Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« 'Comeback kid' Davis will relaunch this week | Main | ICM poll undermines Clarke's leadership pitch »


David Taylor

I now see why the Tory party is losing elections!!
People like Cllr Iain walk around neighbourhoods telling people who question why they should vote Tory: "because you should, don't question it - just do it". Great logic, the intellect of the Tory party is not dead!

David Taylor

My point is this: Cameron is not prepared to answer difficult questions, he is a quite nasty person and as the Editor says: what is is record? Answer: Black Wednesday, 2005 'short' Tory manifesto.

tom geast

nasty person? Can you enlarge this for us please David.

James Hellyer

Is your MP very a prominent politician, is he running for the leadership of HM Opposition, is being interviewed about his views, his life, his family by various news organisations?

Oddly enough, no. But he was asked about his family in the run up to the election but chose not to talk about them. Similarly nothing actually compels David Cameron and his friends to keep referring to his child. If he said it was a private matter, I have no doubt it would be treated as such. A newspaper trying to make capital out of his family in that regard would only attract vituperation - as the responses above show.

And yes Hellyer, having read your various dennoucations of Cameron on everything single aspect of his policies, lifestyle etc. I know that if he didn't mentioned his family you, and others would be making political capital out of this, like you are trying to make political capital now.

That's just untrue. This "everything single aspect of his policies, lifestyle etc" doesn't appear to have included his schooling, club memberships, wife, personbal habits, hobbies etcetera. But then it appears wild hyperbole is no stranger to you.

A politician's policies are fair game for criticism, especially when they are disagreed with vehemently. Similarly the way they deport themselves to the media, and thus the electorate, is also open to address. This is part of that.

What should he mentioned in interviews when they want to know about who is David Cameron and what he stands for and why and the background to that?

Perhaps he could tell us what he stands for, rather than offsetting one part of his personal narrative with another. A few weeks ago, David Davis was criticised for dwelling on his biography, at the expense of issues, whenever he was interviewed. Why should David Cameron also use biography in his interviews at the expense of issues?

It isn't good enough that when he's asked about drugs that he says "I don't want to answer that", but if asked about schools will talk about his son.

Steven Patrick

"he is a quite nasty person"

He sounds a much nicer than a lot of people on this forum. Because he allegedly once shouted at Andrew Neil (of all people) this means that he is a nasty person. Taylor, you really have got this in context!

"Black Wednesday"

Yes I believe it was all down to Norman Lamont's special adviser.

Adrian Sherman

A political commentator once said that all parties should have a good 'trumpeter'. I don't think Cameron will be a decent trumpeter....
....the silver spoon would get in the way, surely?

I agree with David vis a vis Dr.Fox. He's a shrewd character and his team obviously have some game plan, but I haven't figured it out yet. Even though I want Ken to win, there's a nagging feeling that Fox will do it, somehow. I would be rather pleased as he appears a sound social Tory and doesn't equivocate on drugs, unlike DC.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"Take Michael Crick's Newsnight profile as an example: this featured friends of David Cameron's using the fact that he had a disabled child to counter accusations that he was privileged and out of touch (it was something that made him "appreciate the fragility of life"). That is using a personal and private tragedy for political purposes."

What I found particularly galling about this shameful point from the Cameron camp was that it was used to counter a point about him being privileged and out-of-touch. How on earth can a rich man like Cameron claim to be in touch with people who can't afford to get the best care and treatment for close ones who require it?

While Cameron clearly cares a great deal for his son, and is sincere in his love of his son and concern over his wellbeing, using him as an example to counter an argument about being privileged and out-of-touch leaves Cameron open to accusations that he is using his son to garner public sympathy (please note I am keen to avoid misrepresentation of my views - I am saying he is open to accusations but not actually making that accusation myself), and is arguably in very poor taste. Highlighting this fact is far less distasteful.


At the end of this page, I still feel David Cameron should be leader, even if I am like others dubious about his position on drugs. But to be honest right now I feel he is more than some in this party deserve. You'll never find a leader without some flaws - I was anti-Iraq war, but I'll back Cameron. This party has a nasty (copyright T. May) habit of trying to hound out its more popular members. Is it an endless cycle that will leave us at best in second place or are we going to accept that no candidate is everything to every man and break the cycle and get back into a government with a popular, eloquent Conservative Prime Minister?

James Burdett

As someone who has not yet entirely made his mind up over the leadership candidates I find the very fact that there seems so much need to attack Mr Cameron in some pretty irrational terms to be proof that there is substance to him. After all why kick a wall that isn't there?


It isn't good enough that when he's asked about drugs that he says "I don't want to answer that", but if asked about schools will talk about his son.

James - It is not perfect, but I think it is entirely understandable. When the national media and a dominant Labour government have the ability to destroy a politicians career through issues like this and he is trying to resusitate the Conservative party he surely deserves a bit of slack. When making an argument he believes in on schools, it helps if he can bring every ounce of experience he has to the table and yes we do live in post modern theraputic blairite world where these things do help.

I can understand your reticence but I think that you are being too harsh...I would applaud him if he did answer the question about whether he has taken drugs but to be honest I dont mind that he hasnt, however judging by the Mail's reaction he may regret it soon enough.

Adrian Sherman

Seems like the curse of the Tory front-runner has struck again, brilliant! DC will come under yet more scrutiny from within and without over the next 2 weeks and his utter vacuousness and reliance on meaningless platitudes will be exposed to his peers.

The drugs thing has revealed something very important. For a man who goes on about wanting a "new kind of politics, straight and free from spin", *he cannot answer a stright question*; FACT. The British public will soon realise he's a particularly slippery and nasty character, as are most of his Notting Hill groupies.

I hope the Party doesn't sleep walk into yet another disaster at the behest of a skewed Newsnight piece and all his media chums, who will turn on him the moment he gets elected.


Looking at some of the comments on here proves exactly why the conservatives dont get elected.You hate change and think about the party more than the people.If some of the nasty comments on here about david cameron reflect what the membership think then you are once again going to fail in making the conservative party credible again.As far as i can see David Cameron is the only candidate who will remove the "nasty party" tag away from the tory party.I dont know how old most of the people are on here but whatever age you are it is about time that you wise up to the real world and stop living in the conservative bubble.You continue to knock down the candidate who could make us win,instead electing people the majority of the public despise because of their background in the conservatives.Thatcher might be a god inside the conservative party faitfull but in the outside world she is a hated figure.You would do well to get over your obsession with her and move as far away from anything that reminds people of her as possible.The conservative party needs to change and like it or not the only candidate who has the power to do it,will be popular with the public and will make people feel that voting for the conservatives is a viable option is David Cameron.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"Is your MP very a prominent politician, is he running for the leadership of HM Opposition, is being interviewed about his views, his life, his family by various news organisations?"

Well if you weren't satisfied with that example, perhaps you should consider that set by Gordon Brown following the unfortunate loss of his baby a few years ago. His dignity and stoicism in the face of that deeply personal and private tragedy and refusal to make political capital out of it and actually earned him a lot of respect as a result.

For all his other faults, you would not see or hear Gordon Brown or his allies countering an argument by playing on the loss of his baby and saying that made him aware of the fragility of life. By keeping his personal and private tragedy personal and private, and not dragging it into the political arena, Gordon Brown set an example that others would do well to follow.



Midnight Blue

Sometimes I find it very hard to remember that we're all supposed to be on the same side here!
I've had 2 friends who've taken drugs, I've seen them out of their heads, been there when they collapsed, watched them hallucinate and been with them to hospital. I had a drink in a nightclub spiked and had to goto hospital myself. Nothing I have ever seen convinces me that DC is right about this - BUT I like to think I have the decency to listen to other opinions without resorting to insults, especially insults that bring a disabled child into the discussion.

Quite frankly that was disgusting and beneath all of you who made that argument.

Its very simple - if you don't like the man, dont support him, but don't insult him and each other and make anybody else reading it think we're as weird as we're sometimes made out to be! Personally I am scared to hell of a Liam Fox leadership happening, but I won't be throwing my toys out the pram if it does, and in the run up to the votes I won't indulge in nasty personal attacks on either Dr Fox or anybody who supports him here.

Jay Harding

AnotherNick: 'Perhaps the reason I don't post under my own name is because I don't want visitors to this site to associate me with posts like some of those we've seen other bloggers put on today' - pompous? Moi? Poor old Nick - the idea of being seen slumming it with Tories ............... of course, the people who'd see you here are Tories, but never mind.

Tom Geast: 'George Orwell was also an Old Etonian as for that matter is Palash Dave' - congrats on the best "let me make your case for you" entry on a thread I've ever seen. You do understand that no one knows who Palash Dave is or cares? Look, here's his CV - - what point did you think you were making by saying, 'wow! OE meejah type!' It really isn't news, or, for that matter, any use to the Tory Party.

Adrian Sherman

Well Mr.Andy, I'm 25 years old, live in London and went to public school. So I'm afraid making out that all those who have seen through this vacuous individual are elderly, rural and inverted snobs, won't wash.

I speak to a lot of young people and most of them, so much as they care, are amazed the Tories continually pass over Ken Clarke, despite his age. He appeals to the anti-political generation which is the 24-35 age group. I also doubt whether they'll be impressed with Cameron's evasivness about answering a straightforward question.

David Taylor

That is a good point Daniel, I also mentioned Chris Smith quite a few posts ago. Why isn't it right to criticise DC - he has been in Parliament for 4 years, is unproven at the despatch box, is unproven with the public and as is shown here is disliked by a lot of his own party. He will be the worst leader we have had since Major. Major is actually a good comparison to use - he was overpromoted by his boss, had nothing to offer but being none of the other candidates and used his life as the son of a circus trainer to get to the top. If DC doesn't become leader he will be found out in whatever Shadow role he is given. if he does win.....heaven help us all.

Steven Patrick

"disliked by a lot of his own party"

Is he disliked by any more of his party than Davis or Fox or Clarke?

Question to Taylor, Why do you loathe David Cameron?

Steven Patrick

So Daniel you think David Cameron should not talk about his family? It is wrong for politicians to talk about their family full stop?

David Taylor

I am an economic liberal who wishes to see a strong Conservative party defend my ideals against the Socialists like Brown. I have no doubt Cameron can not do this.

Note to Cameron: I answered the question!

Ronald Collinson

While Cameron does seem to mention his son rather too often, that might just as easily be due to outrage that he has been accused of a sheltered life. I'd prefer to steer clear of his son and his background when arguing against him; as much as I despise everything he stands for, I have no proof that he is actually evil (while I would certainly level that charge at Tony Blair).

Besides, when there is so very much wrong with Cameron's message, it seems foolish to waste time that could be used reducing Cameron's speeches to actual substance, rather than non-controversial statements and rhetoric. If, say, we take Cameron's speech at the Conference (from which I have also largely excluded, perhaps unfairly, criticisms of Labour):

1. We failed, despite the general mess the government has made of the country.

2. I joined this party because I believe in Britain, freedom and aspiration. People should feel good about being Conservative.

3. Synthetic phonics and streaming are good policies, which should be pursued. Children are different, and so must be treated as such: special schools are good.

4. Gordon Brown will ruin the country. Tony Blair tried to stop him, and failed.

5. To defeat Gordon Brown, we must change. Moving to the right would be bad. It is not enough to change policy, image, organisation and leader.

6. Family and marriage are good.

7. Politics involves too much animosity and condemnation.

And that, I would say, is it. Notice that (1) and (7) contrast rather greatly. I cannot complain about (3), which actually gives a statement of policy, but this does seem to be the most substantial contribution to education he's given since the general election. (2) and (6) are good Conservative principles – are, perhaps, the Conservative principles – but even Tony Blair did not dare to outright deny socialism. Commitment to those principles should be proven. Moreover, there should be policy attached to them. Few indeed are the people who would disagree with those points. (4) implies an approval of Tony Blair, who I consider the most repulsive politician in modern history (even worse than, say, Tony Crosland, who at least believed what he was saying). Moreover, it shows the Blairite tendency to rally a party through mutual enmity. (5), of course, is most worrying. Cameron wants a change on a fundamental level, changing the very nature of the Conservative Party, but he won't even say what it is. This is because he has no vision – he just wants to be elected.

Henry Cook

Mr. Taylor, it is perfectly okay to criticise DC for his inexperience, and the fact that he is unproven. It is not okay however to accuse him of using his disabled son for political gain. He didn't refer to his son in his conference speech, or at his campaign launch. He only talks about his son if asked about him, a perfectly reasonable approach it seems to me. Even the most ardent Davis or Fox supporter should accept this and stop making nasty, chippy comments.


Cameron would probably, on balance, be a successful leader. He's youthful, energetic, and is saying what the public wants to hear. In four years time he could really turn the Tory Party into a powerful machine capable of winning elections again....

But if I ever had to vote for him, it would only be because he wasn't David Davis.

Cameron has a lot of negative points too - the fact he can't answer a straight question, the fact that he is inexperienced, the fact he's only taken a place in the shadow cabinet since the election, etc, etc. He isn't a panacea by any stretch of the imagination.

My preferred candidate would be Ken Clarke, even though he's pro-European. I think he's got an established record in government and years of experience, which is also very important. I don't agree with everything he says, but compared with Cameron, he beats him hands down.

If Cameron makes the final round, I'll still vote for him (presuming Clarke doesn't make it). But, as I've said before, he'd simply be the lesser of two evils, as opposed to a desirable candidate.


Why is it a big deal if he has or has not taken drugs.It was in his past and personal.Disliking a person because they wont say if they have taken drugs or not is silly.Base your view on cameron on what he could do for the poularity of the party and the message he will give out to the public.I am not a member of the conservative party,i simply beleive the party shares my basic values.I come from family who mostly are labour voters and a place where labour win on a regular basis.There are many "rough" areas near to where i live and speaking to alot of the people in my town they were impressed by Cameron and some said that if he was elected they would consider voting for us again.I asked why and most said because he was a fresh face,a modern conservative and most importantly was out of all candidates one that LEAST reminded them of the thatcher government they loath.
These people are surely the kind of people who need to vote for us if we are to form a government
Because of peoples reactions i decided i wanted cameron to be the leader.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home


  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below: