor does he want a referendum on the EU constitution.
Anti-democratic europhiles do not represent their constituents nor their country. They have no place in the Conservative Party. If they don't defect - we should de-select.
Posted by: Frank McGarry | July 17, 2007 at 11:49
"Bercow's silence speaks volumes"
No it doesn't. This is simply nothing more than the tools of a witchhunt. "Say what we want to hear or you are against us!" It's bloody pathetic. Bercow has been a Tory MP for years. Just because he doesn't fit the narrow definition of what it means to be a Tory that some on this blog adhere to does not mean he is required to prostrate himself before this blog.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 at 11:49
"he regards defectors with contempt".
Why should he regard defectors with contempt? On the contrary, defection is the honorable course if it reflects a genuine change of heart. The fact that so many of Quentin Davies' erstwhile colleagues and so-called 'friends' are now giving him the cold-shoulder reflects very badly on them, not on Quentin!
Posted by: Torywatcher | July 17, 2007 at 11:53
Editor,
I think the juiciness of the story needs to be weighed up against the accusation being made. Party affiliation is hardly on a par with religious belief, however I do think that people could see speculation over party loyalty as insulting and offensive. I do not know the details of Bercow's current party relationships, but in his position I would be alarmed at these posts with regard to the impact it would have on parliamentary career, local association, party colleagues, etc, etc.. The other thing is the cloak and dagger feel to this story, anonymous sources, reliable and tell me… In the circumstances of this story and the accusation that’s not acceptable.
Anyway, enough said, would be good to move away from this unsavoury episode and on to other good subjects of discussion. Your statement here is a great way of drawing a line under this.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | July 17, 2007 at 11:57
Someone who knew Bercow very well years ago has suggested to me that the keys to his personality are:
1) Lack of originality.
2) Lack of timing.
He arrived at Uni as a raving Monday Club Powellite, replete with Powell impersonations at a time when Powellism on the campus was as popular as a bowl of rat soup.
He then hero-worshipped Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit in quick succession, but they were on their way out, so he modelled himself on the coming hero of the right, Michael Portillo.
Needless to say he did an ideological double somersault in synch with Portillo but was then left on his own as his hero stomped off into the sunset.
Clearly Blair has been his model in recent years, but Dave has stolen the 'Heir to Blair' crown. No wonder the two don't get on.
A sad loner.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 12:01
"Just because he doesn't fit the narrow definition of what it means to be a Tory that some on this blog adhere to does not mean he is required to prostrate himself before this blog."
Couldn't agree more! Why on earth should he respond to a story that was whipped up in the first place, on the basis of no evidence, by barmy neocons...
Posted by: Hootie | July 17, 2007 at 12:05
Traditional Tory, It's quite clear to everyone reading this thread and the original that you don't like the guy. Appart from hearing him at fringe meetings on international development at conferece I don't know him from Adam.
The issue here is not his personality, but whether Tim should have posted the story based on the information he had.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | July 17, 2007 at 12:10
David says - 'This is simply nothing more than the tools of a witchhunt. "Say what we want to hear or you are against us!"'
Bollocks. Which other Tory MP would refuse to condemn Gordon Brown?
Posted by: Derek Gross | July 17, 2007 at 12:11
I think Traditional Tory criticising anyone for not being loyal to the Tory pary is a little rich...
Posted by: James | July 17, 2007 at 12:15
I would suggest Trad Tory defects as he is so consistently negative about the conservative party. But his whole persona is so rude and his opinions are such a negative caricature of what a Labour party support would expect of a tory that I am personally convinced he is actually a member of the Labour party.
He only ever appears to come on this site to denigrate others and to denigrate the party and now with his insulting remarks to Buckingham assoc I am sure he is attempting to act as an agent provocatuer on behalf of Labour
Posted by: david k | July 17, 2007 at 12:16
This isn't a gracious apology. It is a response to a threat to sue by Bercow. Simple as. This really is becoming a grotty site.
Posted by: Andy Strang | July 17, 2007 at 12:37
The apology is welcome, but this is about more than getting facts wrong. That article was a poisonous piece and the undertone to it all was "go on, jump, you bastard!". Extremely distasteful and completely not in the interests of the Conservative Party.
