« Tory poster to mark the non-election | Main | David Cameron focuses on Labour incompetence »


Well done DC, you managed to rise above the provocation from Humprey's and speek calmly and rationally on an important subject. Humphrey's never ceased to amaze me in his attempts to twist Conservative policy. He them allowed teh Labour minister to spend all her time attacking DC as well. Time for a clear out me thinks.

I think I agree with the Ed - as in many things, it is a matter of timing I suspect - we've had great bold policies before but we've been so unpopular they were either ignored or ridiculed - we are now in a period when the public is warming to our personality and intentions, so that we have an ever increasing chance of bold policies being taken on by the public, and thus help alter the UK policy dialogue in the right direction - politically, too, some more innovative policy strikes would help cement our improving relationship with the electorate, and linger long in the mind - to win, I feel we must be seen as the new force with the power to change Britain for the better, not just a nice balanced cosy snug-Party

A main tactic of the left/liberals is to try and equate any debate on immigration with racism. This is because the left/liberals believe immigrants will naturally gravitate towards their political parties. However David Cameron has brilliantly put immigration to the top of the political agenda based on a question of logistics. This is something the left/liberals cannot possibly argue against, the statistics bear out David Cameron's argument. We cannot accept large scale immigration without breaking our social infrastructure.

"He is able to talk about issues like immigration in ways that were impossible for Michael Howard."

And the amazing thing is, had he listened to this bloody place, he wouldn't have been able to.

Can you substantiate that in any way, David?

For the first time in my adult life I heard a party leader clearly attempting to deracialise the issue of immigration and to treat it like any other question of political and economic management... And given that Mr Cameron is speaking against a background in which his party's policy inheritance is defined by Howard, Hague, Thatcher and Powell, this seems to me like a turning point in our national debate about immigration

So, according to Phillips Hague, Thatcher, and Howard were all racists, were they? Where does he get off casting such unfounded aspersions?

As far as I can see, DC is saying the same things as Michael Howard, it just seems more moderate because Labour have adopted the language of the BNP (i.e. "British jobs for British workers).

Editor I think you have hit several nails on the head here in a most coherent review if I may say so.

On immigration there are two major problems it seems to me: one is the EU and DC has as yet said nothing at all about the EU that makes practical sense.

The other is perhaps at least as difficult. Parts of the UK are scarcely affected by the recent huge influx of immigrants while others are swamped – an emotive word I know but nonetheless true. Maybe some grass roots debate would be helpful in framing the way this policy debate is developed.

And I agree with the Editor on matching Labour’s spending – that is a turn off with the electorate. What happened to the low tax low spend philosophy? Health policy is a total shambles. There is no coherent policy at all on the EU - nor the armed forces.

Editor - I think David might have been referring more to some of your regular posters, UKIP people etc, although I do think you have been hostile (in effect) to quite a lot of the green agenda, which has been an important part of the "decontamination of the brand" strategy. It's interesting that those right wing anti-Cameron people mostly seem to have gone rather quiet of late...

Regarding Trevor Phillips's remarks, I agree that it is deeply unfair to imply that Thatcher, Hague or Howard were racists but we should resist the temptation to attack him for that as his remarks on Cameron are very helpful. And the fact is that many ethnic minority people did used to wonder, at least, whether their views on immigration were driven by at least an unconscious racism - it is credit to Cameron that he has gained the credibility for this no longer to be believed.

I think what has really happened is that recent immigration has included much higher proportions of white people - and the majority of people still object. So one thing it really shows is that the previous objections which were characterised as racist, because the majority of immigrants happened not to be white, were rather less racist than was supposed. We have also seen a great change in that now there are many second and even third generation young people of south Asian and West Indian immigrant extraction so that, for instance, most people, at least of middle aged or younger, know a fair few of these people personally and can see that their race is not an issue. But uncontrolled immigration is an even bigger concern than ever, and quite a few of our non-white Britishers are just as concerned as everybody else.

The 'Today' Interview with DC demonstrated bias clearly. Did I hear correctly when Mr Humphrey's expressed his personal opinion in the combative exchange? If I am correct I hope that Conservative Home will take up the matter with the BBC in no uncertain terms. If my assertion is confirmed by other contributors I will also take up the matter direct with the BBC. I hope that others will do likewise!

"He is able to talk about issues like immigration in ways that were impossible for Michael Howard."

Because Mr Howard, son of Jewish Romanian Refugees, had no credibility on the subject?

I think it has more to doing with the fact that most immigrants are now white (what's more many have the cheek to be conservative catholics) which makes them less untouchable.

It also helps that Mathilda Blair told such dreadful lies, about how many immigrants we could expect.

There is always danger in getting close to people like Trevor Phillips. If we boost him today because he's boosted us, this former Labour man only has more cfredibility if he disowns us closer to an election.

We should spend every day between now and Election 2009 ramming home our main messages on stamp duty and inheritance tax.
I am not sure if boldness is required- its more a case of our top team following Dave's example and gaining in stature and gravitas. George Osborne has also made a good start in that respect.

Brown is turning out to be the unelectable dud we all suspected, now its just a case of being patient, and encouraging Ed Balls and the Millibands to appear on TV even more.

Labour has some seriously unappealing people now in its top team, all with zero empathy for the normal voter. As well as the above, please can we see more of Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harperson and little Duggie Alexander.

His sister will make a mess of it for the same reasons in Scotland- I heard a BBC reporter describe her public manner as the oddest he had ever seen in a politician.

Bruges ,you forgot Hoon & Browne. Watching those two on TV would have a dramatically downward effect on viewing figures.

I am of Asian origin. I have had the immense privilege of having shared a table during breakfast with the late Enoch Powell. We ended up chatting to each other for nearly 3 hours until the restaurant manager politely reminded us that they had to set the tables for lunch. He was a true gentleman and as with any intellectuals, had the awkward way of getting his message across.

Powell was in no way a racist but a realist and much maligned by the liberal lefties and misunderstood by most people - he was used as the bogeyman by the Labour Party to frighten the ethnic minorities against voting Conservative.

As for Michael Howard (son of one Mr Hecht) how anyone can regard him a racist I do not know.

It is the BBC which is ageist, racist, anti countryside and wants the country run by the EU bureaucracy.

How ironic is it that Brown's conference speech is not classed by the BBC as racist?

Bit of a volte-face for Phillips.
What's he after?

It was people like Phillips who made it impossible to discuss immigration without being labelled a fascist or racialist or slaver. It was his ilk who foisted the concept of multiculturism on the country.

So any apology for his previous?, that has put the UK into the crazy situation that it is in now. Whilst one applauds the pragmatism of Phillips, one is left with a rather bitter bile in the mouth.

As for Cameron he needs to keep this up.

No more immigration, no more pandering to those already in the country. There must be an insistence that incomers adopt, adapt and assimilate, failure to do so, after any any length of time must result in a swift exit..even if they have a UK passport given to them years ago. Incomers must park their cultural baggage at the point of departure for the UK, we can no longer allow cultural/religious schism to exist.

Yogi, I agree with you fully about Enoch Powell. The very fact that people still talk about Enoch today is testament to his stature as a politician. Rather like David Cameron today, Enoch had the courage to discuss subjects that other people would rather have swept under the carpet. Those who argue that being watchful over immigration are being ridiculous. Most of those immigrants coming into Britain today are white. This is a question of mathematics and not racial discrimination.

Regarding the myths that surround Enoch Powell, "Like The Roman" by Simon Heffer should be mandatory reading for the likes of Trevor Phillips and those on the Left.
Perhaps once they had read it they would end their trite name calling, and cease playing the race card about such a great man.


Those who argue that being watchful over immigration are being ridiculous. Most of those immigrants coming into Britain today are white.

Should read:

Those who argue that being watchful over immigration is a racist thing are being ridiculous. Most of those immigrants coming into Britain today are white. This is a question of mathematics and not racial

'He attacked the Prime Minister's "British jobs for British workers" slogan - noting that it was illegal.'

Yes. Agreed. What I find quite disquieting is Brown building upon a theme for, purely, cynical reasons.

He is emphasising Britishness and having a national conversation with himself about British values. Naturally, he needs to do this to woo the English vote and to counter the SNP with rampant unionism but I find spooning 'immigration' into the mix and talking about an indigenous population to be a dangerous step into some unpleasant territory.

Is he exploiting, deliberately appealing to, the fear of the 'other'? It is 'them' that cause the problems. It is 'us' that lose out.

Englandism @ 13.31 - I think the answer to your question is 'yes'! Most people seem to agree that Gordon Brown has an obssessive character. He is a Scot, he has been and is fairly obssessed with being Prime Minister, and he is much, much more obssessed with remaining PM after the next general election.

He is also an obssessive 'political animal', so that he sees EVERYTHING no matter what, in terms of its value in securing labour votes!

It worries me when Trevor Phillips agrees with us, I believe he just jumps on any bandwagon when it suits him, its normally the bandwagon ahead of the others.

"Will Conservatives really repatriate powers from Europe? Will we renew our armed forces? I repeat: Over time the Cameron leadership may offer convincing responses to Britain's challenges but I don't think they have done enough yet."

Editor: a very thoughtful piece; the last paragraph, as above, appearing to be somewhat concerned, as are some of us, as to the depth of Cameron's conviction and belief in the statements that he has recently made. We hope that those views are sincerely held and for those that think Cameron should now be above and beyond criticism they should pay attention as to how Cameron as arrived at his latest favourable ratings in the polls. It was because of criticism of his approach and Labour ineptitude.

This latest turn in the fortunes has been achieved because Cameron has done a U turn and gone back on his previous pronouncements; he is now, however you may wish to describe it, banging on about immigration, the EU referendum and tax. His fortunes have accelerated not because of being perceived greener than Labour or because of his support for adoption being allowed for those in a civil partnership nor any other Left wing policy. Just before the Conservative conference he stared into his own personal abyss and decided to back off as being seen as a leftie, thus saving his political career – much to our relief.

We wish him well and hope to be able to vote Conservative at the next GE, but that is up to Cameron. I have my doubts about the sudden conversion. He will have to outline how intends to have powers repatriated from Brussels; any backsliding or double-dealing will be met by an avalanche of criticism – Brown or no Brown. Some of us are determined that we will not again be misled by politicians as we were by Heath – a Conservative (allegedly).

So the critics of Cameron have “gone quiet” have they? Let us hope we have reason to be so.

Because Mr Howard, son of Jewish Romanian Refugees, had no credibility on the subject?
It was nothing to do with who he was the son of, but rather that the immigration policy he came out with was poorly thought out and was quickly torn to shreds rightly by people from all sides of the argument because he set a fixed figure and then pledged to allow people in if they met Asylum criteria - when it was pointed out that as they were covered by the cap this could well result in the limit being exceeded he argued that they could be carried on to the next years figures, which was effectively an argument for fiddling the figures, what would happen if the following year the previous years Asylum Seekers carried the figure over the limit? If the limit had been reached and there was a need for people with a particular set of skills who despite trying employers had been unable to find! In the end the Conservative immigration policy in 2005 left no one knowing what it would actually mean in practice.

"It was nothing to do with who he was the son of, but rather that the immigration policy he came out with was poorly thought out "

As opposed to all the other policies which were, right?

Watching the campaign, so far as I was concerned, the problem was obvious: Labour was concentrating on branding us as "extremists" and using an allegedly racist and intolerant immigration policy to make their case, enthusiastically supported by their friends in the (especially broadcast) media. This succeeded spectacularly because of the stupidity and incompetence of the senior levels of the party, a stupidity and incompetence which I don't believe has gone away with the change of personnel, and which ironically is exacerbated by them actually not believing in anything at all, and hence being hopelessly ill-equipped to understand or cope with the fierce and uncompromising ideological hatred which they're up against.

Rather conveniently, Cameron's policy is aimed primarily at keep Commonwealth (and primarily non-white) immigrants out, while allowing EU, (primarily white) immigrants in. How measured, how statesmanlike, or perhaps, how convenient.

If anyone believes this nonsense about Powell not being racist, perhaps they can explain why we was kicked out of the Tory cabinet for his racist views?

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker