« Pickles and Clarke marked down by Tory members | Main | A £50,000 cap on donations would kill the Conservative Party »

Comments

Thrive on attention that you've just given them.
They'll be as excited as brown after the g20 to have their names in the main post.

You know the answer is registration!

Allow anonymnity front of shop, but require registration and even charge a small fee to confirm identity.

You could then also include a squiggly tree icon after the name of proven Tory party members.

I've said it so many times, but thought I'd try again!

Reasonable thing to do. They are, as I have frequently warned, the gnats of Labour's dirty tricks campaign, probably funded by us as taxpayers!

"You know the answer is registration!"

I agree with this statement. Its the only way. In the end this is still an important conservative site. Whilst it is commendable that Tim and Co, tolerate dissenters, in the intrest of democracy, if it starts to damage the site they will have to go. One thing I would add is that Jack Stone isn't the worst offender only the most persistent. Some of his better posts stimulate conversation.

@Tim

Have you looked at the comments on todays post dealing with alleged cannabis?

As I've only been on line for a couple of months and haven't commented on other sites before, do negative comments from the UKIP direction count?

What is the origin of this word troll - does it have any exact meaning?

I'm definitely going to avoid feeding the trolls!

i didnt think jack stone is that bad its ppl like ukiper who just are on here to stir things up

Hi Tim,

In Peace...I thought this thread was well placed above the other thread with the title

'Parliament: Baroness Neville-Jones says that surveillance has gone too far'

Nice one.

Have a good weekend.

"What is the origin of this word troll - does it have any exact meaning?"

Trolling for attention, I believe.

COMMENT UNDERWRITTEN

Tim have you had a chance to look at the blog link i sent you

"The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the internet in the late 1980s,[3] but the earliest known example is from 1991.[4] It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a bait through water, known as trolling.[5] The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales as they are often obnoxious creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, is an unrelated Old Norse word for a giant or demon.[6]"

Wikipedia

Please remember that there are plenty of Tory trolls out there.

I am a socialist, so perhaps my view carries no weight here, but I would have thought that you would want debate. Unfortunately this does allow some to abuse this. I would suggest that your editors individually moderate as they appear to be doing at the moment.

oldrightie: I am not funded by the taxpayer (I also do not consider myself a gnat!)

Anyone who is interested in who I am can check me out at my blog.

I should have added to my previous post that you are welcome to join in the debate at my site - trolls and all!

So, Julian - you're a hyphenated socialist, are you? Very interesting.

What is this fascination with my surname? I have been doing the family tree for 26 years - would you like an explanation of where it comes from?

I call it hyphenated, some call it double-barrelled. The latter, I believe, as it was a sign of bastardy.

A troll is an imaginary, ugly, evil-
tempered human-like creature usually a dwarf or a giant.

While it is disappointing to see so many nasty contributions from those who sneer at people who don`t agree with their views (and I include some prominent party fanatics, not just the nom de plume lot), it would be a shame if this excellent site was restricted to party members.

It is up to the owners of course, and if I am barred then I will accept it.

I wouldn`t be too worried about the illiterates, they can`t help it and all they do is expose their ignorance.

I am a socialist, so perhaps my view carries no weight here, but I would have thought that you would want debate.

Why would we want to debate with a socialist?

We already know that socialism is a perversion of human thought centred on bigotry, greed, self interest, self indulgence and envy that will always fail (as it has done over the past 12 years).

Just consider who your 'demi-gods' (sic) of the Internet are :- Draper, Prescott and Campbell. What a trinity of doom that is!

Socialists are a throwback to the 19th Century. You are out of date, out of time and out of ideas. There is no point in debating with you, you have nothing of value to offer.

Does the requirement for constructive comment apply to the editors when it comes to Israel's behaviour on one hand and 'muslim extremism' on the other?

This is a genuine question because there hasn't been a constructive article on these subjects in the last two years, unless I have missed one that you could bring to my attention.

I am certainly not a Tory which is why, at the editor's request, I am happy to put 'ukipper' after my real name. The fact that Mr Cameron may have peaked a little early, say around 1986, isn't my fault. I blame his education. Let's all be constructive about it.

Just because the nation is grossly mismanaged both by Labour in power and the Tories in waiting doesn't mean we have to be personally offensive. It does mean that we have a duty to speak truth to power. I trust I am discharging that duty while relieving the taxpayer of nary a penny.

One of the best aspects of this website is that anyone can state their view. Its embodies the free speech that Conservatives seek to champion.

However with any case of free speech there are some elements which are unpleasant and which people will disagree with violently.

However when you ban some people from saying something on this site where do you draw the line?

Only conservatives? Only part members? Only party members from a certain faction within the party? all because they said something that others did not like.

If someone says something particularly hateful then its for the moderator to edit out and for the rest of us to ignore or to engage with them to change their mind. Banning individuals in the end does no good as history has taught us many times.

Julian, if you're a genuine socialist, what on earth are you doing in New Labour?

William Blake's Ghost: I have never been so certain of my beliefs as to not accept re-examination and debate. The mindset of 'we are right, the electorate is wrong' is what has condemned you to three consecutive GE defeats. I could, like you, rejoice in that. I do not. I do not because I believe in democracy and real democracy can only exist with real choice. I want a strong Conservative Party with clear views and dividing lines. You may not care to debate with the like of me, but I want to debate with you.

'Julian, if you're a genuine socialist, what on earth are you doing in New Labour?'

I suppose the same could be asked of you Paul D. Being a member of the present Conservative party does not make you a Conservative. We saw that when Mr. Cameron made his party give Tony Blair (his hero) a standing ovation in the House.

Why have I been banned exactly?

I will stay until any Conservative asks me to leave - just email [email protected]. I'm also happy to receive any criticism if anyone feels my comments are unhelpful.

I'm going to take a couple of weeks off in any case to study the works of Marx in my bunker, unless there is another post on the BNP.

It would be absolutely fair to ban all non-Tory members. It would also probably kill the site.

"I've also attempted to ban two people including 'Tommy'."

You didn't do a very good job.

I guess you're right about this Tim although I enjoy a good troll hunt.

Julian, perhaps you can answer a question long unanswered: why is that the 'enlightened' middle and upper class socialists (champagne?) NEVER put their money where their mouth is? They seem to want only to 'guide' poor old hoi polloi from above and it never seems to dawn on them that all their own money would be readily welcomed by the poor (I realise of course that historically some very few have foregone their worldly possessions but not many)

If we are all looking for fairness (excepting for muslims) perhaps ConHome should introduce a transparent voting system whereby the editors ban our posts and we ban their bigoted articles.

The word “troll” might have its origins in angling: to fish with moving or spinning bait.

The troll deliberately posts something contentious (the bait on the thread), hoping others will snap at it and get hooked, taking the thread in a completely different direction.

If that derivation is correct, Tim Montgomerie becomes the River Bailiff.

Span Ows: I am not sure I can speak for the middle and upper classes. Socialism is about creating a fairer society. One person being philanthropic is all very well, but it is bigger than that. Giving one's possessions away may be noble but it does not change society.

Or alternatively! 'http://wapedia.mobi/en/Troll_(gay_slang)'


Troll and trolling are slang terms used almost exclusively amongst gay men to characterize gay, bisexual and questioning or bi-curious men who cruise or “wander about looking” [1] for sex or potential sex partners or experiences “in a notably wanton manner and with lessened standards of what one will accept in a partner.” [2] The term can be used positively or negatively depending on the speaker, usage and intent and can describe the person or the activity. Although often referring to “an unattractive older gay man” [3] the phrases can be used for anyone who is trolling regardless of age or perceived beauty and troll as a slur “is primarily a visual, not a behavioral” judgment. [4]

:-)

"Does the requirement for constructive comment apply to the editors when it comes to Israel's behaviour on one hand and 'muslim extremism' on the other?

This is a genuine question because there hasn't been a constructive article on these subjects in the last two years, unless I have missed one that you could bring to my attention.

I am certainly not a Tory . . . "

Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper

As somebody who certainly IS a Tory I'd like to ask the same question.

This is an otherwise excellent and thoughtful forum (as anybody who has ever slummed it over at Guido's knows!) but when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all we seem to get is regurgitated Israeli propaganda.

How about getting somebody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with Israel's occupation of Palestine/race laws/war crimes/etc to write on the subject for a change ?

"Does the requirement for constructive comment apply to the editors when it comes to Israel's behaviour on one hand and 'muslim extremism' on the other?"

You seem to have quite a thing about Israel.

"However when you ban some people from saying something on this site where do you draw the line?"

At people who are clearly here to stir and wind up. These people can usually be spotted quite easily.

"I will stay until any Conservative asks me to leave"

If any Conservative asks you to leave, ignore them. The problem is not with left-wing posters on this site, it is with wind-up posters.

Sorry if the above seems a bit off topic, by the way.

On the otjher hand, you could say that sites which offer a plurality of views are less likely to suffer from trolls than ones which don't.

For instance, anybody who has ever looked at Draper's Pravda like attempt can see why he needs every user to be registered and every post to be pre-approved !

I think if you had a full ban, it would be like a Salvation Army meeting, worthy but dull, which in the business of saving souls may be the aim.
Allowing avowed non-members and Party dissenters to engage in the hurly-burly makes it more exciting, like a virtual hustings. Virtual hustings are harder to control in terms of language and personal abuse, this is true. I am sure the Editors/Monitors do sometimes ask if it is worth it all. I for one think it is because robust discussion does bring out points that may otherwise not be touched upon in locked-down control centres that see any dissent as the start of rebellion and anarchy.
I guess the question is what world do you want to live in, the real one with all its warts and joys or an anodyne cocoon sheltered from all unpleasantness? The answer may vary on certain days when a rest would just be nice, but on those days, unlike the long-suffering chained-to-the-site-Eds go for a walk and return to the fray refreshed.

The word troll means someone who disagrees with the Conservative Party line.
The posters who I believe the editor should be taking a stronger line with are those that make racist comments, call foreigners garbage.That s what brings the Conservative cause into disrepute not genuine crticism.

"At people who are clearly here to stir and wind up. These people can usually be spotted quite easily."

"The problem is not with left-wing posters on this site, it is with wind-up posters."

What about me?

I was blocked for telling a troll (jack Stone), that if he had nothing better to do than wind people up on conhome, then he needed to find himself a girlfriend.

What is the pleasure in winding somebody up by placing a contentious post on a website?

I'd rather watch paint dry!

Most of the problems are UKIPPERs who are homeless souls now that their party is breaking apart and because the democracy site has stopped being their natural home.

I do not post on their sites so why are they on here?

As someone who has had a few posts on LabourList I do not recognise the description "Draper's Pravda like attempt". I can imagine that it is not popular amongst the regulars here, but in its short life I think it is a resounding success.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

I think this is a sensible course of action and I am sorry that I have been rather too frivolous on some occasions which has only encouraged them... I will try not to feed them in future.
That said, I am concerned about when we get to Election time and wonder if it might be sensible to at least consider some form of partial registration - say have certain restricted areas where only members can discuss certain topics.

By the way, "Thomas", I hope you are not the Thomas I know....

Thomas. Couldn`t have to put better myself.

"As someone who has had a few posts on LabourList I do not recognise the description "Draper's Pravda like attempt"."

The impression I've got is that they seem to have a disproportionate number of articles attacking the Conservatives or following the party line. Conversely LabourHome comes across as a lot more independent and willing to discuss internal Labour Party matters.

"By the way, "Thomas", I hope you are not the Thomas I know...."

Which Thomas do you know?

Julian Ware-Lane:

I could, like you, rejoice in that. I do not. I do not because I believe in democracy and real democracy can only exist with real choice

In your response you exemplify why there is no point in having a debate. Either you are just another defective disingeuous unit of labour's Borg collective or you are just so deluded that you have no idea.

You make the above claim yet support a party that denies and has no interest in democracy (supporting the EU, proliferating unelected Quangos, implementing a one sided devolution act, using the promised referendum that never was for electoral gain etc. etc.) Give up now before you make yourself look even more ridiculous!

And to think you are a Labour PPC. You got humiliated with your nonsense on Pb.com. You think you will do any better on Conhome? Go back to Labourlost where you belong......

I would urge caution on this. Conservative Home is, in my view, by far the most interesting political site and one of the reasons for that is the wide variety of opinions expressed. One doesn't have to be a member of the David Cameron glee club to post. It seems to me important that Conservative *voters* should be heard, not just paid up members.

I don't usually agree with Jack Stone or Residentleftie but the site would be poorer without the odd squibb from them. Likewise with the UKIP contingent.

In short, be very careful. You may begin by trying to curb the odd troll, but could end up enforcing a bland boring Cameroonish orthodoxy.It's a slippery slope once you begin to tamper with free speech.

LabourList is a simple agitprop exercise and of course will be popular with members of its cocoon. This is to be expected by a site that is guided by Mandelson and Campbell, (who I last remember coming down one of the grandest staircases I can remember saying somethin along the lines "See, I now have a certificate saying I am not a liar and it was all Andrew Gilligan's fault really" followed by public "show-trialling" of Newsnight as being unworthy and better get back to cap-doffing if they wanted to keep the licence.
Horrible, authoritarian and incredibly dull in the inner circle.
However, diamonds in muck, I am going to follow up the apprenticeships article by Tom Ogg. I wonder how much longer he will survive by implicitly criticising "stay-at-school-for-all-to-18" policies.

Timmy boy only ever overwrites comments that he can't rebut.

I'm right, and he knows it!

"Which Thomas do you know?"

One who currently works for my local association....

@Henry & @Francis

The Platform pages are always open to people with different views to me and Jonathan.

@A lot of people

There is no intention to end debate. The site would lose so much of its purpose if we all agreed with each other. I'm simply cracking down on personally abusive and pointlessly negative comments. Constructive UKIP, Labour and LibDem voices remain welcome.

Martin Wright:

I disagree, it was true some time back that Conhome was the best but too often Conhome ends up in right of centre in-fighting. IMO it has now lost out to other sites like Pb.com.

Given that, it has become a tad tedious coming on here to see the kids of the right fighting each other rather than debating or fighting the real enemy whilst that enemy, the Labour party are committing affronts to our democracy, economy and society on a daily basis.

I welcome Tim's intervention.

"Which Thomas do you know?"

The Tank Engine.

I come to Conhome for comprehensive coverage of the Conservative party. I used to read the comments but they have become tedious. The insights provided by Tim, Tom, Harry & Jonathan are still valuable despite the low quality of comment.

Well done Tim. I think the Editor know's the difference between people who want a genuine debate even if they are polar political opposites or even if the debates become bad tempered as they sometimes do here and the wind up merchants like Jack.He never makes an insightful comment nor will he enter debate with anyone. His sole purpose is to irritate.There are also people with a more Conservative viewpoint that do the same.If that's all they do they should be banned too.

I used to read the comments but they have become tedious.

An example of self-reference ?

I think people can quite easily distinguish between those of other parties who are engaging in constructive comment and argument and those who are simply here to insult, abuse and irritate. I would be very sorry if we lost posters such as Resident Leftie, Northern Monkey, Comstock (even despite his occasional naughtiness)and The KIPPERS! It is regrettable that some of the most vitriolic and abusive posters would seem to be Conservatives who have never forgiven David Cameron for winning the Party Leadership.

As somebody who has strong conservative values, I was attracted to this site by the open forum nature of it. I thought it was deliberate that the 'c' in the conservativehome header on this page is deliberately in lower case, suggesting this site is aimed at conservatives not specifically Conservatives.
As the meaning of conservative is 'tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these', I would have thought that many of the comments that elicit negative comments from Conservative loyalists are from 'trolls' who put conservative values, above party loyalty.
If the owners and membership of conservative Home find it difficult to deal with constructive criticism, and the sometimes childish mischief that goes with it, then perhaps the site should be renamed Conservative Home, and be restricted to party members only. Neatly cocooned in your bubble, you can then praise each other about how wonderful you are, and convince yourselves that you have all the answers. In the meantime those of us who are looking for answers to our questions, will be entitled to come to the conclusion that we are not worthy, and will look somewhere else for reasoned political debate.

Bob Frost, thank you for actually explaining what a troll is. I should like to know if the editor is calling me a homosexual just because I am not turned on by guns and fascism.

ConHome is not quite poacher nor gamekeeper. That it where the effectiveness lies and, arguably, some influence.

Yes, the poaching has increased but to turn gamekeeper with too much of a catch-all shotgun blasting would be of the shooting one's own foot variety.

Tim - Is it OK for me to continue blogging on here please?. I'm not a troll and am a Conservative - but I do support David Cameron !

Cheers

Peter, please don't go! We spaniels have to stick together :-)

The editor wrote at the top of this post "I've been too tolerant of comments that are negative without purpose". Henry M your comment at 1651 falls under this, I cannot see anywhere where the editor has called you a troll, your comment is uncalled for in my opinion.

Tim, having to become a blog nanny must be very frustrating, I can understand the point you're making and hope that I don't cause you any concern.

David is our man...isn't he our keyword and pass at least inside the doorway of the forum. Nobody really wants to censor any-man and a man is recognized for that which he is only. Jack is offensive and clearly of the dark-side he is a pinko plant and pride full and very nasty at times...Tim is free to defeat him. We don't need political enemies, and I am of the persuaded type that believes in some isolation and reduction of privilege for such people. Suppressive persons need suppressing and we have ever right to insist on some compliances. Its getting going now there is the start of a revolution coming upon us fast...speed thinkers need to apply themselves to the task at hand. These are those interesting times that we are cursed with. All roads lead to Jerusalem !

Any 'trolling' here is absolutely minimal compared to what Labour sites have to put up with.

Take a look at LabourList, LabourHome or CommentIsFree and look at how many Tories flood the comments pages.

Should they all be banned too?

If you think it's bad now (which it's not), just imagine how bad it will be if you win the next election. People don't get angry with oppositions, they get angry with governments. If we fast-forward 5 years, I'll bet at least 50% of the comments posted on here will be negative. It's something you'll need to adjust to.

Tim,
Do be very careful; it's the variety of views and the frequently funny blogs that makes this site such compulsive reading.

It's the self preserving tory who is afraid of open debate on here,and that used to be our strong point not too long ago.
It's a damned shame we are losing our edge like this,quite awfull.
I may have to retire and become a journalist again if the younger members have no spine for the challenges we now face.
Semper Fidelis.

Maybe Tim you could get a proper website forum on the site? Using vBulletin or phpBB. Give moderation over to a few people and allow registered free discussion there too. It would only enhance the sites appeal.

But, NM, there's a difference between a negative comment/disagreement with a piece or a response to a piece, and a wind-up merchant. The likes of comstock, resident leftie and your good self tend to make informed posts, albeit from a different angle, and generate considered debate

Others post drivel and hope to get a rise from the majority - I think they are the ones Tim seeks to silence

NorthernMonkey, I see you have posted on LabourHome that Tim is cracking down on non-Tory voices. This is utter nonsense. I'm sure Tim and most posters here have nothing against non-Tory and even anti-Tory voices. What we object to are people who clearly come on here just to try and wind others up (and it's notable that the two mentioned by Tim have claimed in the past to be Tories).

@YMT

I'll investigate what you say.

@Paul D and Richard J

Thank you.

How about getting somebody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with Israel's occupation of Palestine/race laws/war crimes/etc to write on the subject for a change ?

Posted by: Francis | April 03, 2009 at 14:46

How about you doing it? Join up with the ukipper Manchurian Candidate and place your article on Platform and tell us all about the misunderstood Hamas and the war crimes of Israel. We await the lecture which we can then debate.

This is the best political debating site on the web. There are times when we can get annoyed by the opinions of others with which we disagree and respond too aggressively. I am not a convinced Dave supporter and I am pleased to have such an informative, tolerant site whereby to let of steam. My thanks to the editors.

In the past you've censored for good taste, or legal reason, or to remove bad language. On a site like this, that's fine.

But Jack Stone and ResidentLeftie are (at least in my view) part of our community. Although both occasionally seem to write purely for party purposes, they do both also make useful and interesting contributions (sometimes), even if 'we' don't agree with them.

I think it's a really sad day when you encourage people not to respond and engage them in debate. "Sanitising" ConHome would weaken it, in my opinion. It would open doors for critisicm from our opponents and devalue the legitimacy of the site as an independent and genuine source of debate.

Like it or not, the involvement of our opponents is part of the reason ConHome is such a success. By all means cut off idiots who just spout foul language or mindless prose. But outside of that, you are risking the repution of this site if you go further than that, in my opinion.

I thought the editors had censored their own thread title.

Too true, Tim – you’ve “been too tolerant of comments that are negative without purpose.”

Regarding not feeding the trolls. The problem is Conservatives see red [very punny?] when non-Conservatives post here for the sole purpose of collectively abusing Conservatives/Conservatism/Conservative policy. There is one person in particular who I think has abused the hospitality of this website, and I’ve noticed he has – at times – taken to ‘policing’ certain threads by incessantly attacking anybody whose views he dislikes. That is bad manners in the extreme – especially as it’s not his blog.

Moreover, this same person has a habit of accusing others of “racism” [this is not my personal experience, but I want to mention it] – yet – deploying typical Lefty double-standards – he instantly exonerated himself when making an anti-Israel comment. According to him that doesn’t make him anti-Semitic. That’s not an explanation, that’s illogical. Just as his argument that he’s not a troll is similarly illogical when all the evidence points to the disruptive nature of his posts. Moreover, there are times when he sounds as if he’s swallowed some Lefty propaganda leaflet which is set in stone, and from which he cannot be deflected in order to debate. And there are other times when it seems as if he’s regurgitating a version of Orwell’s “Animal Farm” – public services/good, private sector/bad. No nuances. Nothing in between.

This blog is very well-known, and certain prominent Comrades have a habit of quoting from it – viz. Comrade Livingstone on his LBC Saturday morning ego show. I remember Sally Roberts posting that Livingstone said many posters on here were critical of Boris – over what turned out to be Peter Hendy’s decision to stop London’s buses running due to “the snow event”. Thanks to trolls, Livingstone can twist the truth.

As you will have gathered, I – along with many others find a certain person has achieved their aim – ‘a wind up merchant’. [And – I, too, am a guest on this blog – albeit a Conservative guest – and I truly don’t like having to write in these terms. And – like others – I thoroughly enjoy posting on this blog – so thank you, Tim and Jonathan.]

And – like others – I have no problem with “resident leftie”, Northern Monkey [although that Socialist Simian – © Guido – can go a little over the top ;)], Westminster Labour Cllr David Boothroyd, or the SNP’s David McEwan-Hill. Again – like some others – I think it’s time “UKIP-Homeless” [thank you the person who coined that term] were housed, and didn’t post here in such numbers so much, but my main complaint is with somebody – whose name I’ve not stated, but here’s a further clue – who you’d need a heart of stone not to laugh at – on occasion.

Finally – as I posted last night – it would be really good to have a separate, private section for Conservatives only to ‘talk’ to each other on certain topics. Not that I usually advocate copying from the Lib Dems [heaven forfend!], but Lib Dem Voice has a private forum for their current members only.

The Economist makes a good point:
"The popularity of the video *Dan Hannan), to which there was not even a link on the party’s official website, was an ill omen for senior Tories. They will have a much tougher time controlling the party’s messages to voters in the run-up to the next election than Labour did before 1997."
Labour bounced in on pagers (what they?) controlling discipline and Labour Central as THE info source, In that 12/13 years, the whole paradigm of information flow and control has changed.
I think the Tories will take it through, and though I want Dan Hannan to speak to a Tory Conference, but more to see that he is more than a one-trick pony than uncritical admiration, I think the whole issue of co-ordinated campaigning is to be very hard.
Lock down doesn't work any more, I have no idea what the strategy will be , but a new strategy there needs to be. I hope Tories get the right strategy first.

Tim, I like things just the way they are thank you, I think that you guys do an excellent job of moderation and believe very strongly that the standard of debate is enhanced by not having registration.

If we just want a few regular bores (yes that does include me) to talk only to themselves and each other then registration is the way to achieve that. CH will lose a lot of its value if comments and commentators are so severely restricted in this way. Iain Dale's Diary definitely suffered once he introduced compulsory registration and on that site the comments are nowhere near as important as they are on CH.

Having said that I wouldn't mind if you finally banned Jack Stone, in all his many incarnations, he really is begging for it.

It is regrettable that some of the most vitriolic and abusive posters would seem to be Conservatives who have never forgiven David Cameron for winning the Party Leadership.

Come off it, Sally. How often have I and others here been subjected to intolerance and abuse simply for disagreeing with the Conservative Party leadership, even though as time passes we steadily get proved correct? How often were we told since 2005 years that disagreeing with Labour economic policy was wrong in principle and electorally suicidal (not so much of that these days)? How often have accusations of racism been slung at anybody who even hints at unhappiness with unrestricted immigration (not so much of that either lately)?

I personally actually voted for Cameron in the leadership election. Boy, that was a mistake.

I'm sorry to say it, but you seem to have adopted the routine attitudes of the Left, which has apparently spread to the Left even of the Conservative Party:

(1) any criticism of the Leadership is disloyal and wrong, end of discussion;
(2) facts and evidence are entirely superflous in debate, although if pushed the Left reserves the right to just make stuff up;
(2) anybody who disagrees with the Leadership, or indeed left-wing ideas in general, is evil and can be abused to any extent at will;
(3) any sprited response to such abuse - ie anything other than humble, respectful acceptance of one's lowly and immoral status - is personally hurtful and therefore unacceptable.

Tim's a good man.

"But Jack Stone and ResidentLeftie are (at least in my view) part of our community. Although both occasionally seem to write purely for party purposes, they do both also make useful and interesting contributions (sometimes), even if 'we' don't agree with them."

Indeed sometimes.

Excellent post, Jill and I agree with you 100%, particularly on what you say about certain well-known "comrades" picking up on what is said here. The fact is that the media and some politicians choose to present what is said here as "Conservative activists" or "the grassroots" and sometimes that is presented to our detriment.

As for Alex Swanson - Alex I was tempted to do a detailed "fisk" of your comments but then decided that it would be far better to ask those people here who are familiar with your regular posts and mine to go back over what we have written over the last few weeks in particular and make up their own minds.

"Come off it, Sally. How often have I and others here been subjected to intolerance and abuse simply for disagreeing with the Conservative Party leadership, even though as time passes we steadily get proved correct? How often were we told since 2005 years that disagreeing with Labour economic policy was wrong in principle and electorally suicidal (not so much of that these days)? How often have accusations of racism been slung at anybody who even hints at unhappiness with unrestricted immigration (not so much of that either lately)?

I personally actually voted for Cameron in the leadership election. Boy, that was a mistake.

I'm sorry to say it, but you seem to have adopted the routine attitudes of the Left, which has apparently spread to the Left even of the Conservative Party:

(1) any criticism of the Leadership is disloyal and wrong, end of discussion;
(2) facts and evidence are entirely superflous in debate, although if pushed the Left reserves the right to just make stuff up;
(2) anybody who disagrees with the Leadership, or indeed left-wing ideas in general, is evil and can be abused to any extent at will;
(3) any sprited response to such abuse - ie anything other than humble, respectful acceptance of one's lowly and immoral status - is personally hurtful and therefore unacceptable."

Alex,

Some of your points are very valid - but what has Sally got to do with all this? I would not describe any of her output as "Left-wing" or including "accusations of racism".
Then again, there are people to whom these points do apply - Labour supporters who are literally petrified of their forthcoming defeat and very bitter about it already.

"But Jack Stone and ResidentLeftie are (at least in my view) part of our community. Although both occasionally seem to write purely for party purposes, they do both also make useful and interesting contributions (sometimes), even if 'we' don't agree with them."

It's not fair to lump in these two together. Resident Leftie is genuine. Jack Stone is definitely a troll. Many aeons ago someone on the UKIP forum admitted to posting as him (not by name but it was clear who the poster was he was referring to) to try and wind up right-wing Tories (presumably to drive them into the arms of UKIP). See here:

http://m.democracyforum.co.uk/british-politics-other-parties/29501-attack-tories-their-own-blog.html

That person has (if it's the person I think it is), according to Wikipedia, since re-joined the Conservative Party but the name Jack Stone lives on and appears to be used by someone else.

Timmy boy only ever overwrites comments that he can't rebut.

That's untrue, some of the comments don't deserve a rebuttal. To make out otherwise is to distort the right of the editor to prune.

I wish we could do something to make the process of boldening, unboldening, italicising and UNitalicising easier! :-(

"How about you doing it? Join up with the ukipper Manchurian Candidate and place your article on Platform and tell us all about the misunderstood Hamas and the war crimes of Israel."

Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh

It's ridiculous to equate condemnation of Israel's war crimes with support for Hamas. In fact, some of the harshest criticisms of said crimes were actually made by Israelis.

Not that a whisper of that would ever find it's way into a CH article, of course !

Thank you, Sally - and don’t certain Comrades behave badly [ie. Comrade Livingstone who is allowed to use his LBC Saturday morning ego show as a ‘soapbox’ in order to harass Boris – but then the Left love waging wars of attrition – politically]. Being presented with negative comments from trolls here [especially if they aren’t challenged] is a gift to media Lefties who often can’t resist portraying one such comment as the collective view of “the grassroots”. This misrepresentation is irksome as they aren’t “grassroots” views – just the view of a weed, and a Lefty one at that. This is also proof of the prominence of this blog, and how it’s held in high regard – even by Lefties!

RichardJ – thank you for that link. Shows how desperate some UKIPPERs have become – even in 2006 – and how much time some must have if they’ve got nothing better to do than perpetrate childish games on their opponents. On the subject of opponents, I never cease to be amazed why UKIPPERS keep condemning Conservatives when we’re not in power. If anybody should be attacked by UKIPPERS it’s the Comrades in power – but that logicality doesn’t seem to occur to some of them!

I am astonished at certain posters lumping together Resident Leftie and Jack Stone. Resident Leftie comes here to argue political points – Jack Stone doesn’t. Considering Jack Stone holds Conservatives in such contempt, it’s obvious he belongs with the Lefty “community” – not here.

Absolutely fascinating discussion.

Some comments which my distant old (i.e. pre 1959!) Labour upbringing insists I make.

Socialism itself is not evil. (I can hear the howls of derision already, but I mean it) Amoral Godless Communism is evil, but my father, a Labour man all his life, once said that the best form of socialism can be found in any proper monastery. There is no contradiction in being a Christian and a Socialist, in knowing that what you are trying to achieve is indeed Jerusalem, but you know you won't make it this side of the apocalypse.

And there are (or were) many genuinely good people in the Labour Party. (Mind you, that was in the days when they had a badge with a pen, a torch, and a spade with the word "Liberty" on it. I'm rather pleased that with their present dictatorial tendencies they've had the grace to abandon that.)

But as with all creeds and belief systems operated by mankind (no apologies whatsoever to any politically-correct troll hiding under the bridge) while they are operated by fallible men they are open to abuse. And certain belief-systems render themselves more open to abuse than others. That's why I became a right-wing COnservative and a committed Christian to whom liberty - the liberty to make mistakes, to run your life the way you want to even if it means you end up in a not very nice place - is paramount.

So we should welcome the contributions from those on the Left, provided they're made in good faith. I think Resident Leftie probably does intervene in good faith, and I think we must (even?) respect Jack Stone. Let's face it - I've been out on the doorstep for the first day of an 11-week election campaign (I might even lose some weight) and listening to Jack is good practice.

After all, the man from whom I got my interest in politics quoted, very frequently, "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." And I think, and hope, resident leftie and Jack would both agree with that.

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