Project Cameron's key achievements: The renewal of the party's one nation tradition

Another Tory donor has attacked David Cameron today.  This attack follows the press hoopla about yesterday’s defection of an unknown 26-year-old to Labour.  It’s a good time to remind ourselves of some of David Cameron’s achievements.  In a series of articles over the next few days ConservativeHome will be doing just that.

Writing for today’s Guardian David Cameron underlines his continuing commitment to social justice.  It is one of the outstanding successes of his time as leader that the Conservative Party has renewed what once would have been called its one nation tradition – its commitment to govern for all Britons.

In his article the Conservative leader notes the relative fall in living standards for what Ann Widdecombe called “the forgotten decent” – people “trapped in deprivation through no immediate fault of their own, unable to climb into the middle classes because of a series of barriers that completely block the route.”

The party will today be outlining plans for Social Enterprise Zones.  “SEZs,” Mr Cameron writes “will give councils the power to create a radically deregulated environment for social enterprises and voluntary bodies.”  Practical proposals will include tax relief in SEZs and “the creation of a community bank, a sort of central bank for the social enterprise sector.”

David Cameron writes that “the social enterprise is the great institutional innovation of our times.”  He is right and I hope the Conservatives will do much more to ensure that the sector does not become like the establishment voluntary sector which, in its personnel and methods of operation, is often little different from local and central government.  Cameron Watt used his Satrurday column to explain how Conservatives might build a more independent-minded third sector.

Today’s new announcements – associated with social enterprise spokesman Greg Clark MP – builds on the work of Iain Duncan Smith’s social justice policy group.  That group produced - for our party - the most important statement in a generation on the broken nature of British society.

Not only is the Conservative Party talking about social justice again it is doing so in a distinctively conservative way.  The emphasis isn’t on a crude expansion of the state but on using the government to help people to build families, stay off drugs and gain the skills they need to live independently.  Iain Duncan Smith put it this way a few weeks ago:

"The traditional laissez-faire approach understands poverty as a product of wrong choices - wrong choices about family, drugs, crime and schooling.  That view says that poverty is always the fault of the person who makes the wrong choices.  On the other side of the political divide the elimination of poverty is seen as the job of government.  Government is blamed for poverty.  The approach outlined in the Breakthrough Britain report is based on the belief that individual people must be responsible for their choices but that government has a big responsibility to help people make the right choices.  Government should therefore support marriage and support initiatives that encourage debt-free and drug-free behaviours.  ‘Shared responsibility’ is the name that David Cameron gives to the approach."

It’s true that ConservativeHome wants a more balanced Conservative strategy and that is beginning to happen.  Recent interventions on Europe and security come to mind.  But the Conservatives do not deserve to be in Government again if we are not determined to improve the lives of every Briton and to restarting social mobility.  Project Cameron’s emphasis on social responsibility is its greatest plus point.

TOMORROW WE WILL BE LOOKING AT A SECOND ACHIEVEMENT: THE UNITY OF THE REAL 'TOP TORIES'.

Email us with your own thoughts on what should be included in this series on Project Cameron’s greatest achievements.

Comments

[Ken Stevens]

"one nation tradition – its commitment to govern for all Britons."
Great idea.

One point though-
"power to create a radically deregulated environment for social enterprises and voluntary bodies."

Why only in special zones rather than nationwide for such endeavours? i.e. by category of activity rather than geographical area.

[Stand Up Throw Up]

This all seems very laudable but misses the central point.

Why do we have 5.3m of our fellow citizens hooked on the drug of work-related benefits yet at the same time turning a blind eye to the apparent uncontrolled influx of foreign workers who want to do jobs that those claimants seem unwilling or unable to do.

Surely it is our tax/benefits regime that effectively puts a block in the shape of a 60% plus marginal tax rate in the path of those willing to go out and get work....the surest way of lifting an individual out of poverty????

[Hmmmm]

"The traditional laissez-faire approach understands poverty as a product of wrong choices - wrong choices about family, drugs, crime and schooling. That view says that poverty is always the fault of the person who makes the wrong choices."

That is wrong. Those who believe in laissez faire think that government does more harm than good. Programmes get hijacked by bureaucrats and leftist parasites like the race relations, equal opportunities and global warming industries.

Social Enterprise Zones (isn't that a Bow Group proposal that was slammed by posters here?) will go the same way. Council's will give favourable treatment to their pet PC causes. Other charities, especially caring, non-political ones, will suffer.

Lassez-fairists just want charities to be left alone to concentrate on helping those in need rather than form-filling to serve the political agendas of social engineering busy-bodies in the local council.

The Public Choice Theory works of Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tulloch should be required reading for Dave, IDS, CCHQ and The Bow Group.

That is anti-dote for statist nonsense such as this. One Nation Socialism, not Conservatism!

[Editor]

Hmmmm: "Lassez-fairists just want charities to be left alone to concentrate on helping those in need rather than form-filling to serve the political agendas of social engineering busy-bodies in the local council."

We don't live in a Hayekian text book though Hmmm. We live in the real world. The likelihood of stopping state funding of charities isn't that we'll see a wonderful flourishing of independent charities but lots of needy people going without.

[Hmmmm]

Editor, Margaret Thatcher made Hayek a Companion of Honour. She declared that "The Constitution of Liberty" was the bokk that "we blieve". Winston Churchill used the Conservative Party's paper ration to print additional copies of his "Road to Serfdom".

Churchill was attacked by the Left as an extremist ideologue for doing so. Your "real world" comment suggests that you agreed with his critics. I prefer to have Thatcher and Churchill on my side.

[Yet Another Anon]

The traditional laissez-faire approach understands poverty as a product of wrong choices - wrong choices about family, drugs, crime and schooling. That view says that poverty is always the fault of the person who makes the wrong choices.
It's not just a matter of choices, even where someone is in difficulties despite their own choices being the right ones it may be deemed inappropriate to intervene, there are different perspectives of laissez-faire as well as of socialism and other methodological approaches - Socialists and Neo-Liberals can both deem those who are too sick or disabled to work as being discardable because they will merely hold back everyone else and provision for them is waste, equally people believing in Laissez-Faire or in Socialism can both feel that provision should be made, but may well disagree about approaches to sorting that out and someone who takes a Laissez-Faire approach may well feel that people who make wrong choices should still be helped but just not through the state.

It's easy to generalise on such things - people with the same aims can have very different ideas about achieving them and people with different aims can have very similar ideas on policy implementation despite this being to achieve different things.

[Hmmmm]

Sorry for the typos above, in a hurry this morning!

[Buckers]

Presumably Sir Tom Cowie thinks Cameron "arrogant" bacuse the current Conservative leadership will not give him a say over policy despite his donations.

A similar acquaintance of mine - a mid-to-large party donor, I'm sure shall also withdraw support due to a mortal hatred of Cameron. The point is these people cannot stand the idea that they are no longer on the high table of influence and policy formation now that the leadership of the Conservatives have skipped a generation. Of course Davis and Willie Hague are still there but I think its fair to say that the gravitation of the leadership has altogether manifested itself in Cameron's inner circle (an altogether younger, ambitious bunch of MP with their careers still very much ahead of them - like it or lump it, they represent our political future).

So let's all jolly well get behind them and accept that the men of yesteryear, who incidentally must take their share of blame for the abject failiures of the Major-Hague-IDS-Howard years, should be encouraged to move on rather that stir the pot.

[Paul Oakley]

Social Enterprise Zones should encourage business startups in deprived districts. All too often the poorest local authority areas are the most expensive in which to operate. That will deal with one side of the equation and hearten the entrepreneur. The other side is those who are unemployed and stuck in the benefits trap. They too need encouragement by tax incentives and the obvious way is substantially to raise the personal allowance. It is inexcusable that income tax and National Insurance are payable on earnings of less than half the government's own calculation of the poverty wage, namely £14,000 a year.

[CCHQ Spy]

Buckers: Presumably Sir Tom Cowie thinks Cameron "arrogant" bacuse the current Conservative leadership will not give him a say over policy despite his donations.

Coweie's problem was that he didn't give enough Buckers. You have to be in Ashcroft's league of giving to get real influence. Give as much as Ashcroft and you can run whole sections of CCHQ. See yesterday's thread.

[Hmmmm]

Buckers, you clearly don't know Sir Tom Cowie, a very modest and decent man. He would never seek an influence on policy. He is from Sunderland and the Party desperately needs supporters like him in the North. The fact that Sir Tom, who donated to Cameron's leadership campaign, has spoken out in such blunt terms is very significant.

[Simon Newman]

"We don't live in a Hayekian text book though Hmmm. We live in the real world"

Hayek's works seem a hell of a lot closer to the real world than the current dominant ideology. 'Social justice' is Marxist terminology and it's appalling that the Conservatives have adopted it.

[James Maskell]

When does the report by Greg Clark come out? Any ideas where it will appear?

[Simon Newman]

Paul Oakley:
"It is inexcusable that income tax and National Insurance are payable on earnings of less than half the government's own calculation of the poverty wage, namely £14,000 a year."

This - the plight of the low paid worker - is the real scandal that Conservatives should be campaigning on - the Thatcher govt was not good on this, but Brown has been much much worse in trapping people on benefit dependency.

Most politicians, Conservative and Labour alike, seem totally unable to comprehend what it's like trying to get by and better oneself on £14,000 (or less). This is something that makes me really angry.

[JimJam]

The way to set up enterprise in deprived zones is to let councils set a local sales tax replacing council tax. That would drive tax levels down and point business towards areas requiringh regeneration.

[Editor]

Simon: You and Mr Hayek may have a good point about the weasal word 'social' emptying a strong word like justice of its meaning but it's not good politics to say that we're against social justice. I'm a great believer in embracing commonly used terms and colonising them with conservative content.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Editor - a great diary entry. No one should underestimate the power of the Social Justice agenda. It's having a real impact on people who are not well off, who've voted Labour for years and are feeling let down. We're giving them a real and positive reason to go Conservative - this is something I've been experiencing on the doorsteps of East Kent.

It's also making people defect to us from Labour - like the former Labour Mayor of Dover who recently joined us. See http://www.doverforum.com/magazine/article.php?id=35.

[simon]

Hello! 'One Nation'?!! That means naff all nowadays with thanks to devolution.

[Yogi]

I do not believe that Team Cameron understands plain electoral arithmatic, which is 33% conservative, 40%- 42% anti-Conservative (i.e Labour and LibDem), 8% nationalists 7% others - that leaves 10% floaters.
We need to target the floaters whom are generally the middle classes and the C1s and C2s. They need an incentive to come out and vote - they are the ones worried about Crime, they have aspirations (taxation is an issue), worry about lack of immigration control, falling educational standards.
We lost them between 1992 and 1997 due to two main reasons - the slogan Sleeze put off the middle class floaters and the C1s and C2s became apathetic.
It is all very good to address the problems of poverty and social underclass - but to do something about it we need to win back power and the only route is to address the issues that concern the 10%.

So far I have not seen anything to attract these voters. They want change of direction and we do not seem to offer them any. If they are not inspired, they wont turn up - low turn outs usually will help the anti-conservative parties.
Offer them a radical agenda and they will be inspired - if we get 42% of the vote we will win. The outlook is rather grim though.

[Tam Large]

Dave's "achievment" has been the destruction of the Conservative Party. The key values and the very economic and social tools this country needs to free itself from creeping socialism and pc fascism have been systematically ditched. Just when we need low tax, real education, and freedom from the bureaucracy which is strangling our business, he is embracing more-of-the-same-but-nicer Blair policies, and hugging the all-pervasive and all-powerful EU-nited States of Europe. Instead of slaying the dragon of socialist slush politics, he has slain the knight in blue armour which could have put this country on is own feet again.

[Yet Another Anon]

if we get 42% of the vote we will win.
If the Conservatives get 42% of the vote and Labour get 35% of the vote it is probable that the Conservative Party would be the largest party in a hung parliament, it all depends on distribution of vote including how concentrated the Liberal Democrat vote is, in fact a percentage share nationally for the 3 main parties (taking the Liberal Democrat vote as being the same as that of the Alliance) that was the same as that for 1983 could conceivably result in a hung parliament depending on how it was distributed.

If Labour got 40% and the Conservatives get 42% of the vote it is quite possible that Labour would win an overall majority and level pegging at 42% and Labour could run out with a 100 seat majority.

It's much more complicated than get such and such a percentage vote nationally to win and less than that to lose.

[Paul Oakley]

True comment about Brown, Simon. Tax credits in particular are intended to be viewed as government largesse but are in fact chains.

Jimjam. Can't say I agree with that. Poor local authorities will have a higher sales tax and the punters will instead shop in the wealthier areas thereby exacerbating business decline in deprived districts.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

So what are Dave's great achievements that the general public will acknowledge, remember and be influenced by in wanting to vote Conservative?

Well, for a start there was err, err, uhm, what's it, thingemy; oh yes, I remember now he likes riding a bike (with a car in the backgound), hoodies and charging extra for air travel and is going to save the planet, but doesn't like mentioning immigration and appointed Clarke as his Democracy Policy Czar; the Tories after much self-flagellation and publicity have now morphed from being you know what into nice cuddly liberals, but ineffective - sorry I ‘ve forgotten the thread of the conversation, whose achievements are we talking about? What were those good points again?
However, as a member of the general public, I do remember that we have been governed by the most dangerously incompetent and useless Government in living memory and what's his name, the leader, hasn't laid a glove on it.

[Yogi]

Sorry, Yet Another Anon, the central point is the core LibDem vote and the core Labour vote will both be maintained - it is not an assumption. There is no way for both Conservatives and labour to get 42% and 40% in a two and a half party system.

[Bill]

I didn't know Tim did irony.

[Tory T]

Hmmm, on the contrary Sir Tom specifically says in the papers that he stopped giving because of policy disagreements, ie grammar schools. Donors can't buy influence - that way it's not even a donation.

One or two disgruntled donors needs to be put in context. And what is the context? It is that donations have soared under Cameron to the point where he has cleared all the party's debts and has raised more than 4 times (iirc) what Labour did this year.

Because of Cameron's leadership and attractiveness to donors, major and minor, money has flowed in to the Tory party. A donor here and a donor there don't agree with policy and stop donating? (Not Kalms, who had stopped before Howard fought the 2005 election). That's always a shame, but I think it's good that they can't be seen to buy our policy direction no matter how much they give.

Donation ought to be public spirited and for the sake of the country, and not to do with the party dancing to the tune of "he who pays the piper". Lord Ashcroft is the model; he disagrees with some aspects of Cameron's policies but he selflessly donates anyway, and with no hope of reward, already being a peer.

[CCHQ Spy]

Tory T:

"Lord Ashcroft is the model; he disagrees with some aspects of Cameron's policies but he selflessly donates anyway, and with no hope of reward, already being a peer."

If you really believe Ashcroft is donating selflessly I guess you really must be a day old.

HE WANTS POWER AND THE PARTY HAS GIVEN IT TO HIM. HE HAS ALREADY BOUGHT A SMALL COUNTRY (BELIZE). HE NOW WANTS TO BUY A BIG ONE.

[Oberon Houston]

All that will be a monumental waste of time and money if we don't get elected, so at least his priorities are aligned with Cameron.

[GU (Given Up)]

Dave has managed to persuade most people that you can't trust him. Which is about the most stupid thing, any Pol could do.

No wonder donors are giveing up, in digust and here is the latest example, as to why, he ain't trusted.

"The message will be, "If I had been prime minister, I would not have signed the treaty," but calls for a new Conservative government to abrogate the treaty will be rejected as "impractical". Instead, voters will be told to look to the future, relying on Cameron to "look after Britain's interests", rescuing them from Brown's mess - reinforcing the "trust" message.

Thus, as Booker writes in the Daily Mail today that our democracy is under threat from the new EU treaty, it faces another threat nearer home, from the cynical opportunism of unprincipled politicians - for whom power (and personal advancement) is more important than national interest.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

[TomTom]

Presumably Sir Tom Cowie thinks Cameron "arrogant" bacuse the current Conservative leadership will not give him a say over policy despite his donations.

When asked a question he gave a straight answer. That is hard for political activists to master, but as an entrepreneur who built up a successful business and puts his money back into Sunderland and now The Prince's Trust - he should be respected not scorned.

It is indicative of how shallow some people viz Buckers are when it comes to the policies that IDS' policy group turned up - a man who invests in deprived communities is treated with contempt to supposed Conservative supporters.......no point in bothering with Social Enterprise Zones then - because people like Buckers has contempt for people who engage in trying to improve matters -

[Yet Another Anon]

There is no way for both Conservatives and labour to get 42% and 40% in a two and a half party system.
Equally people said there was no way for any other party to make any breakthrough when Labour and Conservative were both near to 50% of the vote each. If the Liberal Democrat vote collapses then it is quite possible for Labour and Conservative again to be both over 40% of the vote.

[Simon Newman]

Editor:
"Simon: You and Mr Hayek may have a good point about the weasal word 'social' emptying a strong word like justice of its meaning but it's not good politics to say that we're against social justice. I'm a great believer in embracing commonly used terms and colonising them with conservative content."

David Cameron, quoted today:
"The last generation has seen a steady rise in living standards for the many and a relative fall in living standards for the few. Helping these "few" to catch up with the rest of society should be the most urgent political priority for the British government."

Cameron has embraced the socialist concept of 'relative poverty' - poverty defined as having less than somebody else. To me that looks like Marxist colonisation of Conservative thought, not vice-versa.

Britain does have a big problem with benefit dependency, lack of opportunity and an expanding underclass, but these were problems created by socialist policies and socialist concepts such as relative poverty - the idea that if someone has less than (eg) 60% of average wealth you should give him or her free money.

[Simon Newman]

GU:
"The message will be, "If I had been prime minister, I would not have signed the treaty," but calls for a new Conservative government to abrogate the treaty will be rejected as "impractical".

I share this apprehension. To restore trust Cameron and Hague would have to make clear that if Labour refuses a referendum and forces through the Treaty-Constitution, a future Conservative government would hold a referendum on repealing it. Otherwise it looks like posturing.

[Yet Another Anon]

David Cameron, quoted today:
"The last generation has seen a steady rise in living standards for the many and a relative fall in living standards for the few. Helping these "few" to catch up with the rest of society should be the most urgent political priority for the British government."
Relative poverty should not be something that government takes any interest in, indeed differentials help encourage an entrepreneurial spirit.

[Ken Stevens]

Simon Newman | August 07, 12:12
".. if someone has less than (eg) 60% of average wealth you should give him or her free money...)

There is also the problem with defining poverty in relative percentage terms, rather than by tangible indicators, that raising someone's income thereby raises the average against which his/her relative poverty is measured.

The statistical carrot always stays ahead of the donkey!

[Carol Banks]

Which "One nation" is he talking about? We haven't been one nation since 1997, or is he stil in denial about devolution?
If he thinks Britain is one nation, why then are there separate Welsh and Scottish Conservatives parties?
Lagging behind the times, David. Must be all that Scottish blood in you. It looks at the world through tartan tinted spectacles.

[Paul Oakley]

Relative poverty can indeed be a red herring. After all, Her Majesty the Queen is in relative poverty compared to Bill Gates. That is not however an argument against helping those at the very bottom of the income scale. After all, those 4 1/2 million people reliant on benefits not only cost the taxpayer money but are being denied the opprtunity to contribute to economic growth for the benefit of all.

[Elliott Joseph]

I'm sure Tom Cowie is a decent and honourable man. But it's obvious that criticism such as his hands useful ammunition to Labour.

He said as much himself in 2005.

[Ash Faulkner]

Cameron is quite right to move the party back onto one nation ground. We are not a classical liberal party, we are a conservative party, and I think too many people have forgotten that.

I actually think Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" quote very well sums up what conservatism is. The problem is, people focus too much on the first part. She didn't just say, "there are individuals and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people." She followed it up with "it's our duty to look after ourselves first, and then to look after our neighbour." Conservatism should be a balance between community (social responsibility, patriotism, tradition, order, controlled immigration, the nation-state, integration over multiculturalism) and liberty (capitalism, historical liberties, individualism, an enterprising culture). I think we've put too much emphasis on negative liberty and too little on community. One nation conservatism is an (at times uncomfortable) mix between the two. It's why we're a broad church, and if we stick to it, it's why it's the 'ideology' that will help us become the natural party of government again.

[David]

"Lagging behind the times, David. Must be all that Scottish blood in you. It looks at the world through tartan tinted spectacles."

Perhaps Carol should read 'Sybil' before making even more of a fool of herself.......

[Cleo]

Nice to see some positive coverage on here for a change.

[Solon]

One-Nation Conservatism simply isn't up to confronting the challenge of the determined socialist assault on this country and its institutions that we have seen since 1945. That's why we ditched it as a party between 1974 and 1979.

Cameron is the idelogical heir of Edward Heath. It failed then, it will fail again. Cameron needs to be forced out for the good of the party and the country.

[John Reeks]

If the Conservatives fail to win the next election, it will be not his fault but the fault of the party. It will be the same problem as 1997 onwards, where the Tories just can't rally together with a will to win. Portillo is right when he says that the Tories can never win until they have the hunger for power. Cameron certainly does, so where is it in the rest of the party? Come on people, rally together!! I disagree with much of the Cornerstone group, for example, on several issues, but in the broad stream of things am happy to recognise that there is more that unites us than divides us, so stick by Cameron and his project or die, wither and die just like Peter Hitchens predicts.

[Mr Angry]

Nice try Tim, but "Project Cameron's achievements"? - We have yet to see any actual
achievements, so far it's all just a lot of trendy lefty hot air and unpleasant paternalism. Achievement in national political terms means winning parliamentary seats, taking power and making worthwhile changes to our nation and how it is governed. When Cameron has managed any of that then he will have some achievements to his name, but until then he does not, he has aspirations and that's different.

[Scotty]

"This - the plight of the low paid worker - is the real scandal that Conservatives should be campaigning on - the Thatcher govt was not good on this, but Brown has been much much worse in trapping people on benefit dependency.

Most politicians, Conservative and Labour alike, seem totally unable to comprehend what it's like trying to get by and better oneself on £14,000 (or less). This is something that makes me really angry."

Simon, you are absolutely correct! This group has been particularly badly hit under Brown. I think they are the "forgotten and discarded" striver's. It is almost incomprehensible the way that Brown has tried to make them dependent on his largesse with one hand while he takes the ladder away with the other. Of all the things that Brown has done this makes me the most angry, it is so cynical and calculating.

[House Price Heaven]

"This - the plight of the low paid worker - is the real scandal that Conservatives should be campaigning on - the Thatcher govt was not good on this"

No, I bet those poor people who were empowered to buy their own council homes are cursing Maggie for the 10's if not 100's of thousands of pounds of profit their purchase made!

[GroundhoDay]

Sir Tom is gravely concerned that Cameron and his Clones are in a Notting Hill bubble that only sees the country extending 50 from London....

I for one share his concerns...

Hugging hoodies and eco holidays will not win one votes on the streets of Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham...

Tough policies on anti social behaviour, immigration and common sense like supporting Grammar schools would win hands down...

It a shame no one in the London village is listening...

[Fiona]

The first of David Cameron's achievements is that he made it OK to be a Conservative again. Don't forget that in the 2005 general election, while people may have liked our policies individually, when they heard they were TORY policies, and felt the overall tone of the campaign, support went down.

His second achievement (and this builds on Michael Howard's legacy of discipline and focus) is that we are now seen as a party with a realistic chance of winning. That hasn't been a serious possibility for a while.

His third achievement is, as Tim says, refocusing the Party on what matters to voters and to our society. We cannot ignore the fact that Labour is failing the poorest in our country - and our focus on social justice and making the state smaller and the people bigger is the only way to increase people's self-worth and success.

There are lots more, but those are the headline ones. One other thing I would say is that the first two of my points are fairly inward-looking - we need to look up and out and make sure that we present an aspirational, positive agenda for the next general election.

[Matt Wright]

I am a senior officer in Wales and I've never heard of this bloke whose defected. This is such a small fish a minnow wouldn't bother eating it! Normally something like this would struggle to even make a story in a small county newspaper. You know "community councillor moves over" next to a piece about who won the mishaped vegetable contest at the summer fete! Summer silly season must be here.....oh dear,

[bw]

I have never read such nonsense in all my life. When did the Conservatives ever have a social conscience or any concern about the poor? Not in my lifetime nor throughout much of history if you read the books. The only exception are a few toffs who have thrown the poor a few scraps to stave off revolution, e.g Disraeli! Tories opposed the NHS and the minimum wage! Describing the Tories as friends of the poor is like saying the BNP are friends of black people!!!

[Buckers]

"people like Buckers has contempt for people who engage in trying to improve matters"

TomTom, how exactly is public crticisms of a heavily mandated party leader going to "improve deprived communities" when all it does is hand ammunition to our opponents, present a divided Conservative Party and prolong the reign of the clunking fist. This is political goldust for our enemies and Brown is the one reaping the benefits.

If this so called man of honour has reservation as to the party's direction he should make his point candidly in private to Cameron and respect the outcome or do the dignified thing and join UKIP or whoever he feels at home with. We are supposed to be an organized party not speakers corner.

Why don't you try to engage with the argument rather than smearing the proposer.

[Matt Wright]

Well Labour aren't friends of the poor although they like to think they are. They've hammered the low paid and created an underclass to replace the once proud working class. There is no reason why Conservative philosophy would be against the poor, quite the opposite, rather than wanting to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator we want to help people to get on,

Matt

[TomTom]

TomTom, how exactly is public crticisms of a heavily mandated party leader going to "improve deprived communities" when all it does is hand ammunition to our opponents,

A Party leader is nothing more than a salesman chosen by the salesforce.

When Sir Tom Cowie is asked a direct question he is supposed to ask Cameron first if he may answer ?

I don't want the kind of Police State people like you advocate Buckers where noone can give a straight answer without Steve Hilton's permission. Sir Tom Cowie is a Citizen and a Voter and should enjoy free speech under the ECHR, Charter of Fundamental Rights - but seemingly you Cameron junkies want everyone gagged in the way hospital doctors are gagged.

I do not want the Conservative Party to become like Erich Honecker's SED but seemingly it has recruited enough Young Communists to think they can gag everyone who does not parrot the party line

[Buckers]

TomTom, nice smear attempt but I'm afraid that just doesn't wash.

Everyone with an ounce of common sense understands that to function a political party required a degree of discipline. There's nothing authoritarian about insisting that malcontents air their grievances in private rather than public old boy.

[TomTom]

There's nothing authoritarian about insisting that malcontents air their grievances in private rather than public old boy.

So giving money to the Conservative Party at any time in history means you can only recite the current party line ?

That is what you suggest

[Mr Angry]

So Fiona, what is your job at CCHQ then?

[Fiona]

bw - that is perhaps one of the reasons why our message has failed to resonate in recent years. People generally ARE concerned by the state of their society. Even if only on a selfish level (and I'd like to think that no Conservative, or indeed no human being, would ever have such disregard for their fellow man), a broken society and the poorest getting poorer impacts on the rest of us in our daily lives as well.

[Jake]

"one nation tradition – its commitment to govern for all Britons."

Does that include the English

er no , thought not .

I used to believe in all the ONE Nation stuff until 1998 when there have been at least two nations with the British state - more in fact . The extreme bias which the British state brings to bear on the English

Barnett Rules

denial of democracy ie no parliament for
England

larger parliamentary constituencies within
the British parliament

a British PM ( Brown ) openly committed by orth to the paramontcy of Scotland and this accepted by the opposition

no civil service , government , first
minister of our own

no budget of our own

no BBC of our own

the flags insult

etc

Time to give up on the One Nation theme -
it is out of date and simply denies the reality of the British state in 1998.

Try something else