« The importance of George Osborne | Main | YouGov: Tories 9% ahead »


... does David Cameron really think?

Probably more widely than you do Richard North.

The most positive comments seemed to be coming from the more seasoned politicians. Polly Toynbee sounded as if she felt she had been 'played' by David Cameron. Interesting points from the editor.

I never thought I would agree with both Norman Lamont (highly likely) and Polly Toynbee (highly unlikely) on the same issue.

What a shame that Nick Robinson has to try to explain to the nation what Cameron thinks. I'm afraid that says it all.

That programme didn't really go anywhere.

One thing that I think was missed by certain of the commentators who made blithe predictions about what Cameron would "actually do" when he came into office is the nature of today's Conservative Party. It's going to be of limited interest whether Cameron wants to create a "non-ideological Conservatism". Whether he wants to or not, he's not going to get to do so.

For today's Conservative Party continues to be deeply ideological, utterly (and rightly) convinced that it has been vindicated by events and by the policy failings of New Labour. The most obvious example is probably that whether Cameron wants to or not, he isn't going to be able to avoid engaging seriously with significant renegotiation of our relationship with Europe. Finkelstein is talking to the air.

In the case of New Labour, the Blairites were convinced that Old Labour was actually wrong - it wasn't just rhetoric, whatever we said at the time. And many mainstream Labour supporters agreed. They *wanted* Blairism. There just isn't a market for a centrist "Cameroonism" that avoided engaging with welfare reform, Europe, public services reform, public expenditure control and the like. And I don't believe for one moment that that is what Cameron believes in himself. Cameron is, at heart, one of us.

What was the point of having the disgruntled health workers on? Just pure negativity. Yet again the same old inverted snobbery about the Bullingdon Club. Does Nick Robinson actually think people are bothered about this, in fact most young men would have loved to have been in a club like that, so its hardly going to offend anyone. The question of Europe as Andrew Lilico says is unavoidable, when it comes to Europe we always get the short end of the stick, yet that hasn't been so obvious to Joe Public because the Labour government has been so subservient to the EU. I expect David Cameron will be less compliant.

I entirely agree with Andrew Lilico but Andrew how do you know Cameron is one of us - that is the point. There is nothing I can see in his past or present which would lead me to think that.

Describes political opponents UKIP supporters (many of them ex and true blue Conservatives like me) as fruitcakes and closet racists. Has refused to withdraw this insult, which was backed up by his sister in law Alice Sheffield, who works part time in his office, using a statement from Operation Black Vote. Shows what a nasty minded person he is. A future prime minister? Oh dear.

And why Mr. Robinson should David Cameron 'lay out his thoughts, or plans for your perusal and 'delicate' criticism'? Would YOU lay out any hopes or plans for yourself in front of someone like YOU??? Or indeed the BBC?

Your article followed the usual pattern, no doubt the excuse being that the whole picture needs to be given about anyone, to be able to 'create a balance'. Fine! Tell me this, when do you ever mention the areas in Mr. Brown's past that either are at distinct odds with his Marxist beliefs, or involve him advising other young people to 'benefit' themselves just about within the law?

When Mr. Cameron becomes Prime Minister - probably despite your tactics - will your first comment be 'Eton/PR man becomes Prime Minister' ??

People like you talk about how 'class' damages our society. Well perhaps if the lot of you - you included - managed to refrain from endlessly drawing attention to 'class differences' - as if this is the only country in the world that has classified differences between people (why not analyse that phrase instead?), then maybe it would be easier to ensure some sort of equilibriium! Of course Marxists always like to spin the idea of total equality, perhaps you, Mr. Robinson could tell me of any country in the world that has, or has ever had total equality of its people, I would be very pleased to be proved wrong!!!

Patsy Sergeant, it shows just how pathetic Labour are when their main 'strategy' is to paint David Cameron as a 'toff', is that their best retort? It was equally sickening to hear Hazel Blears abusing Boris in a similar fashion at the Labour conference. As you correctly say the Marxist roots of these senior Labour politicians and media commentators runs deep. I'm sick of all these class distinctions, its as bad as racism. If someone went to Eton then good luck to them, it shouldn't be a cause for petty envy and definitely not a political issue. Class hate has no place in our society.

I have always wondered WHY,

-being born in this country
-having past generations of your family born in this, your country,
-being successful in your country
-paying taxes for generations in your country
-fighting [and in the case of many upper class English young men], dying for your country in our many wars.

should bar your offspring from to holding high office....in your country.

Overall, I think he came out well.
The classic moment had to be Derek Conway saying he can be strong/ruthless when he needs to be.

I think if you were well disposed toward him, you will find support in the programme for thatposition, if you were not, you will find support for that aswell

Lindsey Jenkins, I think you fit it to that catergory. You did not have to look beyond the programme to know he is a Tory.
But all Tories are not the same.
If they were ConservativeHome would not be the interesting place it is, full of passion and discussion..... what did Nick say.... the hugely influencial etc.....Tim will remember.
It would be LabourHome.

The programme was called 'What does David Cameron really think?' but it was really biographical. 'Who is David Cameron?' would have been a better title.

I agree that it wasn't a very insightful programme but there were a number of comments from people who have known him for a long period which showed him in a mostly positive light. For instance, his instincts and background are totally Conservative, but he has been shaped by a liberal wife and a son who is dependant on the NHS. That actually provides comfort for "both sides".

In the end how much he changes things in the way most of us on this site would like depends on his political courage - as yet not fully tested but, bearing in mind the events of last September, looking promising.

"Overall, I think he came out well."

Northernhousewife, yes, its practically impossible for people to dislike David Cameron as a person, a bit like John McCain he has a affable quality which disarms his critics. I ask most people that I come into contact with what they think of David Cameron, most say 'But how will he be different from Labour?" or words to that effect. Its clear that people are looking for change, so its very important that David Cameron is identified with clear polices rather than being seen as just a nice guy. Of course we know he has those polices, but often it feels like the message isn't getting across to the wider public and more importantly is sticking in the public mind. The party needs a greater media presence, in the time leading up to Labour's landslide, Tony Blair was all over the news, yet we are still only seeing David Cameron in bursts of publicity which are followed by too low a profile. The polls show that increased media exposure increases his popularity, but currently such coverage is nowhere near widespread enough.

I will have to hold my nose if I vote for the chocolate orange inspector. The only thing that might be said about a Cameron lead government is that it would have to try hard to be worse than Labour. But then you never know. The parliamentary party got rid of Maggie, so I guess things could get worse.

Tony Blair/Labour's landslide is a 'myth'.
We look back on singing crowds and a massive majority and delude ourselves.
Blair got a smaller popular vote than Major [not much singing there].
There are many ways of winning.
Each election teaches new lessons, brings forth new ideas of campaigning, which rightly or wrongly will be applied to the next.
'Messages' or 'Messiahs' do not have the currency they did pre-Blair.
So much of politics has become about manangement.
Do I trust this man with my money? My streets?
Today, this is as much about the man than the policy.
I understand the impatience : I am an activist. But the FIRST thing I come across is reaction to the leader as a man. We are watching a leader grow before our eyes. For far he has been the best thing that has happened to us for some time. Most who now urge him to change course do not possess an infaliable golden touch. Many would have picked a different leader and have now seen they were wrong. They could be again.
Be patient a while longer.

Tony Makara @ 12.18 - Yes, it is the class distinctions that people like Hazel Blears and her colleagues foster, probably because they fear that in a more equal society, they would have to work an awful lot harder to justify their existence!! BUT in addition to this, is the awful lying that these cynical politicians exhibit! They accuse their opponents (opposition politicians) of living like 'toffs' or indulging in privileges, without specifying what they mean by it (except of course the endless reference to Eton, and other good public schools), and ALSO and MUCH MORE important, they leave out the extremely revealing fact that a good number of their own number (labour politicians- very much including Ministers), have been to posh public schools, and indeed, still, send their off-spring to public schools.

Indeed a large number of labourites if any research was done would be found to live a fairly self-indulgent middle class life, while preaching equality for all (bring down those nasty middle class people etc:).

It is not that labour politicians should live with the people that they profess to identify with-for ideological purposes, but if on the other hand they live just like those 'nasty middle class people', and at the same time condemn them and seek to demolish them in some way, then they are living a lie, and dogma built on LIES even Marxist is corrupt!!

A friend commented that it should have been called 'What does Nick Robinson really think?' - the programme went nowhere (as Lilico rightly says) and Robinson seemed to want to hedge his bets. The fact is Cameron has confounded his critics who have nothing more substantial on him than 'Bullingdon boy' and being in the shadows during Black Wednesday. Cameron is extremely hard to dislike - and those that do tend to put themselves in a bad light - like Simon Heffer. Cameron is proving a far more formidable foe than Labour ever dreamt. I still remember the look on Ed Balls face after DCs speech to conference. He was all geared up to trash it - but couldn't. That sums up a very important Cameron trait. The programme managed to convey the general anxiety of the anti Conservative establishment that this time the Tories may have struck gold. There's still a long way to go - but that is a very good start.

Patsy Sergeant,

Eminent new Labour people are typical of George Walden's anti-elitist elite. They are actually a good deal more socially exclusive than the aristocracy, but affect not to be - by pretending an interest in things like football and pop music, and condemning fox hunting.

So this particular elite will happily condemn Cameron for being a toff, although I really don't think such attacks resonate anymore (and many of the English like toffs in any case.)

Jennifer Wells @ 13.32 - I think the mis---leading title (leading the reader on to partake of the body of the article/programme), was a DELIBERATE misdirection, in order to bring in the 'punters', who would be hoping to read something new, when in effect the programme/article was going to be just the usual accusations and carefully arranged character assignation.

And Nick Robinson wonders why David Cameron, isn't too interested in being more open about his thoughts and ideas.

The hypocrisy from Labour figures on public schools is shocking. Still, the contradictions coming from Labour shouldn't really surprise anyone anymore. This is the party that claims to be the champion of the poor yet has been responsible for a rise in poverty during the ten years under its governance. This is the party that wants to increase homelessness and social breakdown by kicking the unemployed out of their council homes. This is the party that has run down education to the point that children are leaving primary school unable to read, yet they feel justified in criticizing parents who want to pay to ensure that their children get a decent education. Has there ever been a more duplicitous government?

I have to say my experience of Etonians is mixed, but then I don't have a brief to defend them or anyone else privileged. If you can afford to send your kids to a private school, good luck to you. It's just a shame it is so expensive. Of course if the Tories had the balls to reform state education with vouchers and perhaps more grammar schools their policy might have more traction.

I didn't hear the R4 documentary, but couple of quick reactions to what is reported here:

David Cameron constantly complained about thirty years of ingrained liberalism in the Home Office. Let’s hope he has plans to do something about it!

Nick Boles says that Samantha Cameron was decisive in explaining the importance of change to her husband, particularly on an issue like Section 28. . This is not so good. I hope Mr Cameron realises that promoting homosexuality to schoolchildren and teaching that homosexual acts are equally valid to heterosexual marriage etc is not only not in the best interests of children, but also seems contradictory to his policy of supporting marriage on the basis that children generally have a better chance if brought up by married mum & dad.

But overall quite encouraging, particularly DC is instinctively a small government conservative.

he probably thinks that a fellow Old Etonian such as Colin Merton who died tis week is a fruitcake ,loony and closet racist;

see Telegraph obituaries,


It was interesting enough. What I do not understand however is why they had to include that paramedic in the program.

What do we really know about someone before they become Prime Minister. What did we really know of Blair? or even of Margaret Thatcher?.People often get elected for as much as what they're not as what they are. For that reason Conway's comments were the most interesting for me, I want a PM who is tough and brave when he/she needs to be.
Superb post at 13.18 Northern Housewife.And Sean,I agree with you Bullingdon/toffs only seem to resonate with the worst kind of socialist and a type of chippy Tory.Labour will have to think of something else if they really want to hurt Cameron.

Totally agree with you Malcolm.
Weren't the crowds outside No10 carefully stage managed and mainly Labour activists when Blair arrived after the 97' victory?

Not sure whether to laugh or laugh a bit more at the selectiveness of all this.

What does dave really think? er..no. What does gary think, Dave is really thinking..er, yes.

Dave is feeling the temperature in silly land regarding the suicidal tory positioning over the European Union.

Ok so Con home has a good editor, but is he a sgood as the BBC news/politics editor?

Ok, Dave, a question from me. What are you actually saying about Europe.
I clock it as only a few days away before Conservatives go into meltdown over the blessing of the treaty.

That means the Bill Cash 'peoples front' will come out of the graveyard and try to take a few hostages. A few blue bloods within earshot will start taking prisoners and conservative conference will be compulsive viewing.

What's it to be, Dave, a walkabout with no autocue and a few halcyon memories about tory grandness or straight talking surrender?

Remember, Dave, there has only been one person who has been telling you thr truth for ages now. Me, not Willie.

So here's my advice: Surrender. Bite the bullet. Embrace Europe. Work with it and not against it.Some will leave, most won't. UKIP (dads army)won't figure. Remember the days when fun could ruin nutters.

Follow this advice and you save your party.
If you don't, I will be just as happy as I am now.


David Cameron constantly complained about thirty years of ingrained liberalism in the Home Office. Let’s hope he has plans to do something about it!
One of the things in which past Home Secretaries have talked tough and then done little - David Waddington wanted to do something about the Home Office but said himself that he took advice on how to handle situations, in effect being railroaded by the Civil Service, his successors achieved little either both Conservative and Labour - the Civil Service scuttles about keeping things running, but many past ministers of all parties have commented after on how they regretted not following their own principles more and that they instead let civil servants largely dictate things.

When Michael Gove popped up to tell us that David Cameron had been sceptical about the Iraq War and was unlikely to take Britain into any future conflict, I nearly spat out my tea. Even Leo Strauss thought that the lies should at least be believable by the common herd (although he also assumed that the elite would know what was and what wasn't, as Iraq proved spectacularly was not the case).

Another contributor also suggested that Cameron appealed to people who shopped at Waitrose, who could identify with him. Has Cameron ever even set eyes on a branch of Waitrose? And has he ever been shopping (in the ordinary sense of the term - I don't mean an appointment in Savile Row or a potter around Fortnum & Mason) in his life? I strongly suspect not, in either case.

Will he find out Why Blairs Academy Schools have links to the Tavistock Institute and the CIA, Military Industrial Complex, What are they trying to raise in our Schools.


Ark Schools. Arpad Busson, chairman of ARK, was associated with Giovanni Agnelli (head of Fiat, one of the 'inner circle' of Bilderberg), and Kissinger. Ark Schools has modified its website, in 4/9/07 'no religious affiliation', January 2008 Burlington Danes Academy, an Ark school, 'A Church of England School'. Interesting to note that 'human re-engineering', 'behavioural change' and ownership of 'perception' as mentioned on the EIM Consult website, is exactly what is going on in academy schools. Interesting to also note that the company 3es (www.3es.com) is earmarked to control 9 schools. This is a subsidiary of Faber Maunsell, which is a subsidiary of Aecom, military and subcontracts to the pentagon.
Into whose hands are we placing our children? We have no idea


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