I have no idea whether Bercow has considered leaving the party or not, but plenty of Conservative MPs have disagreed with the Party line on something or other, and they have not had to fend off poisonous editorials like this. Why the hell should Bercow have to answer questions or issue denials any more than any other Conservative MP?
Posted by: Iain Lindley | July 17, 2007 at 12:39
Apologies have their place and we all make mistakes. I don't think think there is any need to self-flagilate any further on this issue.
I would however sound a note of caution on the redemption of John Bercow- the nature of defection is you can't pre-announce it. One minute you are in the party, the next you aren't. JB has certainly given reasonable grounds for thinking he might defect at some point. The mere fact he says he won't means he won't do it today. Next week, next month, next year are other matters.....
Taking the word of John Bercow 100 %- oh it must be true then......
Posted by: Luis | July 17, 2007 at 12:47
He was a member of The Freedom Association and a member of its council. Resigned some time ago. Nuff said
Posted by: Edward Huxley | July 17, 2007 at 13:12
"Traditional" Tory
Given your obvious views on Mr Bercow, would you be able to enlighten us as to who in Parliament you consider admirable, and whose views you would agree with?
Posted by: powellite | July 17, 2007 at 13:13
If 'Traditional Tory' *is* Mike Smith (of the odious CDA) as so many have claimed, they it's the "Tory" that needs the scare quotes.
Posted by: ACT | July 17, 2007 at 13:26
Sorry, for 'they' please read 'then'.
Posted by: ACT | July 17, 2007 at 13:27
I think Bercow has fantastic skills and we're lucky to have him in the party, regardless of his views on a handful of issues.
Posted by: Edward | July 17, 2007 at 14:08
As with George Galloway and Rupert Allason, I'd be very careful posting anything about Mike Smith, the successful claimant in a 2006 case that confirmed that libel laws apply to internet discussion.
As an interesting aside (related to John Bercow so not off-topic!), an article in the Independent on 18th May 2002 reported that a person called Mike Smith proposed a motion at the Monday Club AGM calling for John Bercow to be sacked as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which would indicate common ground with 'Traditional Tory' in terms of antipathy towards John Bercow.
Posted by: Charred Knobble | July 17, 2007 at 14:19
Andy Strand (1237): John Bercow made no threat to sue and certainly had no case. My post above is entirely voluntary. If I feel I've made a mistake I will always say so. Some will think less of me for admitting error, I hope others will know think a little more highly of the site as a result.
Posted by: Editor | July 17, 2007 at 14:21
When Traditional Tory said "...the assassination of IDS was a devastasting tragedy for the party.", I think he ruled himself out from being Mike Smith.
Personally I don’t care who Traditional Tory is – his arguments are consistent and I'm happy to agree with reassuringly few of them.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | July 17, 2007 at 14:27
Extremely distasteful and completely not in the interests of the Conservative Party.
If the story were true then it would have most certainly been in the interests of the party, to publish it here. The value of a defection to the opposition, comes mainly from the surprise factor. If it has been well flagged in advance, then the negative publicity is replaced by collected yawns.
Unfortunately if the rumour is untrue, then publishing it is not in the interests of the party. In this case, Tim made a mistake, but unlike the dead tree press or the BBC, made a very public apology.
Posted by: Serf | July 17, 2007 at 14:41
As one of John Bercow's constituents I am delighted that he has made his position clear and we look forward to him representing us for many years to come. He is an extremely assiduous, hard-working and dedicated constituency MP.
Posted by: johnC | July 17, 2007 at 15:33
Hear hear Serf. A lot of bitter jealous people seem to be out to get Tim at the moment but he is never anything but reasonable.
There's lots of speculation about Bercow defecting in the Westminster Village, so why can' we plebs discuss it?
The loss of the surprise factor may even have helped dissuade him.
Posted by: Pisaboy | July 17, 2007 at 15:42
Mark - you may be right that he isn't Mike Smith. I have no idea, indeed until I googled it I had no idea who Mike Smith was.
Either way I find his comments are not designed to be constructive in anyway. They all seem designed to antagonize and to denigrate. So I simply find the best way to view them is as those of a Labour sock puppet (learnt that today from Dizzys blog).
His opinions are just too close to a caricature of a Colonel Blimp figure and so far from any genuine conservative (be they on the left or on the right) that I have ever met).
Posted by: david k | July 17, 2007 at 15:47
Enough is enough! This has been going on for three days, and has become boring as well as distasteful.
Posted by: Sepoy Agent | July 17, 2007 at 15:59
I've read the comments. I read the original post this morning.
This is what I was thinking this morning;
Here's how I do an apology: I think, 'I regret blah, blah, blah. I have since blah, blah, blah'.
Then I say: 'I am sorry, I was wrong.'.
STB.
Posted by: ScotsToryB | July 17, 2007 at 16:24
It is perfectly valid to discuss possible defections. The MP concerned can make a denial and clarify their position. This is democracy I thought.
Deference is well past its sell-by date. People are disillusioned with politicians, and are not in a mood to grant automatic trust. If we now have to hold our tongues just when we should be calling them to account, it's bl...y pathetic. Tim was right to talk on his blog about this. He is wrong to be apologising.
Iain Dale says today on his blog that he should be more ruthless sometimes. Tim Montgomerie should also stand by his initial convictions to play hard ball. They were completely right. If there is doubt about an MP, it is crucial to clear the air. Otherwise the rumur mills will do far more damage. If we cannot play an open hand, what's the point of blogging?
Posted by: Tapestry | July 17, 2007 at 17:38
Even though I am libertarian and a euroskeptic, I am bit uncomfortable with the habitual calling for purges of those who are europhile or on the party's left.
Never forget that the Tory party is in essence an alliance of one-nation 'wets', social conservatives and libertarians/free marketeers. We may have our ideological differences, but at the end of the day we all want the same thing: to see a return of centre-right governance in the UK.
BTW, the irony of Traditional Tory's name seems to escape him. Traditional Toryism is the One-Nation orthodoxy that dominated Tory thinking (since the days of Benjamin Disreali) up until the 1970s.
Posted by: Shaun | July 17, 2007 at 17:38
Mark Fulford - When Traditional Tory said "...the assassination of IDS was a devastasting tragedy for the party.", I think he ruled himself out from being Mike Smith.
Quite so Mark, and I'm amused that certain Sherlocks on this blog think they have the ability to identify me when - as I have previously stated - I have never disclosed my identity to anybody.
My low-level researches indicate that the mysterious Mr Smith is known above all for issuing High Court writs. Fortunately for all concerned I have no intention of proceeding down that particular route.
Mark - you may be right that he isn't Mike Smith. I have no idea, indeed until I googled it I had no idea who Mike Smith was
I think that says it all. To be an effective bogeyman it is at least necessary that somebody has heard of you.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 17:43
We have all made mistakes which seemed a good wheeze at the time. If you haven't you are not trying hard enough.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew | July 17, 2007 at 17:52
Shaun - BTW, the irony of Traditional Tory's name seems to escape him. Traditional Toryism is the One-Nation orthodoxy that dominated Tory thinking (since the days of Benjamin Disreali) up until the 1970s.
On the contrary, Shaun, my Toryism reaches back to the days of Strafford and Laud.
If you want to be pedantic and say that the word 'Tory' hadn't then come into use, let's choose a more modern period. The short-lived but heady days of Judge Jeffreys and General Kirke come to mind.
OK, so Kirke turned traitor, but you can't help liking the fellow.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 18:06
John Bercow is a great man- even greater that he did not defect based on all the unpleasant slander written about him on this site over the last week.
Not the best hour for blogging.
Posted by: eugene | July 17, 2007 at 18:21
Well, well, what a surprise, Tim's 'sources' are wrong again.
Just like the 'shadow cabinet' member who 'reliably' confirmed that EPP withdrawl would occur before mid 2006.
I think certain MP's are using a rather gullible ConHome Editor to pass on nothing but rumours to fit their own agendas.
We don't need another Guido!
Anyway, feel free to somehow have a go at me on this issue for daring to call it a low, hatchet job at the time.
Posted by: ID(iot)S | July 17, 2007 at 18:26
This blog is starting to do more bad than good. The idea of keeping IDS alive so that Tim can keep alive his glory days as his chief of staff and now the Bercow fiasco show this. If I was Bercow I would be speaking to my lawyer and closing Tim down - I wander if Tim's backers would be happy with a big legal bill.
To paraphrase Cromwell - You have blogged too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Posted by: The Ghosty of Leo Amery | July 17, 2007 at 18:40
Well Ghosty you'll soon have your chance to rematerialise yourself on Platform 13, assuming it ever rises above track level.
An orchestrated 'troop surge' today, but do Johnnie Bercow's friends really run beyond single figures?
When he needed their support they were nowhere to be seen, but maybe two men and a dog hadn't then assembled the PC terminals, proxy servers etc necessary to mount a Beau Geste style 'Save John - Smear CH' rearguard action.
Editor, don't let him off the hook. Go with Bercow Watch's fantastic menu of suggestions.
Above all, keep up the pressure!
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 18:53
Traditional Tory
Are you bonkers?
Posted by: The Ghosty of Leo Amery | July 17, 2007 at 19:05
Trad Tory.
Is this url of the new Cameroon rival site?
Posted by: ID(iot)S | July 17, 2007 at 19:16
It's not working ID(iot)S
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 19:21
D'oh, IDS by name...
www.ToryHome.com
Posted by: ID(iot)S | July 17, 2007 at 19:25
Shaun - if you mean what I'm on about, I ask only that Conservative Constituencies ask themselves a simple question. Are they happy having an MP who is favour of the EU Constitution being signed without the promised referendum?
If not you should be changing your MP.
Either that or accept that you are about become part of the Union of Servile European Regions. It's entirely down to you, the Constitiuents. No one else. It's your democratic right to choose your MP. Use it or lose it.
Posted by: Tapestry | July 17, 2007 at 19:25
Tapestry is right. What's the point of an MP who supports surrender of the power to govern ourselves?
Posted by: Pete | July 17, 2007 at 19:35
http://www.ToryHome.com
Brilliant!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 17, 2007 at 19:47
Anyway, feel free to somehow have a go at me on this issue for daring to call it a low, hatchet job at the time.
This from a man who, as editor of UKIPhome, was responsible for more smears than a workaholic gynaecologist.
Posted by: Charred Knobble | July 17, 2007 at 20:20
We should have more respect for the man who once gave us Progressive Conservatism, "the fastest growing political movement in the world".
Posted by: Charred Knobble's Tiddler | July 17, 2007 at 21:21
Tim, may I say how much I appreciate your humility, honesty and graciousness in publicly offering this apology and correction. It takes a person of real stature and integrity to admit "I got it wrong", and it is something that is sadly all too rare in public life these days. I am very pleased to see your apology, and the fact that John Bercow has assured you he will not defect, and I applaud both of you. I similarly applaud, as I have many times before on this site, John's championing of international development and human rights. He is an absolutely golden asset to the party, particularly on that theme, and I hope the party will recognise this.
I have to say to TRaditional Tory that frankly I think it is you who is not a tory. You speak with unbelievable misplaced venom and pomposity which is unnecessary, unattractive and really obscene. And you don't even have the courage or honesty to use your real name. I am ashamed to be in the same party as you, and I hope sincerely that you will defect - because your attitudes have no place in a compassionate Conservative Party. Why don't you and Sir Percy Haddock - oops, I mean Craddock - go off into the sunset where you belong.
Warmest regards,
Ben
Posted by: Ben Rogers | July 17, 2007 at 22:31
I agree with Eugene 10000%. Eugene, I salute you, whoever you are.
I had not realised there were so many deeply unpleasant and disgusting little people in the Tory Party. There are an awful lot of people on this blog that I hope I will never have the distasteful misfortune to meet!
Now - can we get back to some substance and policy, please? There are millions of people around the world dying of poverty, starvation and treatable disease, oppressed and tortured by brutal regimes, terrorised by extremists, or discarded by society. Let's focus our time and efforts on them, instead of on this ludicrous tittle tattle.
Posted by: Ben Rogers | July 17, 2007 at 22:41
Very welcome news that John Bercow will be staying to fight his corner from within.
As Tony Benn said, a political party is like a bird, in that it needs both a left wing and a right wing if it is to be able to fly properly.
Posted by: H.Hemmelig | July 17, 2007 at 23:18
Thanks Ben. I think enough has now been said by everyone. I'll certainly be glad to move on from this one. Thread closed.
Posted by: Editor | July 17, 2007 at 23:19