Saturday, July 21, 2007

Sunday Open Thread

I gather the Sunday papers will be carrying a YouGov poll showing Labour seven points ahead on 40% and the Sunday Telegraph is alleging that up to six Tory MPs have written to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron. What a bunch of self-centered, idiotic, brain dead idiots. Naturally, they are all unnamed as they have the courage of a three day old custard.

Discuss.

I am spending today helping commemorate the tenth anniversary of the end of the Rwandan genocide, so I won't be posting again until Sunday evening.

91 comments:

Mr Eugenides said...

What a stupid and unhelpful move.

Newmania said...

Bang on Iain . What is the matter with them. Anyone who thinks a shift to the right or a display of disloyalty is what we need now is a traitor who cares more for the sound of their own voice than the country .
How Brown will enjoy the useful idiots . There is a real danger that sensible right centre people will conclude the Conservative party is so irremediably infantile that it does not deserve a chance . WE know what the position currently is and we should all be working to change that

James said...

The 6 MP's should each be given a loaded pistol and be taken out back by the Chief Whip to do the decent thing and leave whats left of their Brains on the wall of Palace.

Love him or loathe him David Cameron has done good things for the Party, Ealing was never going to be won, but at least we didn't loose any votes, and because of that the Lib Dems didn't come first!!!. They should be inputing experience and offering advice not spurting out drival about no confidence votes. Sometimes you wonder if these committed people are determined for this Party to remian in opposistion, do they think this action will result in good press for the Party. Please gentlemen/women, defect to Labour.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Your blog is invisible to my Firefox browser.

Alex said...

For a start, your blog is no longer working on Firefox, for whatever reason.

Anyway. Where the f*** is Cameron? Serious flooding around the country amongst potential Tory voters and I haven't heard a squeak. Why isn't he in his wellies helping out? Cynical photo-op it might be but at least the BBC wouldn't be able to ignore it. Yet he's heading to Rwanda. Noble as the project is, last I heard Rwandans don't vote in UK elections.

I'm sure Brown can't believe his luck.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Some time ago, in fact last year, I said that the Cash for Peerages prosecution would fail because strings would be pulled and favours would be called in.

Today in the Times we read,

"However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence."

This relates to a diary that purports to have yeilded compelling and damning evidence.

I was not in agreement with the preposterous Guido Fawkes and his faux claims of being in the loop.

It does however go to show that the shadowy world of antidemocracy -Blair's real legacy- has yet again reared its ugly head.

Simon Harley said...

"What a bunch of self-centered, idiotic, brain dead idiots. Naturally, they are all unnamed as they have the courage of a three day old custard"

Why discuss the obvious, as you've stated Iain? All that the good folk here are going to do is discuss different ways in which to cause the 6 severe pain/humilation/regret and so on.

billybongo99 said...

I believe Mori in the Observer are showing Labour on 41%-a 6% lead over the Tories.Cameron in Rwanda, shades of Maggie in Paris?

abandon said...

Cameron in Rwanda, a helpful reminder of one of the most shameful episodes of inaction from the last Tory government. Are Rwanda to get an apology on behalf of the Conservatives? Or is it just a cynical attempt to try and grab the Africa issue out of Labour's hands, and then leave the issue behind them?

After this poll, some are saying Cameron is Kinnock, and has to be allowed to lose the next election and stay on to build the party. Who will admit to a niggling suspicion that he may in fact be Foot?

But then who can be the Leader the party needs. Boy Osbourne? Unlikely. Davis? Lack of electoral charm. Perhaps it is time to hand over the baton to Sir Peter Tapsell, and be done with it. Good show.

Diablo said...

Oh, I wish these people would grow up and realise that all this stuff about six Tory MPs challenging Cameron is all got up by the Hefferlump tendency of the Telegraph to disparage everything he does. They are a stuck record just going round and round: "announce massive tax cuts now; tell the EU to get stuffed; stop immigration; etc, etc."

As it happens I agree with a lot of what they say but it won't do any good to portray these views in such a blunt way. With a largely disengaged electorate to simply continue to plug the stereotyped views of Tories will end in failure.

Instead, we should allow David Cameron's policy groups to fully report and feed their findings into the national debate that will then define the manifesto that the Tories will fight on at the next election.

What I would say though is that David Cameron needs to get the public presentation right. There have been failures and I wonder what Andy Coulson is doing.

Josh said...

The wheels may be coming off. The next election may be lost. But knifing Cammy cannot help you. All you will do is consign the next potential leader to the ignominy of defeat, rather than letting Cammy taking that hit, as well as to continue to sour the image of Conservatives as treacherous and reactionary.

Dusanne said...

Agreement with consensus on these, if true, unhelpful, unwarranted and frankly pointless actions.

I suspect they may be people with an axe to grind over the grammar schools issue because, at least until some subeditor gets on the case, BBC news’ web site is reporting here at 4:40AM that…

“At least two Tory MPs are believed to have called for a voted (sic) of no confidence in party leader David Cameron.”

Rwanda must seem like the place to be right now!

Johnny Norfolk said...

I have nothing further to say about David Cameron. The results will say it all.

The Hitch said...

At least they werent all stupid enough to p*** to Rwanda on a pointless publicity stunt just to keep in with boy wonder.

tapestry said...

No doubt euro(USER)philes encouraged by Murdoch's manoevring to promote Hague to leader. Murdoch pulled off the assassination of IDS. He's hoping to repeat it with Cameron, now Cameron's standing up to the USER Constitution. This was not part of the deal made to promote Cameron to leader. The USERphiles are angry.

Stephan Shakespeare as good as warned us this would come in his column on CH pre-Southall.

Cameron's in the right place in Rwanda this week. His strategy will have to change. We all know that. He can read my blog if he wants some sound advice!

This Murdoch assassination attempt must be dealt with, and then, if it is the USERphiles, their limbs should be dismembered on the rack...or at least their Constituents should deselect them.

Newmania said...

How encouraging it is to see some commentors who are actually supporting the Party.
The more I think about it , the more I see that the Conservative Party has to be able to incorporate a wider spectrum of opinion and act , nonetheless as unified force .
Cameron’s Rwanda trip gives a signal to certain shades of sympathy that the door is open and IDS`s tremendous work has deepened the message to great effect .Beneath the perturbations of the Daily Polls the Party is moving in the right direction for power and loyalty is required from everyone.

Anyone who posts something opportunistically undermining David had has this in store for them.

1 A New Brown Reich
2 Me finding them and slapping the taste out of their mouths

Think on that splitters !

Harriet Hamster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Reverend Doctor said...

Widespread condemnation of Sham Cam in the Sunday papers today - right across the board.

I'm afraid Cameron has had it. He's been rumbled in such a way that he will never get it back. The public are sick and tired of spin and style and whether you love him or loathe him, Brown has captured the more sombre mood of substance.

You can leave Cam Sham in place, but Labour will win. Or you can do the inevitable and get someone in charge who actually believes in something: Davis, Fox or Hague are obvious names that come to mind. But make no mistake, the Notting Hill set have come to an end. I wouldn't be too closely allied to them if I were you Iain ...

Harriet Hamster said...

We are a-wash with rain
BBC are misleading us Pc Plum in *Balamory* was in fact not a real Policeman..shock horror
Lord Levy and co face no charges and will know probably sue the Met
Gordon Brown is ageing 5 years daily
Boris has been shortlisted to stand against Ken
Andrew Neil is on Sky News a lot these days
Other than that Ian not much happening

Newmania said...

Reverend Doctor is the first on the list

Lady Finchley said...

I am in absolute agreement with you Diablo - you have taken the words right out of my mouth. These people are dinosaurs, totally out of touch and still banging away about getting out of Europe as if nothing else exists.

I do fear though, that if a snap election is called that we will lose. Not enough people have yet sickened of the kind of feckless, irresponsible society we have become. Cameron talks of taking responsibility and too many are still content for the state to do that for them. They have come to expect the state to make decisions for them and the thought of taking responsibily for their own lives, let alone for society is too much for them. They are simply not ready for it. They will be in time - the rumblings are already there - but not right now unfortunately.

Also, Cameron's talk of an green tax on flying was when it all started to go pear shaped. It was a ridiculous bit of 'policy' made on the hoof that was badly thought out and simply unenforceable.

As for the 6 who called for a vote of no-confidence we can all guess who they are, can't we?

The Reverend Doctor said...

Re. Newmania ... I don't think threatening to beat up opponents is quite the way to revive Tory party fortunes. More redolent of Roderick Spode.

You've had it under Sham Cam so you have a simple choice. Wait for the inevitable, or do the deed now. The former will leave you out for 6 years min; but the latter probably wouldn't do you much good with the electorate either.

To be honest, there's not much point left in the Tory party. You don't know what you stand for; you're more left wing that Brown in some areas; you apparently no longer believe in cutting taxes ... you're floundering around doing silly stunts. Perhaps it's unfair to blame Sham Cam - the party has been like a headless chicken since 1997.

The Hitch said...

Newmania for such a bright chap you do show worryingly tribal tendencies.
Politics should be about what you belive not yah boo sucks we won you lost.
Cameron believes in nothing more than Camerom the PM.
As to the slappings , seeing as I am not a member of the Conservative party I presume I am exempt.
Most people who visit africa end up catching a nasty bug , I am wishing ebola on Cameron.

Handy said...

Lady Finchley 8:40am wrote:

"and still banging away about getting out of Europe as if nothing else exists".

Quite so my Lady. And, I've been told that if we don't get out of Europe sharpish, England won't exist for much longer. It's rumoured,I believe, that the shrewd Scotsman is in the process of splitting our country into regions that will harmonise better with the recently agreed EU constitution.

Still, we can take comfort in the fact that the Tory Party has been rebranded so subtly that we no longer have any products/policies that anybody can disagree with (or any others when I think about it).

And the main thing is, we're no longer nasty.

How ungrateful of those six MPs and the public at large to be so unappreciative of Mr Cameron. And he's got such a lovely smile.

Mindless sexist bigot said...

Why isn't Cameron on TV telling voters what he'd do to make the country better?

Zero policies = Zero Votes

Harriet Hamster said...

Ooops..
I gather Dave has a flooded basement in his house today ?
Shame if it true when he is jetting off.

Neil Reddin said...

I agree with the general view here so far - this is unhelpful and frankly pointless. Heck, I voted for DD, but that's history now.

It's not the six dinosaurs today that DC needs to concern himself with - it's the real threats that are lying low waiting for a real opportunity.

But wasn't it ever thus?

Anyway, no-one is seriously suggesting another mid-term change in leader. The last week, in fact, should be a blessing in disguise, as Andy Coulson gets stuck in and we get our policy house in order.

My view, FWIW.

Oscar Miller said...

As a recent convert to Cameroon conservatism, having defected from New Labour - unable to stomach the totalitarian tendencies and psychological flaws of a Brown led administration - I have to say that I've been horrified by what looks like a Tory death wish. The sheer political incompetence, absolute failure to understand strategy and tactics in the minefield of today's 24/7 media, inability to comprehend the need for modernisation amongst the conservative rank and file, unbelievable levels of personal bile and venom directed at Cameron, plus some serious failures at the top of the party to effectivley put across the Cameroon message, leaves me in a state of despair. There was no 'Brown bounce' at the by-elections - there was a 5-6% swing against Labour in constituencies where the majorities had already substantially fallen in 2005. The conservative result was disappointing but their share of the vote held up. How come the Tories have allowed this to be spun as a 'drubbing' for the Tories and not one of them have been on air taking the fight to Labour. Instead they've allowed Labour in league with the BBC to go out all guns blazing to wreck Cameron's reputation, without any retaliation at all. We even had Dominic Grieve delivering a fabulously weak offering on Any Questions - saying that 'David Cameron had tried his best in Southall'!. And not only is there not a single newspaper backing Cameron, but the Sunday Telegraph go in for the kill with their flakey story which the BBC is having a field day with. What is Andy Coulson doing? Why aren't Cameroons flooding our airwaves to bolster their man? You guys seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What is wrong with you?

fr said...

I don't mind different views within the party but it is truly shocking how stupid some MPs can be.

Mark Senior said...

I quite agree , these idiots trying to stab Cameron in his back will never prosper . Now what happened to those traitors who stabbed IDS in the back , where are they now ?

Ralph said...

You can find backbenchers in all parties that don't like their leader yet the media only seem to find the Tories ones.

Ralph said...

Alex:'Anyway. Where the f*** is Cameron?'

He's been doing cynical photo-ops here in West Oxfordshire that the BBC et al have ignored.

molesworth 1 said...

i kno i shan't be the first to point this out, but cameron jetting off for a foreign photo-op, however worthy, will not play well amongst his natural electorate - those currently sloshing around the heart of middle england.
anewa,even if he manage to get out,there is no guarantee that he will be able to get back in (which goes for you too, Iain..!)
on a lighter note, in lieu of a genuine summer, my grate frend peason and i are off to London to languidly lounge in front of Conservative Central Office & bask in the warmth of the latest tory melt-down, hem-hem.
dave may be able to redeem himself somewhat if he can send some of his party's brightest hot-air exponents around the counties to help with the drying-out process...

Clive said...

They never learn, do they, these self important gnomes on the back benches.

They are always quoting Maggie wrongly, they justify stupidity as caring for the party and country (meaning their own self image and conceit), they conveniently forget the three consecutive and massive electoral defeats following the Heffer UKIP agenda,and they ignore the image these same fools have entrenched of a Tory party as divided and out of touch.

Instead of learning from the past they act like the past. Instead of recognising the progress they destroy it with their divisiveness.

They destroy the hard work of thousands of party members with an act of mindless selfishness.

Progress made in two sets of local elections, in the image of the party having changed. These brash buffoons either panic at the first sign that Cameron is right and it will take a long hard struggle to get back into a winning position again, or they opportunistically try to do him down because he will not kowtow to them and their antediluvian delusions.

They simplistically say that he is not on top in the polls so he must go, to make room for someone to repeat the failure we have achieved three times in a row, so we can offer the electorate UKIPesqque antiquated tribal venom and that tell us will ensure victory instantly.

Fools. Would it do any good to take them out the back to shoot themselves. Their brains died a long time ago. Only their ego survives.

Better to kick them out of the party and let them join UKIP. If they have a magnifying glass they may be able to find it.

tapestry said...

mark senior - it will be the same europhile lot as usual - John Bercow etc.

Cameron's offended his original media backers who believed he would be the next Blair (tradeable for media backing) or a Hague, who makes token eurosceptic noises, but will eventually back down.

But with Murdoch now baying for Cameron's blood, Ken Clarke and Hurd daily attacking him about Europe on TV, Cameron's standing firm in his determination to stop the Constitution without the referendum.

This was not in the purchase deal when they gave him full media support for his leadership bid. Liam Fox was the eurosceptic they wanted to bury. Cameron was their man.

Now after failing to pick a europhile as they beleived they bhad, they're trying the IDS cure - assassination.

While playing such tactics they are of course trying to blame the 'baying' right wing (Portillo today in the STimes).

The Cornerstone have categorically denied any involvement. They say that Cameron is now taking up their ideas about marriage and the broken society, and they see that things are finally moving their way. Disloyalty is not a Cornerstone game at any time, and especially now they feel they are winning position in Cameron's team. (Source - a senior Cornerstoner)

Geezer said...

Ralph said...
"He's been doing cynical photo-ops here in West Oxfordshire that the BBC et al have ignored."
July 22, 2007 11:13 AM


It's his F****** constituency you idiot. Witney has been badly hit. What do you expect him to do????

Anyway,

Cameron has no backing in the MSM, They all want Brown to stay in government. That is why they are trying to get rid of Cameron. He is no Michael Foot of Kinnock you idiots, Brown is sh** scared of facing Cameron at the polls that is why the Murdoch press and the BBC are desperately trying to undermine him. If he was a Foot or Kinnock they would want him to stay. The trouble is, that they know the Tory Party has a nasty habit of ejecting leaders at a drop of a hat. The media have the power to create a downward spiral for politicians by over-reporting so-called discontent in the Party ranks, and in doing so, actually create the discontent in the party and give a very negative image to the electorate so their poll ratings slide and so-on. But, unlike IDS, Cameron has much greater support amongst MPs and they know that he's their best chance for regaining power, as do the Labour Party and their cohorts.

A***holes like Heffer and Daly at the DT are only governed by self-interest, they want to keep a Labour government in power because it makes them more relevant and increases circulation. In the event of a Tory government, The Times would probably be switched back to a Conservative paper, instead of that NuLab apologist crap it is at the moment, that would hit Telegraph sales, as these have increased as a result of Murdoch's shameful editorial line.

That is a very grim outlook for the Conservatives, Labour's tentacles stretch so far into the news media in this country that even the papers that are supposedly friendly to Conservatives, don't want a Conservative government. Democracy is getting screwed in this country.

Donal Blaney said...

Is this too Machiavellian?

http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2007/07/reflections-on-calls-for-leadership.html

Ed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ed said...

Would these supposed "traditionalists" prefer another Brown Parliament to a Cameron government?

RacerDon said...

Today's oliticians are largely stupid and only interested in feathering their own nests.

That said there are a number of policy areas where Cameron should easily be making mincemeat of Brown, yet is ignoring these completely, we can only hope he's saving these for the likely upcoming election.

Ralph said...

geezer: 'It's his F****** constituency you idiot. Witney has been badly hit. What do you expect him to do????'

Go to Witney etc which he did.

I was responding to Alex who asked 'Where the f*** is Cameron? Serious flooding around the country amongst potential Tory voters and I haven't heard a squeak'.

The MSM are ignoring the fact that Brown was warning that floods like these were on the way, and any Tory MP who comments on it. The only Tories you see on Sky News or the BBC are there to be asked about Cameron's 'troubles'.

The worry for Brown is that with the MSM so heavily propagandising for him why isn't he further ahead in the polls?

Chris Paul said...

Cameron is nowhere near as good as Kinnock. Nowhere near. Cameron is a scheming, PR-obsessed toff and the 1922 and the Cornerstone and the rest of them should have seen him coming. The Lit debacle simply puts it up in lights:

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ || /// / / / / / / / / / /

-- "Cameron is a scheming, PR obsessed toff."--

/ / / / / / / / / / /// || \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

tapestry said...

The Lit debacle had one good aspect. It got so much publicity the Lib Dems never got a look-in!! It sucked all the oxygen away from their campaign.

Thus the LIb Dems' 100% by-election record to win from 2nd place was ended....by a Conservative cock-up!!!!!!!

bobdoney said...

"What a bunch of self-centered, idiotic, brain dead idiots."

Who? You mean the members who thought, on the basis of one entirely vacuous speech without notes at a party conference, that Cameron would be the leader to knock New Labour off its perch? You guys just don't get it, do you. You f.. messed up, big time, and wasted another ten years.

Geezer said...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


CHRIS PAUL IS SAD LABOUR ASTRO-TURFING CROSS-DRESSER WHO IS A DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE

////////////////////////////////////

Kinnock was ginger-haired Welsh muppet who took several attempts to pass his degree from Swmasea or Cardiff or somewhere.
AND
He brought in the delightful Mandelson. Kinnock started what Blair turned into an art form.

Ed said...

Chris Paul your comment would have been interesting and intelligent if you hadn't included the pointless information about Cameron's socio-economic background.

Why do socialists get so confused about between class and ability? It's not like Labour politicians are all working class heroes either!

Lady Finchley said...

Old news, Handy.

Banging on about Europe is a total yawn - we are never leaving Europe so if the dinosaurs don't like it let them eat cake and vote UKIP. Who needs 'em?

What really exercises voters is English votes on English issues - they are also fed up to the back teeth with the Scots getting medicine we can't, no university tuition fees and free care for the elderly on English tax money. Who needs the union anyway - let Scotland be independent and if Wales wants to go the same way good luck to them. See how far they get without us subsidising them. As for Northern Ireland it is only a matter of time before they become absorbed into the Republic.

This is NOT the time for us to lose our nerve because that is exactly what Labour, Murdoch and the Euro-bores such as Heffer want us to do.

Geezer said...

"The worry for Brown is that with the MSM so heavily propagandising for him why isn't he further ahead in the polls?"

The Tories have been "unfashionable" since the '60s with the BBC and broadcast media.
And opinion polls often reflect what is currently being touted as fashionable in the mass-media.
Gordon Brown's visage has been all over the media for weeks now, so dim-witted opinion poll respondent says they'll vote for "fashionable" Brown. This isn't often reflective of the true state of the electorate. Those with unfashionable views often do not respond. Going back to the 1970 election, the polls were wrong because they reflected swinging 60s fashionable left-wing opinion rather than REAL public opinion. Thatcher often polled behind Callahan in the late 70's and became such a hate figure in the 80s, for the left-wing broadcast media, that her mid-term polling was often terrible but not reflected when the GE came around. Same with the 1992 election, people didn't want to admit that they were voting Conservative. This is the main reason that the Conservatives do so badly in by-elections, natural Tory support doesn't see the need to vote for them outside of a GE in a media (mainly TV) environment that tells people to hate the Conservatives. The last three elections, as well, have seen the Conservative share of the vote increase and the Labour vote decrease on what most of the polls are saying.

Newmania said...

Having just read the comments through there is alot of sense being talked here by a lot of reasonable people. Oscar Miller makes some uncomfortable but good apposite observations but as ever Tapestry is such a source of sense . I also do not see this as a Cornerstone thing . I have met one or two and I just can`t see such outright treachery from that quarter .They are not the sort .

REv Doctor - Only kidding obviously , funnily enough I was only quoting from Wodehouse on Spode the other day.

( Footer Bags , how ghastly !)



I don`t see defeatism here I see realism and determination to get Brown out. Sleeves are being rolled up and a lot of baggage will have to be shed to do this but when Broons disgusting fleshy mouth is off the front page and the Beeb for ten straight seconds then we will see a fight to save the country worthy of Stalingrad.

It may be the last chance , he must , simply must be beaten whatever it takes.

fr said...

Is it not strange that 6 anonmous MPs are being talked up as a crisis by the MSM yet a few weeks ago c. 60 Lab MPs were voting against the government with barely a comment.

Peter said...

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Your blog is invisible to my Firefox browser.

July 22, 2007 12:24 AM

Works fine on my Firefox 2.0.0.4

Hughes Views said...

I don't like to intrude on private grief and I bring good tidings from the entertaining Electoral Calculus web site. On the basis of recent opinion polls it's predicting that the Tories would gain 22 seats at a General Election.

But before you get too excited it also predicts that Labour would gain 21 seats and have an overall majority of 84.

Still I expect we're many months from an election and, as Iain has written often, the polls are likely to be a bit hit and miss during Mr Brown's first 100 days.

Could be a worrying few weeks for DC awaiting the conference in Blackpool though...

RabidBadger said...

Maggie is famously reported as banging a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty down on a table, and declaring that "This is what we believe".

Any suggestions as to what the boy Dave would bang down today?

Desperate Dan said...

He is the best but he is being ill-advised by the people who've climbed onto his bandwagon. The commmon sense and electability he had when he was first chosen as leader has been thrown away in favour of Blair-style stunts and PR that are putting people off. The country is under six feet of water; we're having a terrible summer; the cash for honours crooks have got away with it; the interest rates are going up; we have no troops in the country to help with the flooding; the transport system is punitively expensive and inefficient; the NHS is collapsing; the ghastly spectre of the Olympic Games is looming; Ken is continuing his ethnic cleansing of London; any airhead with an agent can clutter up acres of our newspapers and hours of tv and radio covereage with news of their brainless existence; the system that favours muslim terrorists for NHS posts in preference to British bred and trained doctors is being extended to every other area of life.
I'm sorry but the number of people who are interested in Rwanda is very small indeed. Cameron's trip to Rwanda will not improve his image at home. In fact if he is doing a Gordon Brown and promising to give loads of our money to black babies he'll be doing himself a lot of harm cos that's not what we want to hear.

miggles said...

I hope it is that Cameron is being ill advised and not that he is making all these silly mistakes himself. (At least he can get rid of advisers). The Conservatives should have learned a lesson when they foisted Taylor (now Lord Taylor) on the good people of Cheltenham against their wishes to stand for election, as they wanted another local person (Charles Irving had done well for the town and area in the main). The people voted their fury and elected a Liberal (Jones). The issue become confused by reports that it was because Taylor was black that he lost the election, nothing could be further from the truth - he was not local and was foisted on them. Let the local grass roots workers choose whomsoever they want without pressure and A Lists.
this is the way to win elections!
Miggles

William Wilberfarce said...

RabidBadger - 5:11

Ali Campbell's The Blair Years.

Dan said...

For a PR expert the cock up with Ealing is the Cameroons, the media issue is perception. Conservatives were never going to win in 2 of the safest seats in the country and a seat in Ealing which had been Labour since 1945, BUT by creating the perception that they were at least going to run Labour close and push the Lib Dems into third they set the agenda. When they came third that then becomes the story.

The interesting bit about Campbell's diaries is not 2001-3 but 1994-7 when the new Labour team were putting every effort in to control the agenda, to ensure split and argument were never heard from within Labour. They were so angry and desperate to win.

From the comments on the blog there is still a paranoia about hidden Europhiles and Murdoch plotting. Sorry but it is nonsense, there is a vocal minority in the country who constitution or no constitution want to leave the EU. The majority do not, never will.

For those who want out please go join UKIP, and leave the rest of the country to argue about the important things in life like Tax and quality public services.

ranter said...

Go Hitch, Reverend Doctor and anyone else who thinks 'Dave' is going to lose it anyway - regardless of his back stabbing traitorous (to him anyway) colleagues. Dave could have it all if only he stopped aping the New Labour/Blair agenda. Move to the right Dave - see the votes come - get into power. Sorry all you 'nice' people - there's some hard and difficult choices to be made now, before they have to be made.

ranter said...

...and well said Desperate Dan! Rwanda?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Peter. Thanks.

Firefox was up again later in the night.

I don't know what went wrong but it wasn't just me.

This is a moan...

Iain for goodness sake, please stop loading your blog with crap. (statcounter, google analytics, vodpod, mybloglog, advertserve, freestats, screwmywife, etc, etc, etc.

My "no script" takes most of it out but I am sure that your habit of putting on every extra in the world makes your blog slow and sometimes, impossible to access.

Deal with it or I shall have to send Lenny "the hand" McGee and Bernie "screwdriver" Fauntleroy round.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I posted this at Con home and the DT but it may as well go here. I don't do this normally but I feel so strongly about the "Dave" situation.

This is in reply to the article in the Telegraph...

You have listed some of Dangerous Dave's fact-finding visits and they are ostensibly laudable. He has sought out "real people" in all walks of life. Is he on a search for higher knowledge or salvation?

Perhaps he is Melmoth the Wanderer, who having sold his soul for riches and glory, wishes to find a willing vessel to relieve him of his terrible curse.

And what's that curse, then? Its the curse of zeitgeistism, the curse of belief-in-nothingism which is last resort of the pragmatist.

Labour went the same way - they suppressed their core beliefs (at least at cabinet level)and the truth was the first casualty, as it always is when people abandon morality.

In his hell-for-leather struggle for position above principles he has lost his Tory soul.

Old Conservatives berate him for abandoning "traditional Conservative values", and whereas most people agree that Conservatism must move on, it must move on to something with philosophical and moral underpinnings.People around him like IDS know this, but is DC listening?

If only he could see that it is not about winning, it is about believing.

Newmania said...

WW with the greatest respect rhat is a load of bollocks . Its about winning . What you believe in is fir your private thoughts and memoires.
The right will make itself look like a Playground where children shriek I want , I want ! As if they had not understood anything of the world and their place in it.

tapestry said...

From the comments on the blog there is still a paranoia about hidden Europhiles and Murdoch plotting. Sorry but it is nonsense..wrote dan.

That's great but why did Stephan Shakespeare report on CH that a senior Murdoch editor told him that they are seeking to replace Cameron with Hague. Why have 2 or more MPs written to the 1922 Committee, testing the water to dump Cameron? Are these two situations related? Probably.

Before doing the psychoananlysis, let's work around the facts.

RacerDon said...

"Dave could have it all if only he stopped aping the New Labour/Blair agenda. Move to the right Dave "

He doesn't even need to the right, just tell everyone what his policies are in regards to money bleeding through the tax credit and welfare system, ridiculously low Inheritance Tax and Stamp Duty thresholds and the tide to remove our well established liberties... And just come clean to doing a few recreational drugs in your youth, only once or twice of course as you didn't like them, and that'll probably earn a few more votes too.

Vienna Woods said...

I have long thought that the problem with Cameron and his hangers-on is not lack of policies as such, but a clear absence of common sense and practicability. The hopping about from one loony scheme to another just irritates Joe Public who are beginning to regard him as completely irrelevant. He really is becoming very frustrating to believe in, or even blindly follow. I sometimes get the distinct feeling that he is a wrongly cast actor in a "B" movie, and nothing is going to change that!

Vienna Woods said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mens Sana said...

"If only he could see that it is not about winning, it is about believing."

Actually it is about both. What the hefferlumps and mad rightwingers in safe seats haven't understood is that you have to have principles, but you also have to make people believe in you. To do that it is a good starting point to find out what people do believe in and what their aspirations are, because if you don't you will never win an election unless the economy starts to collapse. This is what Cameron is doing.

What is interesting is that Murdoch doesn't trust him. He gave some fairly pointed warnings which have been ignored and the Murdoch press are now out to sink Cameron. I have to say for me that is a positive, not a negative, as what it means is that he is not someone Murdoch is confident he can manipulate (unlike Blair and maybe even Brown).

So it is vital that we hold the line. Cameron is a Conservative. He has high intelligence, principles, and charisma. That is why Brown fears him (never mind what the current polls say), and that is why we must not let the Conservative party be pushed into Hara Kiri by News International

Newmania said...

Maggie is famously reported as banging a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty down on a table, and declaring that "This is what we believe".

Any suggestions as to what the boy Dave would bang down today?
SAID RABID BADGER


That was when she was playing the role of a 19th century Liberal . David is much closer to the pragmatic scepticism of Salisbury and Balfour but with many elements of localism ,the system that has grown with the country and the people of it . It is defined by its balance and intuitive feeling for change and tradition and it cannot be written down. This false question entirely describes the problem that Marxist/ Monetarist / Libertarian ideologues in the Party have . They define people as economic units as surely as the Socialists do. They think the answers can be written in one book for all time . That is not what people are. What does Hayek have to say about loyalty , what does he have to say about love , what does he have to say about the threads that bind us all into a country .NOTHING. I do not want a politician who goes around banging Books . . There is more to this than can be written down and Friedman and Hayek are just a part of it .I want a Politician who I can trust who wants to win and is a Conservative.


David Cameron is a true Conservative and he deserves better support than he has received

Newmania said...

Well said Men Sana - Yes ndeed

William Wilberfarce said...

Men Sana I agree to a point, but I am not sure about 'good starting point to find out what people do believe in and what their aspirations are' bit,
Aside from a few nutters on all sides most people believe in pretty much the same things and have the same aspirations.
A good political leader should know these things, because they should believe in the same things.
Why isn't he slaughtering the Government about the recent floods.
I live near Hull and it was obvious to me when I saw the weather forcast on Thursday what was going to happen in the south, because it happened here two weeks ago.
Why did they not issue serious warnings, why did they not have the armed forces on stand by.
Why is it when you get a forcast of a few millimeters of snow and they warn everyone to stay at home.
But you get mass flooding which though unpreventable was entirely predictable, and measures should have been put in place to deal with it better than they have.
Only now two days later are the Army being sent in, they should have been there on Thursday night, in preperation.
Where are the Conservatives beating the Government up for yet another example of incompetence.

Geezer said...

"Where are the Conservatives beating the Government up for yet another example of incompetence."

You wouldn't know, if they were, because the BBC and Murdoch, choose to ignore their criticisms. This is true of the last ten years, in case you never noticed!! They have had their nuts cut off in opposition because:
A) they don't have enough seats in parliament to make a difference there (still less than Labour after '83) and
B) Most of the MSM ignore them because they don't want to criticise Labour (BBC being the most obvious example)

The current flooding is seen as unavoidable natural causes, at the moment, and the Conservatives don't want to be seen to be using human suffering as a political weapon. Labour would launch a counter attack saying the Tories are getting desperate and are being nasty (they have done this before!) The Labour media would give plenty of air-time and column inches to this, much more than the Conservatives would get for criticising them. That is probably why Cameron has moved away from "Punch 'n Judy" politics, he thinks attacks are seen as negative by the electorate. Some may argue they would be informative, but the Labour counter attacks, always seem to get more coverage!
When the dust has settled on the flooding, and some sort of analysis is done, Brown will find himself in the crap about it. But an assault by the Tories, at this stage, could backfire. They are more concerned with highlighting the mess in the prison system right now.

Handy said...

Lady Finchley (3:04pm) wrote:

"Banging on about Europe is a total yawn".

Quite so my Lady, and that reminds me of the time Emperor Nero said to me "For God's sake Handy, stop banging on about the smoke. Can't you appreciate the effort I'm putting into interesting the plebeians in fine music".

Sadly the Barbarians....

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I bet that the Cameroonies have, as Mens Sana points out, "(found) out what people do believe in".

That's part of the problem. It's the backwards approach; the focus group, the zeitgeistism - pragmatism with a cynical twist.

It's like two guys at a party trying to pick up a girl. The first guy chats away with the girl and discovers that they both like knitting and the films of Jean Rouch. They are made for each other. Result!!

The second guy keeps schtum, discovers the girl likes romantic poetry and ice-skating and quietly resolves to get lessons down the local rink and learn some Thomas Chatterton. It's just too sneaky and will end in divorce.

Engaging with the public, because "people believe in pretty much the same things " as William Wilberfarce points out, means being part of the public, not contriving a likeness of it.

This is the essential difference between Dave and Thatcher. When Thatcher sent the troops to the South Atlantic, every decent Briton was there standing right beside her. When the corrupt and greedy unions were relieved of their stranglehold on the workforce, every honest working man and woman breathed a sigh of relief.

We don't need mimesis right now.

"Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? Dave, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question."

Mens Sana said...

"most people believe in pretty much the same things and have the same aspirations."

I don't believe this. Of course on a superficial level everyone wants more money, better schools etc. But I think that there really is a difference in principle between the left and the right which is a reflection of our own opinions. In essence this is the division betwen statists and individualists. Furthermore, I do not believe that the younger members (say under 25) of our population have anything like the same beliefs, aspirations or wishes as the oldest age group (say the over 70’s)

However we all want the country to be well governed,and many people are prepared to vote for someone of "the other inclination" if they feel the country is better served by them-witness the number of people who voted for Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair.

So ask why people voted for Mrs Thatcher in 1979-She was elected because the economy was disintegrating under a terrible weak government. She was not voted in on a tax cutting idealogue platform. If it had not been for the Falklands war, it is likely that she would only have served one term, and Thatcherism would never have assume the iconic importance it now seems to have in the conservative party.

Why was Kinnock not voted in in 1992? Because (quite apart from being a bald redheaded welsh hot air balloon) we were not convinced he could control the left wing of his party, and we just "felt" he would not be a good prime minister. Certainly not because he was not left wing enough.

Why was Blair elected in 1997? Because the Conservative government had appeared weak (as indeed it was with a tiny majority and a lot of fifth columnists within)and corrupt (which I am afraid it was, though perhaps no more corrupt than that which followed), and because he "felt" like the right man for the times and someone who was fit to govern the country. Again he was not elected on an ideological left wing stance-quite the opposite..

We distrust people who claim to govern us by principle, either right or left wing. We understand that government is not a matter of executing political theory, but a practical matter of priority setting, negotiation and compromise. We want to elect someone who is competent and, except in times of national crisis essentially centrist. Someone who is strong enough to protect our interests and wise enough to know when and how much to compromise. Even if they are "not one of ours". That is who we want to elect for a first term. When we know how they perform as PM we know whether to reject them, and the assessment is a very different one.

So Blair had an open goal, as to a lesser extent did Mrs T. Cameron does not-at least not yet. He therefore has to work harder to set out who he is and establish that he is strong and wise enough to lead us. Trying to pretend that there is a thirst for Hefferism any more than there is for Marxism is crazy. There is of course a strong nationalist element which will always attract some support from across the political spectrum , but that way lies the BNP, and right wing nationalism is an even worse way to run a country than communism. The real question for Cameron is how to win over the white working class without compromising on his compassion, which I believe to be completely genuine. To do that he has to develop policies, true. But the real challenge will be to present these policies in ways which are acceptable to mothers on the school gate and manual labourers in Birmingham. If he is going to do that he needs to do his research, and I suspect he places a lot of importance on his personal experience.

And as to the floods: I think it is difficult to blame the government for an act of God, and although I am sure the response could have been better handled, I don’t believe that standing scoring party political points at the time would have gone down at all well. The time for that lies ahead.

Diablo said...

Cor! This is good stuff, isn't it. Let's try to keep up this standard over the next few months and ignore that Chris Paul if he pokes his little nose in here again.

PS: Can I make a claim to be the originator of the term "Hefferlump tendency"?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

mens sana... you are on the verge of outing yourself as an important party apparatchik by virtue of your well thought out post!

Only a paid Cameroonie would bother to think it through that much.(lol)

The Weasel is thinking about what you have said.

David Lindsay said...

If there really is a plot afoot to remove David Cameron while he is off on his Hug A Hutu publicity stunt (honestly, haven’t the Rwandans suffered enough?), then with whom is there any plan to replace him, and why?

To cite only one of the most obvious examples, David Davis was a Home Office Minister when Michael Howard, as Home Secretary, was initiating the grand theft of liberty which this Government has so single-mindedly continued.

So, who is it going to be, and why?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Mens Sana,

Your long post raises so many issues and is so necessarily distilled that a proper, bengin fisking would be impractical. Why not do a bit on your blog?

But. You did say:

"We distrust people who claim to govern us by principle, either right or left wing"

Oh, I don't know... Hitler didn't do so badly and neither did George Washington for that matter.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

"bengin" sorry, benign

Mens Sana said...

Sadly, WW, they couldn't afford me

Mens Sana said...

WW I would argue that a) neither Hitler nor George Washington were elected in England and b) Both of them were elected in times of either extreme economic or political instability in the aftermath of war. You will have noted my caveat about "except in times of national crisis"

By the by, such were the circumstances which ushered in the 1945 Attlee government, probably the last government until Thatcher's to be elected because of a real wish for change in society.

Hitler of course was not a particularly fine example of good governance, which might be thought to reinforce my point!

Iain Dale said...

David Lindsay at 12.41. Wrong wrong wrong. DD has never been a Home Office Minister. He was at the Foreign office.

RabidBadger said...

newmania @ 9:23pm:
What does Hayek have to say about loyalty , what does he have to say about love , what does he have to say about the threads that bind us all into a country .NOTHING. I do not want a politician who goes around banging Books . . There is more to this than can be written down and Friedman and Hayek are just a part of it .

As you might have guessed, my original question was partly serious and partly facetious.

There is an obvious problem of perception for Dave - we simply don't know what he stands for. You may wish to argue that this is the fault of the media, which isn't allowing his message to be heard. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but we've got the media we've got, and he better find a way around it.

I agree entirely that viewing individuals purely in economic terms is wrong - simply because Maggie chose Hayek doesn't mean that I think that Dave should do the same. However, the problem currently seems to be that nobody has any idea of what 'book' (i.e. philosophical underpinnings) Dave would choose to use in the same way.

It is hard, nigh impossible, to find a single tome that sums up an individual's world view for the reasons that you suggest. However, key aspects of how we define ourselves can be glimpsed through such an exercise. In my case, I guess that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is probably about as close as it gets - integrity, authenticity and quality being the cornerstones of my attitude towards the human condition. From these 'woolly' ideals you could probably work out my thoughts on how we should interact with each other, what I think about today's throwaway society and so on.

So, not such a facile question after all. The difficulty lies in trying to distill the essence of what you're about as an individual. To date, I still have absolutely no idea what makes Dave tick. In this situation, is it unreasonable of me to ask why I should lend him my vote?

WonderfulForHisAge said...

rabidbadger (9:23am) wrote:

"the problem currently seems to be that nobody has any idea of what 'book' (i.e. philosophical underpinnings) Dave would choose to use in the same way."

How about Machiavelli's 'The Prince'?

My guess is that this is being a trifle unfair to Dave but possibly 'spot on' with regard to many of his 'advisers' (in particular the Hilton boy).

WonderfulForHisAge said...

Lady Finchley 3:04......

"we are never leaving Europe so if the dinosaurs don't like it let them eat cake"

So, if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it?

There's a certain undeniable logic to that point of view.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I like the badger's book idea - and the t-shirts.

A book that in some ways sums up my world view is

The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. (some chapters can be accessed at

http://www.marxists.org/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/index.htm

Here is a quote, and I quote it because it is relevant to several posts running right now.

"....to speak a true word is to transform the world.[2]

An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality, results when dichotomy is imposed upon its constitutive elements. When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating “blah.” It becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action."

I also find that Rupert Annuals from 1960 onwards have affect my world view, but lets not go there.

Vienna Woods said...

Observing Dave Cameron over the last year I have come to the conclusion that he appears quite incapable of thinking on his feet and that is a devilish thing to cure. Good businessmen can do it without trashing their companies and others can make quick and sensible decisions off the cuff without causing mayhem. Dave Cameron is a showman who can make a good presentation after careful preparation and as long as he has the tufty club sitting at his elbow he isn’t often lost for words. However, his biggest gaffs occur when he is cornered, or when he suddenly loses the thread and goes off at a tangent on some noble “save civilization” jaunt. Unfortunately, the poor sod is obviously blessed with the most out of touch team of advisors imaginable and unless he is home steering and navigating the ship in charted waters, then he is certainly going to founder on the rocks. There again, I am also reminded of the Hans Christian Anderssen moral of “The Kings New Clothes” and I’m wondering when half of us will wake up to the reality!

Handy said...

Badger, I bet the book that is Dave &Co's 'bible' is Philip Gould's "The Unfinished Revolution: How the Modernisers Saved the Labour Party"

And I wouldn't put it past Gould to have left out a vital ingredient on purpose. I find it interesting to speculate on what the 'left out' Vital Ingredient might be.

Perhaps it is to be sure to have a "philosophical underpinning" to a 'Project'. Certainly Dave and Co. don't seem to have one.

On reflection NuLab's Evil Trinity might have been underpinned by

'Das Capital': (PM)
'The Prince': (AC)
'How to Win Friends & Influence People: (TB)

C4' said...

"David Cameron is a true Conservative and he deserves better support than he has received"

Have you taken your tablets for today yet Mr. Newman?

Cameron is Blair Mk 2 should be booted out of CCHQ by Hague ASAP

David Lindsay said...

Did Hague vote against Maastricht? Hardly! There's no one you could realistically name who isn't hopelessly discredited. Having been on Cameron's front bench is condemnation enough in itself.

davorg said...

Iain said:

"I am spending today helping commemorate the tenth anniversary of the end of the Rwandan genocide"

Far be it from me to doubt Mr Dale and his impressive army of fact checkers, but aren't you three years late for that?