« Our case for 42 days | Main | The political civil servants problem »

Comments

Brown is better today.

Cameron a bit over-dramatic, I feel.

Oh oh!

Tim might be in trouble with Dave!

You're mentioned, Tim!

Well done, Tim. You got quoted at PMQs today.

By Gordon Brown.

Oh well done Con Home. And yes, I am being sarcastic.

Hmmm... perhaps your comments were a tad counter-productive, editor.

Quoted by Gordon Brown. Brilliant Tim! Thats really representing the voice of the Conservative grass roots

Best PMQs in a while

Next time Tim you think about representing "us" please poll "us" first and ensure we approve of the line.

Brown has used you to attack us.

Some above need to get real. This site's success is down to its independence. If this site never disagreed with the Tory leadership, who would read it? Just go to Conservatives.com

You could n't make it up really. I hope you feel suitably embarrassed Tim.

*SLOOOOOOOOW HANDCLAP*

WELL... DONE... TIM.

I am quite furious with your behaviour today.

Absolutely stupid - quite frankly.

I hope you're pleased with yourself (and please don't give me any moral high-ground "putting country before party" cr@p)

Editor, what does it feel like to have joined Brown's big tent? This is just like last summer.

How immature of Brown suggesting Cameron wants to leave Afhganistan and is weak on terrorism. Media isn't going to like that.

HF - There was no claim that the editorial represented the view of members, quite the opposite. Not much we can do about a cheap shot like that.

I don't agree with the Editor's view but agree with Peter. Ultimately this is Tim's private website and he can say or do what he wants. I'm sure we could look through Labour blogs and quote someone who disagrees with Gordon Brown's line, but quite frankly I don't think David Cameron would be so petty and pathetic.

Brown certainly got the better of Cameron today on 42 days.

The morons on here taking a pop at Tim need to take a good look at themselves.

It is precisely this site's independence of thought is what makes it so vibrant and respected.

You have nothing to feel bad about, Tim.

Bah, a bloody own goal. And a ruddy wide open one at that. THINK BEFORE YOU POST in future.

Count me as a moron.

Round of applause for you there, Tim, but funny that you fail to mention Brown citing you as authority against Cameron in your live blog...

I'm not going to attack this blog. It made a case for 42 days that was perfectly reasonable and 67% of the British people agree with it.

"It is precisely this site's independence of thought is what makes it so vibrant and respected"

Very true, however it would perhaps have been more astute to hold fire on the article until after PMQs, as it was foreseeable that 42 days would get a mention

Ugh!

Brown quoting Con Home and suggesting it was part of the Conservative Party was him at his lowest, most dishonest, most Nixon-like worst.

I don't have a strong view either way on 42 days but thought Cameron totally had him at PMQs - particularly the appeal to what is right not popular. Brown looked like a desperate loser.

I did, Sarkis @ 12.16pm. I don't want to be on the side of Gordon Brown rather than my own party but I do support 42 days for the reasons we set out earlier and the editorial began by saying it wasn't the views of a great many readers.

Tim,

I think this is your 'Grammargate' moment......

As HF says, wouldn't it have been better to have conducted a poll to find out what we think before handing Brown a stick to beat Cameron with?

Schoolboy error. Don't make this mistake again.

BBC says Brown quoted the Conservative Party website

Have we been promoted?

Deputy Editor

There is everything you can do. Try engaging your joint brain's before providing bullets for the enemy would be a start.

You cannot put the site forward as a "voice for the members" and then run your own agenda with views that do not reflect the views of the majority of the members.

If you want to become a private body then end any claim to represent the members.

The site will have lost a large element of respect from the party's Leadership. We needed the site to fill that role for us. You have let us down because your credibility has been damaged.

A very bad day for Conservative Home.

"HF - There was no claim that the editorial represented the view of members, quite the opposite...

Posted by: Deputy Editor | June 11, 2008 at 12:25 "

Er... so WHY write it then cleverclogs??

This is *CONSERVATIVE* Home not "TimandSamHome". Your comments and editorals are read in that light.

And Sam, why don't you have some opinions of your own, rather than always agreeing with Tim like a nodding donkey?

Unbelievable.

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN - BAD LANGUAGE

Well said HF. Perhaps the blog should be renamed 'Tim and Co'.

Jennifer Wells - air a little thin up there?

Oh well done, really well done indeed.

Well done guys, that was great!

Tim and Sam made a principled defence of 42 days. Let's not get this out of perspective. It won't switch one vote.

Graham Checker, you are bang out of order.

The Conservative frontbench is wrong on 42 days, out of touch with public opinion and if anyone is to blame for this it is them.

"Ultimately this is Tim's private website and he can say or do what he wants."

NO IT ISN'T.

I agree with HF:

This website is run as, advertised as, operated as and viewed as - CONSERVATIVEHOME - the view of the grassroots of the Conservative Party.

However, when Tim posts something different, suddenly it becomes "his own private website".

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

This is ConservativeHome. Not TimandSamHome.

Yes, Tim and Sam started it (and we're grateful) but it's now much more than a fountain for their egos to spurt out of and it's time they recognised that.

Umbrella man - yeah, politicians should just blindly follow public opinion. That's always the right way to do things. Heaven forbid principles mean something!

I thought Cameron and Howard won the argument really... as Howard said - how can she come to the house and give enough information make a case, without predudicing the legal case.

As for getting a mention, I'm not going to complain, but I think there should be a lesson learned - although it was an editorial, having conservative in the url and endorsements from the party, does make it seem like posts represent supporters, or at least all people who post here.
I'd advise that editorials are either kept seperate, or posts are kept neutralish with editorial comments in italics.

Jennifer Wells: I disagree.

Brown appeared weak again and resorted to accusing Cameron of being weak on terrorism. As I said, that is a pathetic agruement to use.

I don't agree with the editorial line on 42 days and commented why in the thread. However the piece was an editorial and a personal thought from the editor rather than representing th readership. Brown made himself look foolish in quoting in the site and he knows it. Tim couldn't have known Brown was going to make the clumsy reference so I wouldn't be too harsh on him. (although putting the piece in centre right may have been more appropriate).

Providing fodder to Brown might not have been the wisest thing to do. Did no one tell Tim that overtly supporting 42 days might not help his own side.

Alexander King:

*I'M* out of order?!?!?!

LOL!

"Tim and Sam made a principled defence of 42 days. Let's not get this out of perspective. It won't switch one vote."

It is touching to see how much political junkies tend to overestimate things like this - an unremarked upon quotation by Brown of a couple of sentences from ConHome won't, of course, lose the Tories any votes or gain Labour any. But how exciting if we all pretend two-line quips, halfway through PMQs, a couple of years before the election, really are decisive!

...funny that you fail to mention Brown citing you as authority against Cameron in your live blog..."

Posted by: Sarkis Zeronian | June 11, 2008 at 12:28

-

I did, Sarkis @ 12.16pm.

Posted by: Editor | June 11, 2008 at 12:31

Really? That's a little disingenuous, Tim. To quote:

12.16pm: Gordon Brown quotes a host of sources in support of 42 days including this website. David Cameron responds by saying that he'll always do the right thing, not just because something is popular.

--

Interestingly Donal Blaney seemed to see this car crash coming from a mile off - http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2008/06/tim-montgomerie-is-wrong.html

engage brain before speaking next time> .you could have posted you views this afternoon AFTER p.m.q,s

In the end it shows a lack of political nouse. You had to know that Labour would use Tim's support against the Tories. It does not matter than this is an "independent" site; its an own goal. It was a gift to Labour and Gordon.

In the end its a case of be careful what you write online.

Someone just texted me asking to explain what I thought was disingenuous! Fair enough, I suppose it's not that clear. So here goes...

Your reference, "this website", is not specific to the troublesome editorial you posted today. An interpretation of it could be that the grassroots of the party agree with you on this. The comments posted here and elsewhere suggest that the grassroots, as represented by posters here, do not back your editorial stance.

That's what I meant.

Those who have attacked Tim Montgomerie because he was quoted in PMQs need to grow up. This blog was started by Tim so that Conservatives could discuss the Party and related issues. It is his Blog and he is entitled to say what he thinks. If those who have criticised him so intemperently want the party line they should visit the Conservative Patrtys boring website. How many people who buy the Times and disagree with its editorial believe they have ownership over that organ. And you don't even pay for Conservative Home.....GROW UP!

Gadfly "How many people who buy the Times and disagree with its editorial believe they have ownership over that organ. "

The difference is that the Times does not go to meetings with the Leadership representing the views of Conservative members to talk about issues such as MEP election.

Who cares if it helps Brown? Cameron is just playing politics over this anyway. I'm glad he got a punch in the face because I thought his faux-outrage over Airey Neave was nauseating.

HF et. al.

"Next time Tim you think about representing "us" please poll "us" first and ensure we approve of the line."

That is ludicrous. They're the editors of a website that provides a home for the Tory grassroots, they never claim to be that movement's unthinking mouthpieces. Do you really want Tim and Sam to just go around writing up polls? If not, they either have to lie or write what they really believe.

I'm not sure if they are right or wrong to support 42 days but they are absolutely right to express their own opinions on Tory Diary. Politics can't just be about supporting your party, right or wrong.

I disagree with Tim on 42 days. But he is quite entitled to express his views whenever and however he wants. David Cameron was right in his immediate response: it was entirely beneath Brown ("utterly contemptible" is what DC's expression said, even if he did not use those words) as Prime Minister to use ConservativeHome to disguise his own inability to make a compelling case, just as it was for him to use some hapless LibDem candidate in Bristol in the same way a few minutes later.

I don't think Brown's tactics did him any good at all; they made him look shallow, desperate and opportunistic. But then, he is.

He failed, three times, to explain how his compromise would work. He claims that he wants to avoid Parliament making a decision in a a hurry after a national emergency, but his safeguard requires Parliament to agree that there is precisely that kind of national emergency.

Tim's critics should calm down. His earlier posting has done no damage at all to the Conservative Party. It's rather flattering that Gordon Brown pays such close attention to ConservativeHome, as well as a little alarming; he should be getting on with running the country.

Do people really think ConHome has significantly boosted the Government?

It's just a blog and its editors are entitled to state their opinions!!

Interesting that people who were writing loftily about liberty this morning are now apparently suggesting that we should shut down debate in case (who'd have thought) the Prime Minister sees fit to quote from it! I wish he didn't, and misrepresent the site in doing so, but it's his fault for - as Cameron said - stooping so low in his arguments.

The editorial was in line with public opinion, and the debate it provoked was a healthy one.

If it was a different issue some of the same people would be saying how honourable we were purely because they might have agreed with us in that case. Donal - you would probably have cited it as a welcome sign of the health of the conservative movement. Opinions differed on this one - and we hosted those against 42 days amply.

HF/Graham Checker, we would never presume to say this site represents the views of all members - we believe the results of our survey is representative, and we campaign on party democracy issues as members. That's it.

That said we know that a lot of people read what we say and have often held our tongue, not released poll findings etc when the party had elections coming up as a result. But this has very little effect on party politics. Brown's coming out of all this very badly whether he - as is virtually certain - gets this thing through, or not. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously thinks that Brown's cheap shot changes any of that one jot.

Don't agree with the editorial line at all over 42 days but would hate to think this site would always support ever aspect of Conservative Party policy just because it is policy. That would be the death of Conhome. We (Conervatives) have a huge amount of reasons to be grateful for the work of Tim & Sam. That will be true long after the events of today are forgotten.

I hope you are proud of yourself. Still at least it puts a lie to your claims that you are in this for the party, and not your own career.

Well, that was embarrassing. I'm still cringing inwardly on your behalf.

There's no other place like ConH for debate in the Tory party.
All its critics should remember that.
If you want slavish loyalty go to conservatives.com... if you can stay awake.

Some non-hysterical thoughts in the midst of all this hysteria:

Maybe hardly anyone besides political obsessives who have long ago made their mind up about how they will vote watches PMQs?

Maybe providing millions of words of content to hundreds of thousands of Conservative-minded readers every day for three years matters more than a couple of lines used by Brown to buttress his argument halfway through PMQs?

Maybe, if it never disagreed with the party leadership, this site would be largely unread and entirely useless for promoting any of the causes Conservatives believe in?

ConHome should have seen this coming, it was a schoolboy error.

The editors are right to state their views, it is their site after all.

But I feel that a poll would have been a good idea. The editors could have stated their case. Others could have stated theres and then a vote taken.

That would have been much fairer.

Meanwhile Three Line Whip is focused on what really counts:

"Cameron returns to side parting at PMQs. On the left, since you ask."

Credit where credit is due, you do at lease admit that you "obviously preferred not to have been quoted by the PM".

Fair enough.

Perhaps next time a little forethought might save you that discomfort.

Sholing Neil writes: "I feel that a poll would have been a good idea. The editors could have stated their case. Others could have stated theres and then a vote taken."

It's true we didn't conduct a poll of grassroots members but we did - at the top of our earlier editorial - note our recent poll of candidates and its 92% opposition to 42 days.

The question is...will it get mentioned in the actual debate on the subject later today.

"Do people really think ConHome has significantly boosted the Government?"

I think we're just seeing some touching excitement from a few easily hyped-up people along the lines of "Ohh! Ohh! The Prime Minister quoted a web site I visit every day!". In a few hours all but the daftest people in this thread will probably privately acknowledge "Hmm well, the political climate is actually much as it was when I got out of bed this morning. Nothing much has changed".

No-one predicted Gordon Brown would quote what was written. It just made him look desperate. Graham Checker needs to go for a walk to calm himself down!

Graham Checker needs some valium.

No-one predicted Gordon Brown would quote what was written.

No, but it should have been patently obvious. That is the nature of online politics... political parties and even think-tanks have people monitoring the other side's sites for anything that can be used in spin/the PR war. Its simple and basic political tactics.

[email protected],

The specific use of the quote may not have been predicted, but the unfortunate timing of the piece was DEFINITELY foreseen. I hate to re-post a link, but maybe you missed it first time:

http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2008/06/tim-montgomerie-is-wrong.html

Brown winning 42 days is like Brown winning the Lisbon treaty. The win signals to the country that the morons are in charge and we need to kick them out ASAP.

Remember Heffer's attack on Boris the day before the Mayoral election in London? The criticism wasn't the problem, but the context and timing.

I find that the Conservative party addresses criticism better than Labour. Badly timed criticism doesn't help Conservatives.

The editor here is no fool, everyone makes mistakes.

The sad thing is New Labour's dishonesty still affects the country badly. I can't wait to see the back of these stupid lying fools.

This is the second time Labour has recently used what has been posted on here against the Conservatives. In Crewe and Nantwich during the recent by-election Labour produced a leaflet that had a section entitled "What Tory’s think" it took selective quotes from the comments praising Brown and Darling for the 10p (2.7 Billion) compensation package and criticizing Cameron and Osbourne for not supporting it. These selective quotes were presented as what all Conservatives members think - even though there was no evidence they came from Conservative members.

Tim and Sam do a great job with this site. I very much enjoy and appreciate the debate and discussion. We, unlike the other parties, are not afraid of this debate, this is to our credit. This site helps me to keep up with the politics news stories and major events (Local election live blogging, PMQ's etc) and I am grateful to Tim for providing this facility.

However the is something wrong when this is used to attack the Conservative party and\or mis-represent Conservative members. This has happened a few times now – what (if anything) should we (can we) do about this?

"

Those who have attacked Tim Montgomerie because he was quoted in PMQs need to grow up. This blog was started by Tim so that Conservatives could discuss the Party and related issues. It is his Blog and he is entitled to say what he thinks. If those who have criticised him so intemperently want the party line they should visit the Conservative Patrtys boring website. How many people who buy the Times and disagree with its editorial believe they have ownership over that organ. And you don't even pay for Conservative Home.....GROW UP!"

Spot on Gadfly- I find the hysteria here hysterical!

Sarkis: Donal attacks me in some way almost every week on his blog.

Tim, although I disagree with you on 42 days, I hardly think Brown's cheap shot will change much either way in the country. The debate on here regarding 42 days is one of the best in ages and if ConHome isn't for thrashing out disagreements and contradicting the leadership (grammar schools, MEP selection, taxes etc) then what is it for?

Brown can have as much time as he likes to poke around on the internet when he's a backbencher in 2 years' time.

We should just go the whole hog and fully convert to the EUropean way of doing things in one go! - Corpis Juris, things we fought Napoleon to prevent, things like:

*Indefinite detention without charge.

*No right to trial by Jury.

*Guilty until proven innocent.

McLabour, converting England for foreign rule.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=unique

Those who have attacked Tim Montgomerie because he was quoted in PMQs need to grow up.Here here, and again here here!
Conservativehome was set up as a champion of the grass roots of the Party not a mouthpiece for the front bench. I steadfastly disagree with Tim's views on this issue but I wholeheartedly support his right to express them here or anywhere else for that matter.If the law needs to be changed then why do we not change the law to allow the prosecution to bring holding charges which can be revised to a more serious accusation after proper investigation. It happens in other countries.
If Tim has to tailor his views to suit the front bench on every single issue then he might as well give up. As we move from being an unelectable rag bag to a government in waiting our strenght ought to be that there is a site like Ch.com where members can freely express their views even if they are at variance with the hoy poloy and, maybe just maybe, we will be that much less arrogant in government than the current mob.

Tim was right to speak up for supporting the 42 days , sometimes you have to say what you belive, even if you disagree with the party.

Cameron brought this on himself and apart from that he was very poor today . Brown won hands down.

Its all about timing!

Sarkis: Donal attacks me in some way almost every week on his blog.

Posted by: Editor | June 11, 2008 at 13:40

--

True, very true. I've known him long enough to be the subject of some of his attacks too, as he'll readily admit. But he's not ALWAYS wrong!

I was out this morning and only got back for PMQ's so I had not read Tim's thing. I was puzzled when I watched the PM leaning over the table with his hand shaking and I thought (probably wrongly)that he was dribbling as he picked up the paper and just like a very old man put his finger against the lines, and mouthed that Conservativehome members supported 42 days and I just thought he had no right to make an assumption like that particularly since in my view I have never seen a consensus reached on practically any subject here, which is wonderful. If Tim and Sam were putting their own thoughts on 42 days I would guess it would be business as usual and all hell would break loose. What I thought was pathetic was the way Broon was so hesitant in actually saying the quote - even he knew he was only telling one side of the story.

Perhaps you could get the BBC to correct their blog.

ConservativeHome is not the Tory members' website. The average Tory member has no more input or ownership over this site than Passing Leftie, Comstock or any other Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to debate on a Conservative theme. For the BBC to present CH as anything more official is misrepresentation. It is also shoddy reporting that, like Gordon Brown, they mention ConservativeHome but conveniently fail to mention that the editorial line was deeply unpopular on the site.

It really shows how opportunistic and unprincipled David Cameron is. He's opposing the government for the sake of it. This site represents conservatives with a small "c".

Now I find the Editor's brand of social conservatism based on religion and repellent moralising repugnant, but it is clear he has done nothing wrong in this instance.

As for the issue at hand - 14 days is enough for anyone.

PERSONAL ATTACK OVERWRITTEN.

Would everyone calm down. There have been times when hundreds of articles from MPs, Cllrs, MEPs and the like could have been used against Cameron.

The fact is this won't affect the polls, Brown's given out concession after concession to backbenchers and the small parties that he'll win the day. And if he doesn't, then Brown's even weaker. But just be thankful you have a website like this to air your differences when they arise.

We would obviously preferred not to have been quoted by the PM in the same way

Really?

There was no claim that the editorial represented the view of members, quite the opposite. Not much we can do about a cheap shot like that.

Posted by: Deputy Editor

Really?

Look, I know that this site is largely neocon and anti-liberal. But Conservative Home is also exemplary in the space it gives for the broad Tory coalition & has done more than any other body to draw out the elements of (hidden) agreement between the different wings of the party: for example, social justice. Pre-CH, who knew that atheist liberals could agree so strongly with authoritarian Conservatives? No-one who "lives" Conservative Home could still think that Tory politics boils down to ultra vs wet. You have been beyond kind to me (everything that matters to me has been expressed on your site, at your encouragement) and, well, you know what I think of you.

But ... CH used to be branded as the "voice of the grassroots" so it feels disingenuous to claim that it didn't occur to you that your unpopular, anti-freedom editorialising today would be picked up by Brown and used against David Cameron at PMQs.

When Brown wins the vote tonight, this site will have played its part. The dynamic of the political narrative will now switch back to "Gordon is Great". Hmmm.

When I join my fellow members at meetings do we refer to ourselves as ‘grassroots conservatives’?

The hell we do. We are all members on equal footing with MPs, MEPs and even with Tim Montgomerie. Don’t patronise us ConHome and don’t try and represent your views as ours.

People have a very high view of PMQS and ConHome if they think one reference by Brown to the views of this website will deliver 42 days.

:->

I can understand the general embarrassment and irritation all round that the comments were used by Gordon Brown.

Arguably, they should have been made after PMQs to lessen the risk? But unfortunate mistakes happen. Hands held up.

BUT perhaps in the future, such comments should be made by Tim directly, as he (or Sam) is perfectly entitled to do, but as an individual, not a Conservative Home editorial?

Does Conservative Home really need to have an editorial viewpoint on policy (as opposed to party membership etc) issues? Is it not much better to provide a forum for grassroots members (which it does brilliantly) and if Tim or Sam wish to comment on policy, they can do so in their own names, rather than as "Editor" or "Deputy Editor".

As an aside, I remember Sam advocating his support for a particular candidate in the Chester selection process last year (posted as Deputy Editor) which I found somewhat inappropriate at the time. It suggested Conservative Home support for one candidate - which would not have been fair.

In conclusion, perhaps Tim and Sam should be more aware that their comments as editors of this site carry some weight (proof what a good job they do!) and just be a little more circumspect.

PS) I hope this was balanced - the hysteria is not helpful! We are all on the same side!

Well there's some encouragement for waivering Labour backbenchers, the editor of Conservative Home supports 42 days. That'll get 'em through the lobbies... Yeah right.

Okay Tim, politics is a team sport and you've probably not made the right call today by posting your own views.

If this were any other blog it wouldn't matter (yes Ian, yes Guido) but its Con Home. The name alone suggests its more than a personal blog and needs to be regarded as such.

But is this the end of the world? Hell no.

Lets move on.

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN - PERSONAL ATTACK

Bill, we didn't!

Thanks Steve. Maybe we should think about how to make the lines even clearer, but I don't think it'll stop cheap shots like that.

Re: Chester, I reported the selection as normal, then saved my own views for the comments which I think is fair enough. If I've worked with a candidate and want to commend her in the same way everyone else does I don't think that's unreasonable. Having Deputy Editor as my name really isn't going to sway anyone on things like that!

Just goes to show why the Lib Dems are still the only party that can be trusted on civil liberties.

From the BBC:

"The prime minister pointed out that the unofficial Tory members' website Conservative Home backed the government on 42 days - and scored a rare hit.

"The Conservative leader looked like he had been punched below the belt "

Well done Tim. Well done.

It's absurd for this site's editorial to be taken to represent the views of the members. A newspaper editorial is the views of the editor, not the readers. That's what the letters column is for.

Tim has every right to express his views in an editorial. He's the editor. The clue is in the name.

There's no reason to suggest Tim should have foreseen that his words would be brought up, slightly dishonestly, by Gordon Brown in PMQs. I don't believe there's any precedent for that, but it's testament to the site's influence and I'm sure Tim will learn from it.

Rob is right in everything he says - except for "slightly". Brown's claim that Tim's web site is the Conservative Party web sight was straightforward dishonest.

Extraordinary thread.
All these libertarians who don't want 42 days seem to oppose the freedom of the editors to say something different.
quite funny really.

Rob you're absolutely right - Tim and Sam have every right to express their views and of course it's nonsense to think their views replicate those of all Conservative members!

BUT, this site is called Con Home and as Old Hack notes, that means such editorials are important and can (wrongly I agree) be attributed to 'Conservative members'.

Maybe it comes back to the point I made earlier, do we need editorial positions on matters of party policy, when such perfectly principled positions can be used by our opponents as 'the views of Conservative members' and/or a stick to beat us with by drawing attention to so called 'divisions'?

And Sam, re Chester, you're perfectly right of course. I remember that you quite correctly (as ever) reported the selection process and added your own view separately in the comments. It's just that it made me (and I know from anecdotal evidence locally others too) feel uncomfortable as it 'suggested' Con Home approval of one candidate. Obviously this wasn't the case and I'm not suggesting you have no view at all(!).

But as with policy issues, perhaps neither you nor Tim should really publicly endorse anyone or anything wearing your Con Home hats? Not that it makes a difference, but it can be 'construed' as doing so?

PS) I'm not having a go - just wondering aloud on solutions!

It really shows how opportunistic and unprincipled David Cameron is. He's opposing the government for the sake of it. This site represents conservatives with a small "c".

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments you have ever put forward, Passing Leftie.

If detention without charge is "conservative" then why, with the notable exception of Tim Montgomerie, is there virtually no support for it on conservative blogs? And why, by contrast, are the grassroots on Labour blogs cheering Gordon on and accusing David Cameron of being weak in the face of Islamic extremism?

You seem to be deluding yourself about opportunism rather than accepting that your leader is dreadful and, for once, you agree with Conservative policy.

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