David Cameron on Question Time

I've just got home and I've missed 80% of David Cameron's Question Time performance (just ending on BBC1 as I post).  What happened friends?

Comments

Lots of nagging about the drugs thing.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

You can catch up online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/

You could move to Wales to avoid this happening in future - QT doesn't go out until 11.05pm here :-(

Interesting how Ben Bradshaw agreed with Caviar Cameron about politicians' private lives.

[James Hellyer]

David Cameron appears incapable of answering any questions - never mind doing so in a punchy fashion. He was all bluster and waffle on almost every subject.

[Mark Fulford]

James, what planet do you live on? Cameron got a fantastic response from the audience - especially on the issue of drugs which this blog has been so keen to keep alive.

[Editor]

Why am I not surprised that you weren't impressed, James?!

I heard DC's answer on the licence fee. His background in Carlton may have edged him against the BBC but I was glad to hear him say the Beeb has enough money. Any true conservative should be worried at the BBC's left-liberal biases.

[Matthew Oxley]

David dodged every question directed his way, I could hardly distinguish which was the New labour politician between David Cameron and Ben Bradshaw.

I don't think he did himself too much harm but I don't think he did himself any favours either.

[James Hellyer]

James, what planet do you live on? Cameron got a fantastic response from the audience - especially on the issue of drugs which this blog has been so keen to keep alive.

He dodged almost every question. FACT. He was incapable of giving concise and punchy answers. FACT. Even Dimbleby told him off for being waffly. FACT. The non-New Labour members of the panel thought he should just answer the drugs question and thus kill the story. FACT.

[Mark Fulford]

I’m not going there. Your inability to accept anything good about Cameron has got me laughing out loud.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Presumably Bradshaw wanted Cameron to keep quiet about the drugs issue so that New Labour can smear him up hill and down dale (thanks Tebbit) about it if he becomes leader when it would do more damage.

[James Hellyer]

I’m not going there.

Because you can't cite a single concise answer provided by him?

[Editor]

"Cameron got a fantastic response from the audience - especially on the issue of drugs which this blog has been so keen to keep alive."

Mark: I'm not interested in whether DC jused drugs in his past. Can I say that often enough? What concerns me is that DC has not shut the door to the possibility of drug liberalisation. Until he does that I fear he might use his leadership to soften policy on drugs. That - for me - would be inviting more social misery; particularly for very vulnerable people. I'll keep blogging on this subject until DC repudiates the views he held when he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Cttee.

I'm not saying that liberal views on drugs mean I couldn't vote for him in the final round - but they would be a major barrier and I hope (and expect) they would be for many, many other Tories, too.

[Mark Fulford]

James, I'm not going there because there's no point. I could type until dawn, but you would still never see any good in Cameron. It was absolutely plain that he went down very well with the audience and, come next election, they're the ones that matter!

[James Hellyer]

What concerns me is that DC has not shut the door to the possibility of drug liberalisation.

Especially as his original positition - allegedly based upon the best scientific advice available - should still be the same, as that advice hasn't changed since he was on that committee. Either he's not being straight about whay he held certain views then, or he's not being straight about his views now.

You can ask him the question, but based upon his track record you won't get a (straight) answer.

And Mark:

"It was absolutely plain that he went down very well with the audience"

They took to him as well as they did Ben Bradshaw. Presumably it helps when you don't express any remotely controversial or even challenging opinions.

[Mark Fulford]

Are you saying that it's not controversial to refuse to answer questions on drugs?

[James Hellyer]

Just stupid.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Anybody watching This Week after QT? It's just started here and Diane Abbott just made a very interesting comment...

"Unless they've got pictures of him [Cameron] doing lines of coke like Kate Moss, then I suspect it won't do him any harm..." (or words to that effect)

This could be interpreted as an insinuation that Caviar Cameron has snorted cocaine (to the point that Michael Portillo felt it necessary to interject with "As an example!" following Abbott's comment) but it also serves as a reminder that the Cameron/drugs issue is about more than just a quick drag of a joint of marijuana but the possibility, which Cameron has declined to deny, that Cameron has indulged in harder drugs as well, which would be very serious indeed.

[Nelson, Norfolk]

DC performed extremely well on QT tonight. He came acroos as a man that could attract a lot of new voters to the Conservative cause.

He did go down well with the audience and he scored well in my skills measurement scale ( see previous my post ).

Thank you Mr Editor for giving us the opportunity through this site to express our views on this very important leadership campaign. Keep up the good work.

[Derek]

What Michael Portillo did say on This Week was that he agreed that Cameron dare not answer the question because if he did he would then be under great pressure to answer the follow-up questions, which could well be - how often, what drugs did you take etc, etc.

At this moment the reporters are out there digging up any past acquaintances of his ready for the Sunday papers. It is sad that it matters, but it does.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Oh and Andrew Neil's just picked up on the point about Cameron thrusting his family (he did cite something in particular, but I don't want to start that argument up again, in light of all the mudslinging that was going on the other day about it) into the spotlight while bleating about his private life.

[As a separate point, I hope you got my reply to your last email Editor, my webmail server has gone up the spout! In case you didn't, the answer to your question is it's fine!]

[Editor]

ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG!!

This thread is proving to be better natured than some of the recent postings.

I'd urge people to be very careful what they say in this difficult area.

After banning my first commentator on Wednesday I've felt obliged to ban another two since.

Unacceptable nastiness was reason (1). Mis-using a public figure's email address was reason (2). Spam posting was reason (3). I'm in a trigger-happy banning phase at present... you've all been warned!!

[Ben O]

"I’m not going there. Your inability to accept anything good about Cameron has got me laughing out loud"

So true!

What QT showed is that Cameron really has got that charisma that is lacking in a lot of other politicians.

Interesting story in the Guardian(!) about how Associated Media is out to get Cameron.

[wasp]

It wasn't Cameron's best performance because Dimbleby allowed the drugs thing to go on for far too long, probably because he was hoping to get a confession.

On all the serious questions of terrorism and prison sentances he performed with his cutomary authority and it was excellently received by the audience.

What was most amazing was the way that he was treated as a potential PM, something that Hague and Duncan Smith and Howard never really were.

[Jack Stone]

David Davis supporters tryed smearing William Hauge when he stood for the leadership, they did the same when Michael Portillo stood, they did the same to IDS when they wanted to get rid of him and now they are doing the exact same thing to David Cameron.
It surprises me that anyone thinks that the party would benefit by having these people leading it!

[James Hellyer]

David Davis supporters tryed smearing William Hauge when he stood for the leadership, they did the same when Michael Portillo stood, they did the same to IDS when they wanted to get rid of him and now they are doing the exact same thing to David Cameron.
It surprises me that anyone thinks that the party would benefit by having these people leading it!

A post smearing other people with generalised accusations of smears! And from a Cameron supporter too...

[Mark Fulford]

He dodged almost every question. FACT.

Which is plainly untrue. Fox supporter smeers Cameron. This really is tedious.