« CCHQ lose two star employees | Main | Democrat or Republican? »


Strange that despite there being absolutely no obvious work being done by most of this lot, their ratings are increasing.

Could not these increases be put down to the general mess that Labour is in? I dont recall many of this lot actually coming out and dealing blows in their respective areas in the past month.

Sayeeda Warsi should have much better ratings. She did an excellent job in Sudan. I have just returned from a trip to the refugee camps in Darfur and met with the President of Sudan afterwards. Not an easy man to do business with! Sayeeda did very well and I hope to see her ratings rise!

Despite my grievances regarding her appointment, she did well despite the media blackout on her name during Teddygate. Her ratings should increase on the back of her trip.

Keep up the good work Mr Kawczynski.

What a joy to be a member of our modern, progressive Conservative Party, where tractor production is up 75 per cent yet again this year, we compete with each other to express our boundless love and gratitude to Our Leader, all children are well above average, etc, etc ....

I thought Sayeeda Warsi might have scored better after the Sudan success. Maybe that will show next month.

In my opinion, the most impressive Tory politician over the last month has been Michael Fallon.

People voted on Sayeeda Warsi (and everyone else) largely before the Teddy affair.

I agree that Sayeeda Warsi did a great job in getting Gillian Gibbons released. Something that is sure to improve her position in next months chart. Michael Gove is very good at handling the media and putting the Conservative case. Liam Fox has been great at pushing defense funding up to the top of the political agenda.

There are those who agree with Rod Liddle in the Speccie on the issue of the teddy bear teacher, who would probably not give a better rating to Lady Warsi off the back of this Sudanese incident.

I personally object to the regarding of peerages as merely appointments to be dished out whenever one feels like widening the ethnic diversity of the parliamentary party - she may not be responsible for that, but it probably makes some more grudging in their rating of her.

Good to see a well-deserved placing for David Mundell

Osborne's recovery remains the most notable feature.

Spelman has reversed her decline I see.

Gove's high rating is very deserved.

Tomorrow's hope Hunt has disappointed in comparison with Tomorrow's hope Herbert.

Chris Grayling's high status reflects our desire for an attack dog.

No woman in the top ten. Disappointing.

The rating for Baroness Warsi simply proves that the Tory members are still anti-Muslim and anti-woman. The fact that she has taken a strong stand on moral issues, such as against homosexuality, is conveniently forgotten. The Tories are never going to win the votes of Muslims, and other Asians, in general elections unless their grassroots stop discriminating against Muslim women in this way.

Whilst I applaud the fact that there are Asian men who are Tory councillors, how many Asian women are there? Does that say something?

You sound like Ken Livingstone Farooq. Any time a non-white is criticised the motivation must be racist. Sayeeda Warsi is not respected because she wasn't a great candidate. The fact is that she is only in the Lords because she is a woman and a Muslim. If merit was the lead consideration do you really think she would be there?

The fact that she has taken a strong stand on moral issues, such as against homosexuality, is conveniently forgotten.
Excuse me Farooq, but what on earth do you mean by that?

It's precisely because of her controversial views that nobody likes her. She's a token Muslim put in the shadow cabinet to try and court the Asian vote, nothing more. She doesn't deserve her place there.

Critics of Sayeeda Warsi should consider that she paid a pivotal role in the early resolution of the Sudan issue and in doing so helped embarrass Miliband by showing how ineffectual the Foreign Office is under his leadership (if that's the word for it). DC is quite right to be proud of her efforts.

in doing so helped embarrass Miliband by showing how ineffectual the Foreign Office is under his leadership

She did nothing of the kind. It does the Conservatives no credit to try and score party points on an issue like this. (To be fair, the leadership doesn't seem to be doing so - but that's obviously not reflected on this board.)

First of all, it was a joint mission with Lord Ahmed - I've seen nothing from either of them this week which tries to downplay the role played by the other, they achieved their success by working together.

Secondly, given the nature of the regime we were dealing with, it seems to me that Miliband took the only line he could - critical of the situation, but supporting the "unofficial" approach as that was always most likely to succeed. I'm sure William Hague, or Douglas Hurd, would have played it exactly the same way.

Bruce, you appear to be unaware that Lord Ahmed is saying that the Foreign Office "told him not to go" and then he and Sayeeda got on with it whilst "awaiting a reply" from Miliband. That's not my idea of support!

Miliband was hopeless during the Sudan crisis and apologism for his performance simply won't wash. Sayeeda did very well and all Tories should be pleased that she played a strong role in the release of Gillian Gibbons.

Where is Grant Shapps? Been all over the TV and newspapers (and Con Home!) yesterday.

I know that this survey only covers til end November but he must have been around before this. He is Shadow Housing Minister after all.

Miliband was absolutely right - he was well aware that the approach from Ahmed and Warsi would be far more likely to succeed if it was in a private capacity. If the British government had publicly backed it and made it official it would have severely reduced the chances of success. Stupid, yes - but diplomacy is a complex business, especially with unstable regimes.

What else would you have had him do? What else would any other foreign secretary have done differently that would have ensured a better outcome?

I have just been listening to a local BBC radio news bulletin praising the efforts of "The noble lord" for securing the release of the teacher AGAINST the advice of the Foreign Office!
There was no mention whatsoever of Baroness Warsi, who was probably even MORE instrumental than he was. He is Labour, and, therefore, inevitably "tainted" by being "part" of our Government, while she is clearly not. Also, as a woman, she was better able to extend the face saving olive branch to allow the Sudanese president to be "magnanimous" and to show clemency. From this recent BBC news report, you could quite reasonably not even realise that Baroness Warsi was actually there at all! Contrast that with other sources. The press office of President al-Bashir announced that he had pardoned Mrs. Gibbons following his meeting with Baroness Warsi and Lord Ahmed, and that she had been "released after their mediation".
Even on Facebook the remarks of the Labour MP, Ms Ellman, are faithfully reported without any mention of Baroness Warsi again. I have expressed my dismay at the blatant bias, but the site has since been hijacked.
How does this bankrupt government still manage to manipulate the media, particularly the BBC, to help them to go on spinning reporting to suit their tarnished image, at the expense of the presentation of a fair balance?
Could it be that vast amounts of PUBLIC money are being spent on blatantly pro Labour PR, thinly disguised as press releases merely providing “information” about government activity (national or local wherever Labour or Lib Dem controlled) at every conceivable opportunity?
Iain Dale has already drawn attention to the red tape generating tendencies from all these extra publicly funded “jobs” that have been created by grim reaper Gordon over the last decade. However, a far more insidious danger to the perceptions of the electorate, is coming from the army of publicists who have such a vested interest in the continuation of a tax and spend administration, which provides them with their actual living. These word spinners, under their many different official “authoritative” guises, will work tirelessly to prevent us from taking office, when we so regularly threaten their very existence.
We should ensure that we really emphasise that although we have pledged to maintain the current levels of government spending, we are undoubtedly going to insist on better value for money, in order that we will be in a stronger position to provide the EXTRA spending necessary (and to be welcomed) on Defence and Law and Order etc. which we have been accused of not funding!
I hope we can get away from the grudging jealousy of Sayeeda Warsi for receiving the peerage that many of the rest of us privately covet!
Constant carping that never fails to refer to her colour or religion are providing fertile ground for the mischievous troublemakers who portray Conservatives as anti Muslim, misogynistic racists. It is not helpful to provide ammunition to those who do not wish us well, and also alienate significant groups in the process.
The comment above from Farooq Iqbal @ 12.32 is an obvious consequence.
I trust that Sayeeda Warsi's contributions to our common purpose will be more fairly reflected on next month’s league table and that her rating will justifiably improve.
Hopefully she will eventually be seen to be living up to the faith put in her by demonstrating that she deserves her position on her own merits, and then we can see Sayeeda Warsi's name mentioned in future without constant reference to her ethnicity.
Our great party rightly stands for treating people fairly, regardless of race, colour, creed, age, sexuality or anything else.

What a load of guff from Farooq @12.32. Farooq, a political argument is not a sequence of non sequiturs, ending up with "therefore my political enemies are racist", delivered, no doubt, with a self-satisfied smile on your face. Just as well you're so sure of your arguments, else you might have noticed how ludicrous it is to play balkanising politics on behalf of Muslim women, whilst not noticing the irony (Muslim women get a lot of political support in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, don't they?) or that your leftish sectarianism extends only as far as the group you wish to lobby for (you're clearly unpleasantly antigay - that's fine, who cares? Just don't employ balkanised politics of subgroup positive discrimination, since what's sauce for the goose ... ).

Anyway, as I say, while you're mixing with the sort of idiot who loves Ken Livingstone, that's fine. In more thoughtful circles, it's best to try to advance an argument which can at least be supported by the empirical evidence (though obviously not proven by it).

Regarding Farooq Iqbal's comments on Sayeeda Warsi and homosexuality - in one breath you criticise the Tories for being "anti-women" and expect us to love her because she has a "strong" stance on homosexuality. The truth is that she is not being judged on any one issue - her stance on homosexuality, her gender, her racial extraction, her views on climate change or her views on museum charging or any other one thing - she has simply not convinced enough people that she is a good shadow minister.

If the Tories were "anti-women", why would other women in the shadow cabinet have decent ratings?

Personally, I am strongly opposed to the homosexual lobby, but I won't support someone on their anti-homosexual credentials alone.

I think the real issue with her is that people think she was given a life peerage and a shadow ministerial appointment as a token gesture.

Most Tories are not interested in any of the left-wing "d!scr!m!nat!on" lobby groups. They are more likely to judge a candidate based on their views on taxation, grammar schools, defence spending, or something of that ilk. And I haven't heard her say anything on any of those issues, though no doubt she has spoken about them.

But if she was a first rate candidate, why did she need to be foisted into the Lords rather than elected more usefully to the Commons?

Oddball: Grant Shapps isn't included because, like David Lidington and perhaps Dominic Grieve, they attend shadow cabinet but aren't full members. There may be a case for rating some of the non-shadow cabinet ministers at some point, however...

From last week's Spectator:

"Last week, I went to a debate between Ed Husain, author of The Islamist, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the apostate whom Islamists are always trying to kill. Both are unequivocal supporters of freedom of thought, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes that Islam cannot be reconciled with life in a free, modern society, and should therefore be abandoned. Husain argues that there are long, robust traditions of moderation, tolerance and adaptation in Islamic history. These have been suppressed in modern times by Wahabism etc., and by more recent extremist political movements like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, of which he was once a member. Both were impressive, and it struck me that this was just the sort of debate which Muslims in the West need. But it hardly ever happens. There are very few Muslim leaders who would debate with an apostate; some would not debate with a woman. Most of the main Muslim organisations wish to marginalise Husain and do far worse to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It is depressing to note that Sayeeda Warsi, a Conservative front-bench spokesman on these matters, recently made a speech in the House of Lords in which she criticised the government for speaking to Husain. She quoted, with approval, the hard-left Guardian writer Seumas Milne, who says that people like Husain are ‘off the map of Muslim opinion’. Perhaps Milne is right: all the more reason to try to change that map."

Seriously, what a load of tripe is written about this!

Should we really be having monthly Shadow Cabinet polling, I mean is this not taking Political Trainspotting to the limit.

Get your Anoraks and Gloves-on-a-String here....

Ps - I think Sayeeda Warsi is a great voice and face for our party, full stop.

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