« New Populus poll brings fresh hope for Cameron | Main | What's going on at The Telegraph? »

Comments

The following words have been used on this thread to describe Michael Ancram:

fossil, relic, dinosaur, fool, idiot, old school duffer, bonkers, has-been, non-entity, arsehole, effete, muppet, buffoon, arse, stupid, bed-blocker

It seems to me that the Conservative party is undergoing some sort of Year Zero moment where anyone who dares to be old or different is castigated, attacked on a personal level and driven from the party. Good luck with that as a strategy.

Oh, and another thing. Ancram was described as an 'ardent catholic'. Try substituting the terms 'Muslim', "Jew", "Sikh" or "Hindu" for the word 'catholic'. How does the phrase sound now?

JP Hackworth.

We're very keen, as we all know, on School Discipline. All our MPs would be well able to wax lyrical on the subject. Perhaps a few of them could turn their attention to Party Discipline. Maybe we should set up an MP Referral Unit or, better still, a Boot Camp for MPs whose egos get a bit too much for them, and who would benefit from learning a more constructive approach.

@JP Hackworth

Ancram deserves every one of these labels.

His self indulgence is HARMING our Party- and we are fed up with it.

well there we have it folks, cameron gives an olive branch to the right of the party and they throw it back in his face. this might well have just made cameron realise that anything he does to support the right will always empower them to ask for more. you are right editor, it is extremely badly timed, and the telegraph should know better before trying to derail cameron again just as he's beginning to follow their "agenda". hopefully, this wont now result in lower polls because people see the disunity in the tory party again, but i'd expect it. as for getting cameron following more right wing issues again, that chance has probably now been chucked away, by the publication of this silly paper by someone who clearly doesnt care about the future of the party anymore.

"When will the likes of Tony Makara understand that to win the next election the Tories need to reconnect with the millions who now do not vote at all because they do not support the very social democratic consensus that Cameron has signed up to so heavily"

Mr Angry, Yes I agree that theConservative party needs to reach out to those who feel disenfranchised and no longer vote. The way to do this is to put forward a range of policies that reflect the concerns and aspirations of those people.

The policies David Cameron will take into the next election will reflect the desires of the nation as a whole. These policies are not Social Democratic, but they are progressive and backed up by a Conservative philosophy. David Cameron is a Conservative. He will govern from a Conservative platform. To claim David Cameron is some sort of Social Democrat is bizarre.

215c
You are right of course---the party voted for Cameron 2 to 1. (Thankfully I have a clear conscience on that score!) But how many of those who voted for him still support him now? Very few that I speak to. No one disagrees that the party had to modernise, but I doubt that anyone thought the price of modernisation was jettisoning of every core value that members hold dear.
Many of us of Ancram’s generation were young Turks once; our contribution was Thatcherism and it was we who put to the sword the great Patrician era of Eden, McMillan and Hume (not to mention the Marxism of Wilson and Callaghan). What drove us then was our core beliefs; do you seriously think we will stand idly by and watch them be jettisoned.
I am all for allowing the youth to make its own mistakes, it was my mantra when I was 26, but I had learned from them all by the time I was 30. Mistakes however are one thing, downright incompetence is quite another.
Having met Willie Whitelaw many times, my father and Willie were in the Third Battalion together, I’m afraid the laugh is on you! Whitelaw was every inch an old fashioned Patrician Tory but understood what loyalty was about and which way was up. It didn’t stop him occasionally letting his views be known when he thought the young Turks had gone too far. You would be surprised how much Ancram and Whitelaw had in common.
No one wants a Conservative Government more than me. It’s why I have spent a lifetime as an activist and would be the first to argue that without power you are nothing. I also believe that Brown is more than capable of introducing PR should he win the next election with only a small majority. Such a step will be the end for us.
The challenge for you young Turks of today however is that you need to attract the Guardian swings and hold the core vote as well. At the moment and that is Ancram’s point, you are failing to do either.

Hackworth,

We are making our views known about Anachronism appalling lack of judgement and not his race, creed, etc, etc.

As for his religious beliefs, he really is best leaving those to the clergy and they are not for politicians. That is very, very weak ground to be on.

Many of us have to doorstep and work hard to get the message out only for this yoghurt top (there's another for your list) to undo a lot of hard work.

As for the Anachronism's fan club how about "YOU'RE NOT SINGING ANY MORE....."

Mike Thomas wrote:

"As for his religious beliefs, he really is best leaving those to the clergy and they are not for politicians. That is very, very weak ground to be on."

That is just the sort of bigoted intolerant comment which helped to drive me out of the Conservative party.

So, people with religious beliefs shouldn't have influence in the party? I guess that would rule out Ghandi, Reagan, Thatcher and may other great leaders of free democratic countries. Still, you'll be able to recruit the likes of Mao and Stalin.

JP Hackworth.

This thread makes for very disappointing reading for a number of reasons. I was an early supporter of David Cameron's candidature for the leadership because I felt that a fresh face with a modernising message was the tonic the party needed to cast off the yoke of 15 years of lurching from one political disaster to another and I still believe that. Michael Ancram's comments are not helpful and they are certainly poorly timed, but I am uncomfortable with the vitriol that he is attracting from some colleagues above. Whatever else he may be, he has been a loyal servant of the Conservative Party for many years and he deserves credit for that service. His remarks will have been forgotten in a few days, particularly if the air continues to go out of the Brown bounce and this should be borne in mind in view of some of the tetchy sentiments expressed above. More unedifying attacks on Ancram is not going to deliver us any better publicity than his pamphlet is generating.

"You are right of course---the party voted for Cameron 2 to 1. (Thankfully I have a clear conscience on that score!) But how many of those who voted for him still support him now?"

I am one of the very few card carrying Tories amongst my friends, to the point of some ridicule a few years ago.

Now, my friends ask me about what the Tories want to do, they really are very curious and hate Brown in equal measure. They feel cheated out of much promised, they want a competent government that delivers what Labour promised.

So Cameron is going to deliver - hence the votes.

This isn't rocket science, I'm no political expert but I cannot for the life of me understand why you are not right behind him.

Deliver on public service is akin to letting off an atom bomb in Labour HQ. It'll put them out of power for a generation.

My friend nearly all have young families, they are by and large all married, they try really hard to get on but face an uphill struggle with petty crime, disruption in school and officialdom. You have NO idea at all, that's clear that our demographic have had our pensions taken, we are taxed heavily and we see very, very little in return.

Everything is steeped in guilt, even what we do when we can't live where we were brought up and seek a better area to live is called 'white flight'.

Now, these people aren't going to sign on the dotted line as card carrying Tories but they will vote for someone that has just some empathy.

Now does arguing over immigration, tax and the EU amongst ourselves engender empathy?

Bit rhetorical really huh?

"Very few that I speak to. No one disagrees that the party had to modernise, but I doubt that anyone thought the price of modernisation was jettisoning of every core value that members hold dear."

OK, what core value has been jettisoned?

Seriously, name one?

Nothing has been jettisoned, when the leadership seek to broaden appeal why jettison values? It makes no sense.

"Many of us of Ancram’s generation were young Turks once; our contribution was Thatcherism and it was we who put to the sword the great Patrician era of Eden, McMillan and Hume (not to mention the Marxism of Wilson and Callaghan). What drove us then was our core beliefs; do you seriously think we will stand idly by and watch them be jettisoned."

Erm, how exactly was Thatcherism based in the core beliefs of One Nation-ism? It is steeped more in Hynek and Friedman than any previous Tory core value. If my political history is correct, there was quite a great deal of dissent about Thatcher going Monetarist.

So now you are playing out the antagonists you faced, the abused are becoming the abusers. Really, how nice of you. Why don't you help, offer support, make it easier?

Oh no, you bicker, argue outside the tent and it's gleefully lapped up by our detractors.

"I am all for allowing the youth to make its own mistakes, it was my mantra when I was 26, but I had learned from them all by the time I was 30. Mistakes however are one thing, downright incompetence is quite another."

One man's mistake is another man's incompetence. I hope by 30 you learnt tolerance for mistakes in others. Clearly not.

"Having met Willie Whitelaw many times, my father and Willie were in the Third Battalion together, I’m afraid the laugh is on you! Whitelaw was every inch an old fashioned Patrician Tory but understood what loyalty was about and which way was up. It didn’t stop him occasionally letting his views be known when he thought the young Turks had gone too far. You would be surprised how much Ancram and Whitelaw had in common."

Really, well as we are playing that game my family is steeped the Welsh Labour movement including Viscount Tonypandy, my surname is a big clue. A bygone age of principle and debate sadly gone. I don't need lectures on the discipline and courage of our politicians in days of yore.

However, they would all say this you don't go running outside the tent voicing your disagreements. Second, you consort with your leader and offer unconditional advice. Thirdly, you leave your ego out of it. Fourthly, you look to the bigger picture not the short term.

Need I go on?

"No one wants a Conservative Government more than me. It’s why I have spent a lifetime as an activist and would be the first to argue that without power you are nothing. I also believe that Brown is more than capable of introducing PR should he win the next election with only a small majority. Such a step will be the end for us."

Absolutely, but listening to this siren call from someone not showing loyalty will only hasten that day.

"The challenge for you young Turks of today however is that you need to attract the Guardian swings and hold the core vote as well. At the moment and that is Ancram’s point, you are failing to do either."

Really? So the end of the Brown bounce is a mirage?

We would be attracting plenty of support if the party shows discipline and takes the fight to the enemy, not the mirage of an enemy within.

Hackworth,

You'll have to do better than a Godwin Law lame argument.

The Queen is defender of the faith, not its politican's in my argument.

That's the trouble with you right-wing headbangers, first sign of pressure you fold.

Just like 2001 & 2005 really.

Mike Thomas wrote:

"That's the trouble with you right-wing headbangers, first sign of pressure you fold."

Gosh, I've never been referred to as a right-wing headbanger before. It's a label I shall wear with pride.

Namaste,

JP Hackworth.

Sit down and shut up Mr Ancram.

I think we should all calm down. Heffer is taking the once-great Telegraph into the sewer and we're just going to have to get used to that. Ancram is a 2nd rate politician who had his moment in the sun a few years back, only because so many of his colleagues had been culled by the voters. Let's remember: this is the man who is sufficiently self-deluded to think he stood a chance of winning the leadership of this party back in 2001. He's a joker. Just ignore him. And, on the bright side, it's perhaps no bad thing for Cameron to be criticised for being too left-wing round about now. This story hardly fits with the 'lurch to the right' critique does it?

Read the Alistair Campbell Diaries.

It took Labour 15 years in Opposition to stamp out this kind of nonsense. They finally did so in 1994 and lo and behold won 3 years later.

There are plenty of anecdotes with people like Prescott and Skinner vehemently disagreeing with the direction of their Party- but they did so in PRIVATE. If they can do it, why can't we.

I am not aware of anyone trashing the Thatcherite legacy, but we were a seriously unpopular brand after 1997 ("je ne regrette rien" etc) and it is solely thanks to Cameron that we can now even talk about immigration and crime without people reaching for the off switch.

Can the Editor post a copy of this thread to Ancram, can we forget about this pathetic act of self indulgence, and all get back to supporting Cameron in his efforts to beat the real enemy.

One also has to acknowledge the silence of people like Hewitt and Beckett who since being sacked have caused no problems whatsoever for their leader.

I wonder how many of those commenting on this thread have actually read Michael Ancram's pamphlet ? I have just done so, and thought it was an excellent presentation of timeless Conservative principles. It stands in a long tradition of essays setting out to restate fundamental Conservative values and apply them to the contemporary world: Hailsham's 'The Case for Conservatism' for instance. It is exactly the sort of intellectual challenge we should be taking up in opposition.

Well blow me down. The BBC have relegated the Ancram story off the front page of their website and also reported Dorrell's report not in terms of Labour's reaction to it.Of course they did manage to make sure that Tony Wrights thoughtful response 'it's an uncosted gimmick' was in there twice.

JohnC,

I have and it's motherhood and apple pie. When he is shrieking about change for the sake of it and not sure what the message is, that's a bit rich.

It's a warmed over list of beliefs that are hard not to agree with. But to cause all the fuss with his 'alternative' manifesto. It's nothing of the sort.

Hence the reason I think it's a rapidly disappearing story thankfully.

One also has to acknowledge the silence of people like Hewitt and Beckett who since being sacked have caused no problems whatsoever for their leader.

That's fortunate...with the outstanding reputation Hewitt has she could be a devastating critic on the NHS.....and Beckett....if she were to speak out on DEFRA or even Caravan Club Tours of the Foreign Office it would rock the Brown Administration to its foundations.......I think it is time for Cameron to invite Hewitt to join the Shadow Cabinet and embarrass Gordon Brown

I fully support Ancram, except: Cameron must go because he has proved to be a bungler and because I don't believe that he would wholeheartedly work to implement Conservative policies.

Stupid old Duffer!!!!!

An excellent and well-timed intervention by Michael Ancram. Superb coverage on World at One, with some thoughtful comments from Portillo. The welcome 'lurch to the right' is now gaining a fantastic head of steam.

What an extraordinary number of foam-flecked anti-Ancram trolls have suddenly emerged from the woodwork. Where were you all when Dave last had his back to the wall? Can you possibly be related?

If I were the editor I'd check the IP numbers of some of the spittle-spraying posts above.

Maybe Traditional Tory/Traditional Troll's IP should be checked? His posting are so over the top I suspect he's Ed Balls

JP,

Indeed, Trad Tory having done a Macavity now lords it up once the argument has seen Anachronism roundly beaten up for being a silly deluded fool.

Trad, you are amoeba in a homo sapien world.

Ancram is right.

Cracking use of English 215cu. Is it actually your first language?

It's great to see that the highest and most civilised standards of debate are being maintained on this thread.

Trad,

Wow... excuse me while crawl almost mortally wounded to I lick my intellectual wounds from such a totemic put down.

Is it that psychologically crushing to read so much venom vented at the self appointed 'Real' Conservatives in this thread to paralyse you into such a predictable put-down?

It must chafe somewhat to see your fogyish, illiberal, inflexible, timid, uncreative, undaring, dull, quiet, hidebound, boringly conventional, catatonic, unprogressive, white bread, obstinate, old guard agenda put to the sword and into its rightful place.

.... in the footnote of history.

Do us all a favour, go join UKIP, I hear they have a vacancy for an MEP.

An ability to add up is a pre-requisite though, so take a calculator with you, just to be sure.

So much for keeping your mouth shut and taking one for the team/party. There is a time and place for everything, especially good constructive debate. Unfortunately, this was not it and Gordon Brown has to be enjoying every moment. Well, may be someday the Conservatives will get it -- obviously not today!

Ancram is timing for the Conference...should be quite a lively fringe

Mike Thomas - Wow... excuse me while crawl almost mortally wounded to I lick my intellectual wounds from such a totemic put down.

Er...excuse me Mike.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the only poster I 'put down' called himself '215cu'.

What was that I said about sock puppets?

One day the talk is that the party has lurched to the right and the next the party is not right enough! This though surely is not helpful and gives the impression again of infighting, not helpful at all.

Traditional Tory, how amusing that Mike Thomas suggested you become a UKIP MP! You must have missed his 13:42 post -- when he came out, as it were. Would you care to do the same?

Have I wandered onto some sort of discussion board for Liberal Democrats? Anyone who could seriously object to Ancram's perfectly unoriginal presentation of Conservative values really must struggle to situate themselves within the larger Conservative tradition.

I realised that I should put my name against my remarks rather than an obscure automotive reference. Clearly I forgot that time, my apologies

Care to do the same Trad?

No, of course, not. Maybe you are yellow, Lib Dem yellow.

It's interesting to see how Ancram has touched a raw nerve. This pamphlet contains nothing particularly new but has provoked a storm of insults, not least from the venerable Mr Dale.

One's tempted to surmise there is some sort of concerted action or putsch going on....

Are we really that desperate?

On tonight's ITN news, their political editor, Tom Bradbury was talking about both parties' direction of travel. Then, talking about Labour's record in office, he said, "Have public services improved? Almost certainly. Has a bit of that money been wasted? Maybe." Emphasis on "a bit" and "maybe". If you, like me find this statement completely unacceptable and biased to the extreme, please, as I have done send an email of complaint to ITN. I thought the BBC were bad.

It took Labour 15 years in Opposition to stamp out this kind of nonsense. They finally did so in 1994 and lo and behold won 3 years later.
People often forget what John Snith did for Labour. People trusted John Smith even if they didn't neccessarily agree with what he said, he did and said what he thought was right and people knew what they would get from him, on the other hand Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock both rather created an element of distrust. A lot of the breaking down of the Major administration went on before 1994, first there was Labour's rather stronger performance than any election since the 1970's, they got a comparable vote to those of the 3 1970s elections and the majority started off low, then there was the takeover of John Smith and he worked frenetically to maximise his use of the MPs Labour had, there may not have been the news management that came later but the parliamentary maneouvering caused huge problems for the government that through the collapse of the ERM and the failure of fiscal and monetary policies rather aided this, John Smith also ended the Block Vote and it is quite possible that Labour lead by John Smith in 1997 would have done better than it did under Tony Blair and that it would have been a much more 2 party election than it was.

The election campaign for the Conservatives in 1997 was a disaster - there should have been good prospects of getting at least 35% of the vote, but the chaos of the campaign with the fragmented vote resulted in the eventual disaster that was still in terms of numbers of those turning out to vote Conservative, better than the past 2 General Elections.

From JP Hackworth: The following words have been used on this thread to describe Michael Ancram:

fossil, relic, dinosaur, fool, idiot, old school duffer, bonkers, has-been, non-entity, arsehole, effete, muppet, buffoon, arse, stupid, bed-blocker

... yes? The point being?

Ancram should lose the whip for what he's done today and pressure put on his exec to deselect him.

When will the party get it? It has to appeal to new voters and not harp on about the past. To appeal to new voters it has to be on the centre ground, winning the battle on public services. The interesting public service proposals announced today were completely overshadowed by pointless navel gazing. And the only person to benefit from this is Gordon Brown.

To appeal to new voters it has to be on the centre ground, winning the battle on public services.

What does that mean ?

Public Services sounds wonderful - just what are they ? The NHS has a Demand Problem which the country cannot afford to meet - it is being overwhelmed by laziness and inertia on the part of a fat, unhealthy, drunk, drugged, and wheezy population which is so bloated on lifestyle illnesses that real illnesses cannot get funding.

We have crappy cancer care because funding is sucked into whatever is media-fashionable - and that doesn't include GUM clinics so teenagers can harvest chlamydia etc unil the end of time.

Public Services are at the end. The doctors don't believe in the NHS any more. They want out. After 30 years of chaos in the NHS people working there are burned out and look to escape. It is unviable.

There is no "battle" on public services - you cannot spend over £1,000,000,000 each week on Education and produce functional illiterates - nor can you spend 9% GDP on the NHS and have such a disastrous system

Brown has played the final card and exposed it by pumping in so much money. His spending Plans are for NHS spending to flatten after 2008 anyway - so it will start to corrode because of its squandering of billions over the past 5 years

These reactionary has-beens are the Arthur Scargills of the Conservative party

Had these comments come from somebody on the candidates' list, they no longer would be.

Come on Dave, show your mettle. Let's have another Howard Flight moment.

I have an aunt in Devizes.

Agree with MrB @ 13.20. We have been closing the gap not because of lurches to left or right but simply because we are out fighting for the British people and talking about some new ideas that fit their concerns, like crime. We were ahead before Brown became PM for similar reasons - we were positive and in the media because the party direction was fresh but we did partcularly well when we were talking about social responsibility in terms of tackling law & order etc. Fighting a campaign is not rocket science its just about a relevant dialogue and a clear proposition,

Matt

No, of course, not. Maybe you are yellow, Lib Dem yellow.

Thankfully, these threads seldom descend into out-and-out obscene abuse, except on the odd occasion when some BNP-ite comes on board.

Which leads me to suspect that the troll calling himself 'Mike Thomas' is probably posting under not two (as he has now admitted) but five or six IDs, all of which are freely using exactly the same gutter language.

Something strangely similar happened a week or two ago. The IDs were different but the foul language was the same, as was the general illiteracy of composition.

Since the result of a genuine Cameroon posting such invective would be to damage his own cause, we must assume that Mr 'Thomas' hails from elsewhere.

Labour? UKIP?

For calling Michael Ancram - who is not here to reply - an 'arsehole' this uncouth yob should be banned.

...along with all his sockpuppets.

We can't believe the invective being thrown around over a simple statement of Conservative beliefs.

How can it be that a man who held up the party during some very difficult times is attacked with so much glee by some 'modernisers'? Ancram's views may not be to everyone's taste, however, after reading the pamphlet they are hardly controversial, indeed I would expect every Conservative to agree with the vast majority of his statements.

It may be that Michael Ancram reminds people of a different, and now lost age, but it does not mean that his core beliefs are not of value today.

Noting his mention of both public service and the lack of shame, it has to be wondered how off centre this is with Cameron's message about a broken society. Without either of these elements we will struggle to reintroduce civility into society.

I agree with the post at 2313 above and with all James Mawdsley said (1044), including that “the contents of Mr Ancram's pamphlet--on freedom, on tax, on sovereignty, on the party's 'soul'--are so excellent that they outweigh any ripples caused by timing.”

Of course the whole pamphlet is well worth reading but I give quotes below to show it can surely be welcomed by all Conservatives:

Choice must be for all and not just for those who can afford it. It must be based on the Conservative principle of equality of opportunity rather than the misguided left wing aim of equality of outturn.

The promotion of aspiration and of merit is a natural concomitant of the freedom of choice. It is a profoundly conservative principle that a healthy society is one in which aspiration is encouraged and merit is recognised.

Where selection by merit is denied it is almost invariably replaced in one form or another by selection by wealth.

Freedom to decide means removing the restrictions that prevent decisions being taken. It means encouraging enterprise. It means through lower taxes leaving people with more of their own money with which to make their own decisions.

Free speech lies at the heart of democracy and where it is damaged, we as Conservatives must repair it. One of the most dangerous enemies of freedom of expression is the current infestation of political correctness.

People should not be asked to act against their conscience any more than they should be penalised for acting in accordance with it.

(On poverty) We need to encourage and promote long term self-help rather than short term subsidy.

Fear of terrorism or crime or motiveless violence erodes freedom. Credible deterrence, prevention and protection must therefore be a prime Conservative aim…the purpose of Law and Order must become once again the protection of the citizen, the champion of the victim and the ruthless pursuer of the criminal. Too often today it seems the other way round.

Where life - which is also a right – is directly threatened, it must always be the paramount responsibility of government to protect and preserve it.

The right to parenthood is not so much about the right to have children …but about the rights of parents to bring up their children without undue interference from the state. We are currently witnessing an erosion of these rights, partly through the ‘dependency culture’, but also …Classes in ‘parenting’, social services meddling and even removing children from their parents, legislators banning smacking; all of these strike at the right of parenthood and are profoundly unconservative. Except where for particular dysfunctional or violent reasons it is absolutely necessary, we should keep the State out of the family home.

Today’s overblown, interfering and insensitive State is inimical to freedom. As
Conservatives we must achieve a smaller State, not just by reducing bureaucracy but by shrinking the ability of the State to intervene in the lives of ordinary people and ordinary businesses.

We must oppose the insidious personal intrusion of ID cards, the security case for which has simply not been made. If by the time we achieve office they have happened, we should abolish them.

Regional assemblies - elected or unelected - must be scrapped, and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy swept away.

The small state must remain a key Conservative objective which fundamentally distinguishes us from other parties.

European integration means the surrender of our sovereignty, while the freedom of the citizen and the safeguarding of civil liberties depend on the preservation of it. …the only Europe compatible with the protection of our sovereignty and the smaller state is a European partnership of sovereign nations….anything more than that should be opposed.

The concept of the good neighbour is found in self-generated motivation to help
others less able to help themselves without the State having to tell us to do so.

The family is the basic building block from which the community grows …The family is essentially about marriage, not only the commitment of a man to a woman and vice versa but also their joint commitment to the challenges of parenthood. … the foundation stone of a stable society; as a source of emotional stability; as a starting place for advice and understanding; and as the first teacher of values and of what is right and wrong. If the current decline of the family is to be halted, incentives to promote and encourage it must be immediate, tangible and substantial.

Stewardship is an old-fashioned conservative value, but it has never been more relevant than today. …No more so than in the environment.

We must be at the forefront of responding to the growing challenges of climate change.

(Also) the rape of our environment is something which as Conservatives we can no
longer afford to ignore. The wanton intention to concrete over yet more green land;

We must retain our freedom of action to pre-empt threats before they become lethal or severely threatening. Pre-emption can of course be military, economic, political or diplomatic. (but this statement: “If we impose sanctions against Iran because of her nuclear ambitions we must do the same against any other putative nuclear proliferators - even if they are our friends.” is rather odd – does he not recognise the difference between a threat posed by a county such as Iran with nuclear weapons and a friendly country with these weapons?)

This thread has been a joy to behold. It's always enjoyable to watch the Tory Party doing what its best at. -- ripping itself apart.

I have no time for the views of Michael Ancram, but I do respect him personally as a pre-Thatcher gentleman of the old school.

He is entitled to express his views without receiving the violent and hysterical abuse he has received above from members of the supposedly liberal faction supporting Cameron.

'Traditional Tory' says these 'yobs' are sock puppets. I doubt it. They are too typical of the Thatcherite/Cameroon far right element to be other than what they appear to be --

Fanatical members of the most appalling movement to disgrace British politics since Mosley formed the Fascist Party.

It's called Thatcherism.

There seem to be two 'handles' on this site, that use the same structure in drafting posts.

They are structured like this, usually:

1. Negative opening statement about the Conservative Party.
2. Statement of broad philosophical disagreement with whoever is publicly disagreeing with the Conservative Party's direction.
3. Defence of the right of the public critic to articulate that person's view (at the expense of the Party's current tactical position and appearance of looking united).
4. Jawdropping clanger of an over-statement.
5. Pithy one-liner that seeks to summarise the poster's unhappiness with whatever the issue/disagreement is.

I will leave you to reflect on which 'handles' they are. Surely they aren't used by the one and the same person...

I can assure anyone that I only post under one name and will identify myself with my christened name. I will stand by what I write.

What I didn't realise is freedom of speech is conditional on agreement of certain individuals.

Also exercising an authoritarian tone calling to people to be banned when alledging they are laissez-faire Thatcherites only betrays their hypocrisy for bastardising what Thatcherism was really about.

If these people only too happy to throw insults around then to object to the caustic language used at them, maybe they might engage grey matter (what's left of it) before putting fingers to keyboard.

Maybe if they don't like the heat, they should get out the kitchen.

As for being a Cameron supporter, absolutely 110%.

As for a believer in the Thatcherite settlement for the ills of that era, completely.

But Thatcherism now? Wrong language, wrong policies and a different electorate.

Modernise or die.

It is that simple.

I don't need to be patronised by an act of disloyalty to tell me what our core values are in some political boilerplate from a hasbeen of a bygone era.

I once had an aunt in Devizes,
With breasts of two different sizes,
One was so small it was no use at all,
With the other she won several prizes.

Sorry I couldn't resist that.

"A membership that voted for Cameron 2 to 1!"

Funny, I thought they voted for a leader promising to withdraw from the EPP. They were had, and it hasn't taken 'em 20 years to realise it!

Michael Ancram, during the MPs leadership ballot, was a prominent Cameron supporter. If you read his pamphlet, there is no vitriolic criticism of Cameron (whom he actually praises in it).

The pamphlet is an erudite statement of Conservative principles and values that Ancram believes should form the framework for the Party's policies.

So why are the Cameroon posters on this site using such extreme and vitriolic language against one of the Party's real gentlemen?

What I didn't realise is freedom of speech is conditional on agreement of certain individuals.

It's conditional on refraining from using filthy language against anybody who disagrees with you.

If you really are a Cameron supporter - which I doubt - you must be extremely stupid if you think this kind of invective advances your cause.

Is this the way you behave at association meetings?

I sat down and read the whole thing last night.Not a single new idea to woo the troops or attract new voters.I still have no idea why he put it out except to get his name in the press and cause the party more problems.

I have mixed feelings about this. Michael Ancram has, on many occasions, made a big good impression on me, and I have been really impressed with his analysis at fringe events at conference etc, which I have made the effort to attend just to hear him.

Now in 05, I would never have voted for him, and now his timing stinks of narrow minded selfish opportunism. I hope I'm wrong, but 'pamphlets' are not a good sign.

his timing stinks of narrow minded selfish opportunism

As Michael Ancram is now 62 years old that does seem a little unlikely, surely?

I do agree that it's interesting that someone who has previously been thought of as vaguely centrist suddenly brings out a 'right wing' pamphlet, but I suppose that simply proves my point that Cameron has tried to move the party too far to the left.

Hello everyone. Funny business, a woman's career: the things you drop on the way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. It's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted.
I am from Bahamas and also am speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Information for family physicians and prescribing information."

:-D Thanks in advance. Golda.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

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:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker