"Comment overwritten"

Tim Montgomerie writes:

You may see those two words repeated a little more regularly within comment threads over coming days as I launch a clean up.

There has been a resurgence of personal attacks within the threads and I'm determined to stamp the worst of it out.  I'm also bored with the accusation that people who disagree with mainstream Conservative views are inevitably trolls.  I'd prefer to see more people addressing arguments.

If you can't behave in a civilised way to other comment-ers please don't bother leaving comments at all.  ConHome's comments policy is here.

One of the reasons for the recent decline in civility is that Jonathan Isaby still hasn't joined the team.  I don't therefore have time to monitor every thread closely.  Please help me to maintain quality by emailing me whenever you see a dodgy comment.  I won't promise to overwrite everything that upsets but with your help I hope to more actively get rid of the worst.

Comments

[ChrisD]

"I'm also bored with the accusation that people who disagree with mainstream Conservative views are inevitably trolls. I'd prefer to see more people addressing arguments."

And that used to happen on the Diary threads on this site, so what has changed?
I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been an increase in the amount of former regular posters on this site who now longer post here, or that more than a few have transferred over to PB.com which produces a robust debate amongst supporters of all the main parties, with a few floating voters thrown in. And more importantly, with little or no moderation required despite the sheer volume of comments 24/7.

I would check out the way that the thread on the Cameron/Osborne strategy has disintegrated towards the end.

[ChrisD]

""I'm also bored with the accusation that people who disagree with mainstream Conservative views are inevitably trolls."

I should have added that I think that is a valid accusation, and for the simple reason that as volume of mainstream Conservative posters has dropped, the volume of posts from those outside outside the Conservative party with a good dose of astro turfers has increased in noise.
We always had a very mixed bunch of views being expressed on here, and that really could post up a storm on some topics and threads. But most importantly, the sheer volume of debate and argument drowned out the back ground noise of the odd troll.

Only way to address this is to attract back some of the former posters, that is what the site is lacking right now. You have the critics who have never left their comfort zone here, but you have lost the input from mainstream Conservatives recently, and they do have a place on Conservativehome too.

I barely post these days, because I don't feel anymore welcome than if I were visiting Labourhome.

[Jennifer Wells]

There are very, very few people who are very enthusiastic about David Cameron in my Association. Lots of people who mildly like him but I suspect not many who would bother to engage for him in comment threads. That enthusiasm problem explains why Cameroons aren't filling these threads. There simply aren't enough.

[Edward Huxley]

I may be wrong, but I think most of the offensive postings are from people using noms de plume.

Anonymous letters don`t get published in newsapers, why not adopt the practice here?

[Mystery man]

That's a nice idea Edward but are you really Edward Huxley? It's as easy to call yourself Sally Roberts or Malcolm Dunn or Matt Wright or Michael McGough or Sammy Finn as it's to call yourself DCMX or Westminster Wolf.

[sally Roberts]

Mystery Man, you make a good point - my name might not really be Sally Roberts at all - it might be Beelzebub Aloysius Flynn or Jemima Puddleduck for all you know - but those who know me in the outside world - and believe it or not some of them read and post here too! - will recognise my own style of writing and my own opinions.
Thank you Tim (and yes YOU know I'm really me!) for this - it badly needed to be said.
No one wants to stifle debate (least of all me) but I get slightly irritated at times when the attacks and insults get so heavy that they actually reduce the whole thread to a state where no one apart from the trolls wants to continue.
I combat this often by using humour and it certainly works for me - when I first came here I sometimes used to get upset by the attacks which is the worst possible thing one can do as bullies are always made worse if they sense a "reaction" - every school child knows this!!
What I do find incredibly annoying is the accusation that because I am very much a Cameron Conservative and support his leadership (because, I have to say it ties in with my OWN vision of Conservatism and the direction I feel the Party should be going) I am treated by some people as though I have only half a brain and am a stupid, unthinking sheep! One memorable poster reckoned I'd vote for a badger in a blue blazer if it bought me a drink... - funny but when these sort of things are repeated on a regular basis not that funny -in fact rather boring.

I can assure you that I am not always uncritical - if I want to criticise something the Party is doing or not doing, I will - but at the moment I am genuinely happy with our leadership.

[Edward Huxley]

Noted Mystery man. Don`t know about the others, but (excuse me for blowing my own trumpet) my address was given below my contribution to the Sunday Telegraph letters last week - Thorpe, Surrey.

[sally Roberts]

"That enthusiasm problem explains why Cameroons aren't filling these threads. There simply aren't enough."

Jennifer - come to Hammersmith some time and you'll meet loads! A genuine offer - if you want to come out canvassing or delivering with us or attend one of our events then do get in touch. I'll even buy you a drink after.

[GB£.com]

The poor technology of this site makes things harder for you than they should be.

You could easily incorporate mixed posting (registered users, registered users with confirmed Tory Party membership and non-registered users) and it might even raise you a few quid.

I'd say that your tech is actually holding the site back now (delay in comments appearing even though they appear in the 'latest comments' summary, the 'later comments' nightmare etc. Get Stephan to open his chequebook!

[GB£.com]

Sally, I know that you are really Valery Giscard d'Estaing! Or a grey squirrel of course.

You fool no-one! ;-)

[John Broughton]

ChrisD

It is far from clear what you mean by "main stream conservative."

[Raj]

Why is it that when Tim writes an entry about posting rules, etc, someone chips in with what is essentially "the reason you won't see many pro-Cameron posts is that no one likes him"?

Clearly he remains popular with the party, as I think the polls on this site have shown.

And Jennifer I think you'll find the hostile atmosphere the real reason people don't stick around. Generally it's those with vendettas and seek to cause trouble. Just look who takes part in any thread where Cameron bashing is a possibility and ones where it would be completely O/T. You have some people who take part in threads across the board and others who only push for the former.

[Tony Makara]

Its great to read that those who spoil the fantastic debates here are to be kicked out! The fact that these people can't argue rationally without resorting to personal abuse tells us much about their maturity. It is also damaging to the site to see bad language being used, that may not bother some people but it makes ConHome look unsightly at times and hardly makes a good impression on the casual visitor who has developed an interest in Conservative policies and wants to learn where the party stands. Its important that all blogs supporting the party are cleaned up in this way, we need a Conservative government more than ever and have to make sure the party, and its supporters, are seen as rational, and friendly, human beings.

[Dorian Column]

Dorian random name here,

I think I called someone a twerp recently, for which I apologise. Tim knows who I am and where I live and my reasons for not giving my name, the chief one being that my name is instantly traceable.

I suspect that many who post under their own brand, real name, wish to advance through the party whilst I humbly wish to advance the party warts and all. But reserve the right to point out the blemishes occasionally.

[NigelC]

"Anonymous letters don`t get published in newsapers, why not adopt the practice here?"
I would hate to see any restriction on noms de plume. There are valid reasons why some people cannot completely identify themselves and I believe it would stifle debate.

[London Tory]

I am both a long standing member of the Party, and a member who voted for Cameron in 2005.

I am also very unhappy with our whole response to the credit crash, and the performance of George Osborne in particular, which has lacked any semblance of credibility.

The Conservative Party is the party of 'sound money', or we are nothing.

[Iain]

I don't think you are going to clean anything up by the look of the colour of the water in your bucket.

[Freddie Fencepost]

Well said Tim... totally agree... I too deeply dislike ad hominum attacks

[RichardJ]

I still stick by my belief that Freddie Fencepost and Gezmond007 are trolls, not because they disagree with me but because they are deliberately puerile. Conversely, "resident leftie"
is clearly not a troll.

[GB£.com]

I think we are all astute enough to read a comment and decide if the person is trolling Richard. We really don't need our hands held by 'helpful' posters screaming 'troll' or 'draper' etc.

It adds nothing, and helps no-one.

Just let us all read the comments, and make up our own minds.

[John Broughton]

Dorian

I can testify that using one's own name does not necessarily advance one's cause within the party. However, I prefer to stand by my views even if they are uncomfortable for some in the hope that we may help to mould policy in the longer term (shorter would be good!).

[RichardJ]

"It adds nothing, and helps no-one."

The problem is that some people seem to waste their breath replying to these people, which only encourages them.

Although it does get very amusing when on the opinion poll threads people angrily reply to the character "Gloy Plopwell" who is clearly having a harmless laugh mocking the Lib Dems.

[comstock]

I haven't had a comment overwritten in ages! I must be going soft in my old age LOL!!

[B.Garvie]

Despite some negative comments, DC and GO have been doing a good job with suggestions of cross-party cooperation. It shows Conservative recommendations, without being credited for them, have been taken onboard to help surmount the problems exposed by the credit crunch.

Their duty, as HM main Opposition Party, is to question the Government and bring them to account.It is well known Brown restricted the regulatory powers of the Bank of England thus weakening their powers of intervention in financial malpractice. It is also well known that the Treasury was collecting in excess of £7 billion annually from the City bonus brigade.This is probably one important reason why Brown gave them his tacit approbation.

It is now plain for all to see Brown portraying himself as the saviour of the World banking system, but can he handle our economy? He hasn't done such a good job so far.

If his 'bounce' is so good, challenge him to call a General Election before the economy really turns pear shaped.

[Tim Montgomerie]

Very funny Iain!

:-)

I'm grateful to all comments so far and can I repeat my invitation for folk to email me - [email protected] - whenever you see comments that need to be overwritten.

[John W]

I'm pretty much giving up on spending more than a few minutes glancing through the headlines on ConHome. It's something that I've been thinking for a few months now - there seems to have been a big rise in angry, bitter posts, which criticise every view but the poster's. It makes me despondent about the future of the conservative movement, whereas before ConHome gave me great hope. It was such a subtle change at first, and only now that it has been taking place for so long - seemingly when it is too late - has it begun to be addressed. I guess this is a bit of an adieu.

[GB£.com]

With a registration system, real or fakes names would not matter. Not only could you have a small 'member since' detail below the poster's name, but could also allow a 'thumbs up thumbs down' reponse to each comment, thus allowing members to build up a response history,and could of course add a little squiqqle tree badge to show those members (both real and fake names for display) who are Tory Party members.

I'd certainly happily pay a tenner a year for registration for example if it helped you move to better infratructure.

[Malcolm Dunn]

That's a good idea Chad (gb£)that would solve all these problems and raise some money Tim!

[Tim Montgomerie]

I welcome all ideas on platforms that could deliver what you propose GB£... I'm disinclined to move to a new platform yet but my mind isn't closed.

[GB£.com]

Well if you decide to open your chequebook, I could deliver a best-of-breed political site for your family of blogs that could beat any site here or in the US and raise you some money.

So if you do decide to consider a change, let me know and we can have a chat over a glass of wine. :-)

[rugfish]

I used to use my real name ( Eddie Allen ) when posting, along with giving my town of residence. But as I came to be more outspoken against the government and more aware of its actions which border on fascism, I decided to change to an alias to limit the chances of half a dozen Anti-Free Speech Cops bursting through my door whilst I'm in the middle of a post on the CH website.

A pseudonym also makes it easier for me to log in on the various forums and blogs I reply to and remain somewhat anonymous when my opinion differs with assholes.

Personally, nothing what I've read on here has been offensive and I feel free speech is generally better given a light touch where regulation......er, moderation is required.

As for

[Brown's Gestapo]

"But as I came to be more outspoken against the government and more aware of its actions which border on fascism, I decided to change to an alias to limit the chances of half a dozen Anti-Free Speech Cops bursting through my door whilst I'm in the middle of a post on the CH website. "

Very interesting Mr Allen, we shall we watching you.

[Gezmond007]

Hi Dorian , I,m the one who you called a Twerp , which upset me greatly , I come to the Conhome website to read and comment on individual opinions . Not to be rude to people or offensive.

i am dyslexic and cannot spell very well and my grammar is not very good but sometimes all I get are remarks having a pop at me or calling me a troll.

I am entitiled to my opinions . I don,t agree with Dave C and G Osborne , I feel that the Tory party are going down the wrong alley. But in my opinion denying the truth about whats going on and sticking your head in the stand helps no one. Even Dave C says that if the government do something that is good he will agree and support them.

Thanks Tim for sticking up for free speech and democratic debate.

[john parkes]

Tim,
I think that so much of what appears is good and constructive. I confess to being an economic illiterate and the education from which I have benefited here, over recent days, has been a real eyeopener.
On the other hand, I have found some of the posts to be bordering on the unnecessarily viscious and unpleasant. It is a mystery to me that contributors would think that they can advance their argument by such comments.
I suppose we are all guilty of thinking our own ideas are without equal and that we are, without fail, able to offer people such as Cameron and Osborne the only way forward; presuming as we do so that they are insufficiently intelligent to work things out for themselves. The difference between us and them, however, is accountability. We can write, be startlingly wrong but won`t be required to carry the can for our errors as they will be.
Anyway, I hope your firm line will raise the standard of debate, where it has fallen short in recent times.

[Norm Brainer]

I agree with rugfish in that I won't use the same name online as in RL for many reasons (although anyone could find out quite easily) - I did have threatening phonecalls once when I dared to tell some pressure group they shouldn't be defacing the town with their banners on roadsigns.
But I wouldn't say that my posts are anonymous as they all have the same name - just like you wouldn't say Elton John's albums are released anonymously!

But I agree with GB£.com's sales pitch that it would be better if people could optionally log in and be rated etc. as this would show the casual viewer (or media looking for dirt) who is a serious poster and who is the same person posting under several IDs to stir.
- of course I could code it better, though ;)

[GB£.com]

"- of course I could code it better, though ;) "

That's why I hold back the really innovative ideas until the money is in the bank!
;-)

[Libertarian]

Perhaps the reason why posters vent their spleen here is because the party does not want to hear the views of party activists. The Blue Blog on conservatives.com is pathetic, sychophantic, puerile joke. Any posts that even hint at criticism of the leadership are not published.

We know that CCHQ employees trawl this site to identify potential "troublemakers" (i.e. those who think for themselves and do not swallow the party line) and make sure that they do not get on the candidates list. They also troll some threads, e.g. to criticise the Freedom Zone at party conference (lots of new posters on that thread who are IMO fair game). Roger Helmer was the subjected to personal attacks from the likes of "Climate Thatcherite" (sic) who is probably a CCHQ eco-loony.

There were no debates or opportunities for party members to comment at party conference in Birmingham. Instead, members were subjected to long and patronising lectures from shadow cabinet members who only responded to planted questions. It reminded me of the old Soviet rallies or the moronic and repetitive speeches at the Republican convention. The party apparachiks demand adulation even when the Dear Leader has delivered a boring or idiotic speech.

[christina Speight]

Mystery man at 07:21. Your query about whether or not people really exist even when using a name is misplaced. Edward Huxley certainly exists as do many other people who post here. If you want to know about me there are many who post here who know me (and you'll get some thing from Google too a bizarre selection but I'm there!) .

I can see that - EG - someone in a sensitive job cannot use their real name but could the blog not insist on real names OR registering pseudonyms with the management! ?

But I'm slightly worried that this is taking a sledgehammer to a nut! I get called many things but 'sticks and stones - - ' etc

[Faceless Bureaucrat]

John Broughton [9.36]

"I can testify that using one's own name does not necessarily advance one's cause within the party. However, I prefer to stand by my views even if they are uncomfortable for some in the hope that we may help to mould policy in the longer term (shorter would be good!)."

Then you are either utterly naive or a complete fool. For your information, some commenters here run a significant risk at times by expressing their views openly and the nom de plume at least offers them some protection against being identified. If CH insisted on those leaving comments to do so under their own name, it would soon end up with less visitors than the Blue Blog! - or does that comment get me 'Overwritten'?...

[john parkes]

Libertarian @10.55
Has there been any suggestion that comments which don`t toe the Party line are banned from appearing on CH? Surely the point of editorial control is not to stifle discussion but to over-ride some of the language used to express it.
Public criticism of Party policy at the annual conference shouldn`t be confused with limitations placed here on some of the more colourful forms of expression to which we are sometimes treated.
As to the use of aliases, if you believe strongly enough in what you say, what is to be feared? After all, Churchill did eventually become Prime Minister; and he was miles off-side in the years before lifting that poisoned chalice.His command of invective, in public anyway, was a model of what a little imagination, humour and verbal dexterity can achieve.

[ACT]

While I've enjoyed fantastically the 'Roon efforts to: pretend that all criticism of Osborne is rooted in Derek Draper's spambots, and not Gidder's unambiguous political failure; and as a result, All Good Decent Tories have fled - doesn't it illustrate perfectly the difference in mentality between the Trad and Mod wings of the Party? For absurd as the effort has been - peevish, whining and dishonest - surely not one Trad has for a moment even supposed that it's been a CCHQ plot? That poor old Dougie is having to draft in Dean, and the pair of them are hunched over their screens busily trying to think of ever lamer defences for Osborne's repeated inadequacy to the scale of this crisis?

[Conand]

Tim Montgomerie like Gordon Brown favours 'Light Touch' regulation.

[resident leftie]

I think that a sprinkling of leftwing views helps debate, but then I would think that. Too many dissonant notes move the terms of debate away from a reasonable range around the original post, and into student politics territory.

My purpose here, other than the pleasure of debate to hone my views and offer some gentle mockery, is to encourage people to look at statistical and historical evidence when they make policy suggestions, or make bald statements about the state economy, crime or other issues.

I'd be happy to register, and I stick by my standing offer - if any contributor emails me and requests that I cease to post I will do so. Of course, money to a Tory supporting blog would a too much for me.

[Man in a Shed]

Christina Speight - your ideas sound a lot like the EU's currently abortive plans to regulate blogs.

There are plenty of good reasons for not putting your name on posts and comments. ( Not that anyone should assume they will be able to remain anonymous against a determined effort to ID them ).

I would say the balance is that if you say something personal about someone, you should stand personally behind it.

If you want to criticise or comment on national politics or politicians then anonymity is a wise precaution. ( Remember the No 10 rebuttal unit is watching. ) Just look at the way E-Bay handles bidders now, or read any of the advice on being safe on the internet that we hand out to children. If you use your name, then be prepared for your views to come up in future job interviews and similar vetting exercises.

Also pseudonyms have a life, and reputation, of their own. They are different from pure anonymous comments.

[Simon Denis]

Insults arise from Tory despondency and socialist provocation. When things were going nicely, the threads calmed down. Now that we're on the back foot again, disappointment and fear of another Labour term has made some of us hysterical. That said, not all criticism of the leadership arises from panic or pique. I mean, why are we on the back foot? Why is Brown smiling that smug smile? Because Cameron has been caught out - so has George Osborne. I read electoral doom in their anxious faces at Question Time. They are emphatically not great orators, nor do they seem to have vigorous, brave convictions. Deep beliefs, possibly, but nothing fine and fiery. In this crisis of the markets they have turned - implausibly - on the very people who have supported them through the years. Indeed, they have been - as Tory leaders - in receipt of good money from hedge fund managers. It smacks of back stabbing cowardice to join the general moan about bonuses. Can you imagine a City of London without them? The financial community would really desert us then - marvellous! It is true that failing to fight preserves your army, but the Tory army is in real danger of being completely out manoeuvred. Only courageous spirits like Daniel Hannan have pointed out the folly and danger of nationalising the banks. The right response would have been to slash spending and cut taxes. How much did Lord Forsyth suggest we could save? Twenty billion, I think. Well that's to start with. By not going with Forsyth; by running scared of the question, "What will you cut?", the Tories have yielded up the most precious of presumptions - that government spending is at best a necessary evil. Their ideological vacuity has allowed it to be considered a virtue. On that assumption, we will have permanent Labour government.

[Anon]

The official Conservative Party holds no attractions for me yet but if Conhome were a party, I would vote for it! Thus do I send a modest annual "subscription" to it for the privilege of learning from and pitching in on debates.

... And if you think it a bit boisterous at times, well, you ain't seen nuffink yet in this respect until you read some of 'The Scotsman' boards!

[Libertarian]

John Parkes wrote "Has there been any suggestion that comments which don`t toe the Party line are banned from appearing on CH?"

Can't you read? My earlier post referred clearly to the Blue Blog on the official party website - not Conservative Home.

Which part of "The Blue Blog on conservatives.com is pathetic, sychophantic, puerile joke. Any posts that even hint at criticism of the leadership are not published" do you not understand?

Now I know why the old description of the Conservatives as the "Stupid Party" is relevant today. Unbelievable!!!!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Was it yesterday GB£.com that you told us, exactly what IT business you are involved in?

It seems to me that some of the provocative posters clock-in at around 9.24am and rarely post after 5pm. It would be too obvious if they played any sort of on-line game, but the apparently bland format of prose, wouldn't be so noticeable! Perhaps they should work at what they are paid for!

[Faceless Bureaucrat]

Man in a Shed [11.18am]

"Also pseudonyms have a life, and reputation, of their own. They are different from pure anonymous comments."

Quite so...

[Dorian the Real Slim Shady.]

Hi Gezmond007

I think I also described Jesmond as posh when I should have said Ponteland (for those that know the Toon). As for invective, check out Comment is Free, See You Next Tuesday is your starter for ten (for those that understand) and anyone espousing vaguely centre right opinion is an active member of the Einsatzkommando.

Hi. Posted by: Christina Speight | October 15, 2008 at 11:01

Compulsory registration would be subject to the Data Protection Act and we really don’t want to go there. I had a ‘discussion’ with the editor at CiF a while back when they were looking at this and banning anons. I started an ‘I am Spartacus’ campaign and she changed her mind.

.

[Annabel Herriott]

Do you know, Patsy, that was going through my mind as I was scrolling down. These characters are blogging at work instead of working. Perhaps they are waiting for their p45s! Who knows. I used to imagine them crouched over their bedsit desktops in scruffy jeans, unwashed, unshaven, railing against the world.... I now see you have revealed the TRUTH !!! They are defrauding their employers of the time they should be putting in as Nulab bean counters, and attempting to make sure that Nulab rules the UK for ever. Raise a glass and toast the great payroll voter, with a gold plated pension, and index linked salary. Watch out lads, you may become an endangered species yet !

[Libertarian]

@ John Parkes

The Cameroons have double standards. Old Etonians and Dave's friends like Boris Johnson can get away with gaffes. Ordinary party members are not allowed to speak freely. Just look at what happened to Nigel Hastilow and James McGrath. The politically correct machine in CCHQ and City Hall forced them out PDQ!

[Libertarian]

@ Annabel Herriott

Not all posters work regular 9 to 5 hours. That is the nature of the 24 hour economy in the 21st century. Many are self-employed and can choose their own working hours and practices.

Smearing daytime posters here as unemployable wasters is just what I would expect from an old ignoramous like you.

[The Bishop Swine]

It would be a great shame if this place became for loyalist's only, and we were scared to criticize the party. I have noticed that there are less views being expressed by what you might call traditional Conservatives maybe that is just a reflection of the fact that the party really is changing with many who were skeptical that the conservative would ever be relevant again now entering the debate.
Of course we don't want or need, flaming, trolls or personal attacks. Otherwise I feel this place is quite healthy really. There are also some very interesting views being expressed. This place is better than Labour home in every respect that matters.
So by all means lets keep it civilized but be very careful not to stifle what is still a truly needed debate about the shape of the modern party.

[The Bishop Swine]

@ Annabel Herriott

Smearing daytime posters here as unemployable wasters is just what I would expect from an old ignoramous like you.

A very valid point. Lets also remember that some of us work from home and are free to
write when it suits. Hardly unemployed wasters I think. It’s also exactly the kind of attitude that turns people off.

[Norm Brainer]

Libertarian, why do you think that users "crouched over their bedsit desktops in scruffy jeans, unwashed, unshaven, railing against the world" equates to "unemployable wasters"?

But yes, I agree that many posters will be self-employed and have to be online checking emails etc during the day (...and night) but often not actually have to be being productive the whole time so is wrong to tar everyone with the same 9-5 corporate worker brush.

[JC]

ACT

surely not one Trad has for a moment even supposed that it's been a CCHQ plot?

In the past I remember reading accusations of nothing but that.

[ACT]

An effort at factionally self-deprecating ynori, JC, or something like that.

[John Broughton]

Faceles Beaurocrat

I think your insult pointless, unwarranted and outside the spirit of this strand. I am well aware that some people comment under a nom de plume and their reasons for doing so. While I would prefer openess from everybody I accept the use of a nom de plume.

[Tom FD]

An unfortunate success of Derek Draper's initiative is to create paranoia among us. Is that poster really a Labour troll mole?

[sally Roberts]

GB£.com I was very amused by your comment and must assure you Je suis ni M Giscard-D'Estaing, ni un ecureil gris!... Sorry - back to English! As an unreconstructed Europhile I forget myself for a moment -do excuse me! ;-)

To continue my favourite theme of small furry animals for a moment - I am rather appalled to come back here and find everyone fighting like rats in a sack!
Libertarian do you really think it adds much to the discussion to refer to one of our favourite posters as an "old ignoramus"?

It seems to me that the less pleasant posters often feel themselves sidelined or personally rejected in some way by the Party - I could be wrong, but I think at least some are would-be candidates who either did not get on the List at all, were not A listed when they felt they should have been or faced repeated rejection at the hands of selection committees.
I do sympathise - many good people have been similarly disappointed in the past and many more will in the future.
Let me let you all into a little secret - a few years back the Party decided in its infinite wisdom that it didn't feel that being a Parliamentary candidate was necessarily the best way that I could give service to it. Yes I was terribly disappointed at the time but, you know what? I didn't pick up my bat and ball and go skulking off home! I didn't roll myself into a spiky ball like a hedgehog. I didn't blame everybody bar myself... I got back up again and found other ways of helping out! Perhaps others should do likewise?

[sally Roberts]

" I think I also described Jesmond as posh when I should have said Ponteland (for those that know the Toon)..."

As a mere Southerner I know that Jesmond is fairly posh - I believe it's roughly Newcastle's equivalent of Chelsea?

I must say that the banning of pseudonyms would deny us the amusement that Dorian provides on a regular basis - he has been everything from a G-spot to a Column - the mind boggles!! ;-)

[GB£.com]

"GB£.com I was very amused by your comment and must assure you Je suis ni M Giscard-D'Estaing, ni un ecureil gris!... "

Revenons a nos moutons... ;-)

[Libertarian]

"Libertarian do you really think it adds much to the discussion to refer to one of our favourite posters as an "old ignoramus"?"

No more than Annabel's contribution "These characters are blogging at work instead of working. Perhaps they are waiting for their p45s! Who knows. I used to imagine them crouched over their bedsit desktops in scruffy jeans, unwashed, unshaven, railing against the world.... I now see you have revealed the TRUTH !!! They are defrauding their employers of the time they should be putting in as Nulab bean counters."

Only an old ignoramus, even if she is one of your favourite posters, could write idiotic and sterotyped rubbish like that. If the dunce's cap fits, wear it!

[sally Roberts]

"Revenons a nos moutons... ;-)"

baaaaaaaa!!!

;-)

[sally Roberts]

Libertarian I don't know why but this image keeps flitting into my mind of you as a little boy.... a very cross petulant little boy stamping his foot and crying "I'm NOT sorry! I hate you all...."

Come on - this sort of reaction is not great and is going to end up getting you banned - or is that what you want?

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Editor if you are thinking of changing the platform would you make it possible for those of us who use an aol browser to access it please? Yes I can use another browser but prefer not. Thanks!

[christina Speight]

What a waste of time and space this thread is turning into.

If we can't have honesty in the banning of pseudonyms it is difficult to see what purpose it is serving except to let us idle unwashed have something to do in those long hours between waking and bedtime.

A new policy for me - I will only be rude to pseudo-folk. REAL named idiots and Cameroons will be courteously torn to pieces.

[sally Roberts]

"Cameroons will be courteously torn to pieces."

Christina, just keep tearing me to pieces in your usual manner...I mean why change the habit of a lifetime? ;-)

[ChrisD]

"A new policy for me - I will only be rude to pseudo-folk. REAL named idiots and Cameroons will be courteously torn to pieces."

Doesn't that just sum up what is wrong with this site!

We have sections through out the site with everything from Centre Right to Seats and Candidates, yet the TORY diary is now a place for rudeness and insults to "REAL named idiots and Cameroons" who will be "courteously" (what a joke!) torn to pieces.

Really adds to the quality of the threads on here, doesn't it? That is why there is now a very clear vacuum on here with the usual suspects shouting loudly to each other and creating an echo effect in the now empty room.

[john parkes]

Libertarian @ 11.29
I`m sorry to have appeared to be so obtuse. In the immortal phrase "...but I knew what I meant when I wrote it...". However it seems I didn`t make it sufficiently clear. In your original post you referred to Blue Blog as well as to CH and really all I was trying to make clear was that in contrast to your perception of Blue Blog, there is no censorship of ideas on CH; but there is, in my view justifiably, a move now to control the language in which those ideas are expressed.

[Patsy Sergeant]

ChrisD ' 15.17 - I wonder what your ideal would be?

Perhaps we should keep a thread like this one, as a permanent feature, a sort of playroom or hopscotch!

[sally Roberts]

"Perhaps we should keep a thread like this one, as a permanent feature, a sort of playroom or hopscotch!"

Now THAT'S a novel idea, Patsy! Perhaps with some "virtual" cuddly toys.... squirrels, badgers etc.? ;-)

ChrisD - this thread was started by Tim to let people know that he was intending to crack down on the personal insults and general unpleasantness - and as the thread has continued on its Merry Way his point has been effectively proved for him!

I agree with those who say that there should be more "mainstream" people on here and I certainly think the Blue Blog goes far too much in the other direction - it really is absolutely dire!

[Gwendolyn]

What matters here is what we say, not who we are. If we observe the rules of argument that should be enough - actually listening to what other people say, thinking about it, seeing the flaws or merits, would seem to suffice. I am happy to register my details but not have them published. There are many reasons why people do not give their real names, mine is because of a three year stalking after I appeared in the papers. I see I will come under Christina's ban - but I place my confidence in the fact that this is Tim's site so I don't think I shall become an outcast.

[Libertarian]

Sorry to disappoint Sally but I don't hate everyone. I just don't have time for posters who stereotype and smear those who are disenchanted with the Cameroon project.

After all, in his Birmingham conference speech, Cameron told libertarians like me to get lost. We are not, in his opinion, Conservatives. That was not the first time he had made such a silly statement and I stopped donating to the party a while ago.

I laughed when the begging letter from Dave arrived on Monday. It went straight in the bin. 70,000 party members have left the Conservatives since Cameron became leader. That's the price of smearing those who believe in freedom and small government.

[sally Roberts]

Libertarian - I am certainly not disappointed but am delighted that you don't "hate" everybody!
Your comment about David Cameron is of course a deliberate misquote - he certainly told no one to "get lost" - he would not be so rude!

By all means have your own opinion - I can sense you are very disillusioned - but please do not be so unpleasant to those of us who do not share it.

[christina Speight]

sally Roberts at 15:10
"Cameroons will be courteously torn to pieces."
Christina, just keep tearing me to pieces in your usual manner...I mean why change the habit of a lifetime? ;-)
---------
Sally I'm glad you, like me, can take it . It's true, however, that your avowed europhilia rankles with me even more than the Camer-philia. It's the europhiles though in the party that stop me being 100% committed.

To Chris D, I must say 'Pity you can't take a joke'

Patsy - Please can I come and play in your playroom. I've had a lifetime of politics and it's getting BORING!

[ChrisD]

"ChrisD ' 15.17 - I wonder what your ideal would be?"

Patsy, go back and read my first post on here.
I think that a Tory Diary that can replicate PB.com style of threads would be successful, it would also I think, end up requiring little or no moderation.
But the current format here is simple providing a place for a small group of malcontent's to post the same criticism day after day. I could get that over on Labourhome or Liberal Vision. There is not even any humour left.

[sally Roberts]

"Sally I'm glad you, like me, can take it . It's true, however, that your avowed europhilia rankles with me even more than the Camer-philia. It's the europhiles though in the party that stop me being 100% committed."

Oh I can take it and unlike, perhaps, other posters I can also take a joke! As for the (alleged europhilia) ...well perhaps holding your nose would help?

[Libertarian]

Sally, why do you have a tendency to patronise (e.g. your comment at 14.30) posters whom you disagree with? It is that your patronising tone that provokes a hostile response.

[sally Roberts]

Sorry the ) should have come after "alleged" and before "europhillia"!

I think I am losing the plot - time for me to go to Patsy's Playroom?!

[sally Roberts]

"It is that your patronising tone that provokes a hostile response."

Perhaps my comment of 14:30 was a little patronising, Libertarian! If you took offence I can only apologise.
I do suggest that you try being a little nicer to people though - you might find you get a better reaction back from them!

[RichardJ]

"These characters are blogging at work instead of working. Perhaps they are waiting for their p45s!"

Alternatively the department is very quiet at the moment as there is a recession on.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Well this thread is certainly not achieving what I think Tim wants, ie for us all to be nice to each other! As a regular reader of Political Betting I have seen some far less than polite debates over there too! Personally I think those people who are rude to others should be able to take it too as I can.What drives me nuts are the completely unprovoked attacks that sometimes occur on the board. It does drive people away. Politics is a rough game at times and opinions can become very heated.

[christina Speight]

Let's leave it there then, all sweetness in light in Patsy's playroom.

When people feel strongly about things they do get upset and use fierce language. I'm sure that if I were to run into Sally in the Hammersmith pub I know best - the Black Lion - it would be happiness all round despite the stated - not alleged (see earlier @1344)- europhilia. ("As an unreconstructed Europhile")

The trouble with blogs is one dashes off one's reply, feels self-satisfied and thinks 'That's got (him/her) which one would not do face to face.

[sally Roberts]

"I'm sure that if I were to run into Sally in the Hammersmith pub I know best - the Black Lion - it would be happiness all round"

Absolutely, Christina - very happy to buy you a drink in there any time!

[snegchui]

I spend some time in hostile face-to-face debate, but theer is an acceptance it will never get physical or personal. I think CH, with its all-comers welcome is a fairly good site.
I thought Ben Elton a lousy standup, because he and so many alternative comedians relied on noise and profanity as a medium for comedy/ However as an author, I think he is very good and witty and value his books.
So CH, sometimes people do get a bit garrity, and there is a tendency to fire off quickly on a point one feels passionately, but I think it is better than a sanitised party-members only debate.
Some other sites I go to, the language is abusive, but in the way some American TV dramas use abusibe language, in the ned it ceases to jhave shock-value but does cheapen the whole environment.
As for winding-up for the sake of winding-up, well as I say to people shocked by violent explosions, you succeeded, why are you complaining?
And there is a difference between winding-up and focussed debate. I have always failed to see the point of wind-ups and in fact have seen it more as attempt by bullies to have a socially acceptable weapon at their disposal. Incitement is a charge that is not brought often enough.

[ChrisD]

"As a regular reader of Political Betting I have seen some far less than polite debates over there too!"

Of course it does Malcolm! But be honest, the level of debate and argument mixed in with the sheer volume of posts drowns most of it out as back room noise, just as it used to do here on a smaller scale.

I am suggesting that ConHom should be trying to produce a Diary Thread that attracts new posters and encourages others to return.
I also think that if the focus becomes about robust argument and debate again, then less moderation will be needed and it will be a more enjoyable experience for all.

But, come on, at the moment the same small clique of posters spraying round some pretty unpleasant personal attacks on individual posters is not adding to the site's reputation or the traffic figures for those who post. Stick them in a long thread with lots of different political opinion and they become less of a nuisance.

At the end of the day, a good site should be also about learning more about politics inside and outside the Conservative tent, as well as relevant issues about the economy etc.

What do you learn in the threads here at the moment?

[Votedave]

"I'm also bored with the accusation that people who disagree with mainstream Conservative views are inevitably trolls. I'd prefer to see more people addressing arguments."

I agree. What I would say is that any comments of criticism left by our diehard political opponents should be tolerated as long as they are measured and constructive - and not designed simply to antagonise regular users of this blog.

[GB£.com]

"What do you learn in the threads here at the moment?"

That everyone seems to agree that Osborne needs replacing?

[christina Speight]

Let's leave it there then, all sweetness in light in Patsy's playroom.

When people feel strongly about things they do get upset and use fierce language. I'm sure that if I were to run into Sally in the Hammersmith pub I know best - the Black Lion - it would be happiness all round despite the stated - not alleged (see earlier @1344)- europhilia. ("As an unreconstructed Europhile")

The trouble with blogs is one dashes off one's reply, feels self-satisfied and thinks 'That's got (him/her) which one would not do face to face.

[christina Speight]

Sorry - don't know how that got there twice

[Patsy Sergeant]

Sally @ 16.03 - 'By all means have your own opinion..........but please do not be so unpleasant to those of us who do not share it.'

Yes I do agree with you about that, it does amount to verbal bullying sometimes!

ChrisD @ 16.06 - it sounds to me like you need more going on, on the screen in front of you - flashing ikons, signs symbols. If the site is not awash with the latest gimmickry, does that really mean that its boring? :-O

Libertarian @ 16.15 - I know Sally and she is DEFINITELY not a patronising person!

Thank you Christina, my playroom seems to be quite a good idea!!, I do have a piano so you could tinkle around on the ivories if you wanted!

[Votedave]

"That everyone seems to agree that Osborne needs replacing?"

I don't. His inheritance tax announcement 12 months ago helped to save us from the calamity of the election of a Brown government.

[sally Roberts]

Thank you Patsy!

Can I come and play your piano too? I'm not the world's best pianist but could manage a quick burst of "chopsticks" I expect!

[Libertarian]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[On The Job]

Quite agree that people should stop calling each other trolls

First and formost there is the danger that this could be offensive to trolls under the disabilty act of whenever and we'll all be sued for using a deragotory remark.

Secondly haveing spent some time reading(but not posting) Labour home this site is far better at creating debate and challenging the views of our great party on Labour home if you dare give an opionion which leaves the view of mainstream labour then you are insulted and told to p*ss off. this results in a lot of nodding and agreeing and furhteres their argument notone bit.

Even Gesmond2007 is slightly humurous at times(nto because of your spelling i too suffer from this problem) and a few insults thrown around if done in the right frame of voice can add to the attraction of this site.

seeing as punch and judy politics is dead lol! perhaps this can become a new home for it and cheer us all up before we go to work at 7.10 in the morning to catch a train that is invetibaly late and overcharged for before going t an office that is overregulated and sends us emails about potential trip hazards because there could be an accident waiting to happen.

sadly i have never said anything controversial enough to have my comments overwritten but i am still young

[sally Roberts]

"First and formost there is the danger that this could be offensive to trolls under the disabilty act of whenever and we'll all be sued for using a deragotory remark."

Could it also not be seen as racist bearing in mind that trolls are all of Scandinavian origin?!

[On The Job]

I did not know that but form now on i will refer to "trolls" as mythical Beings of a scandinavien ethnic background who post comments on a non party political nature on this website

I hope i have advanced the argument by this comment

[sally Roberts - Equal Representation for Goats]

"I hope i have advanced the argument by this comment"

Possibly, On the Job but there is an Equal Opportunities angle to be considered here - if there is too much emphasis placed on the aforementioned Mythical Beings etc. (commonly known as Trolls) then you COULD get the Three Billy Goats Gruff complaining about under-representation!

I only mention this as their Union CAPRICORN may be getting in touch with you shortly!