Cameron in front of the press

Kevyn Bodman

Didn't anybody there ask him about the Neather revelations?

If not then the press attending the event were 100% wimps.

Say it ain't so.

Nicholas

Did he say anything about immigration and Neathergate?

Did he say anything about the other elephant in the room, encroaching EU fascism and continental law?

Verity

Kevin Bodman and Nicholas - I will associate myself with your questions.

So everyone but Quentin Letts was playing softball. I think Cameron's answer to Letts was pathetic.

Irene

I'm glad he he got the chance to say something on the Kaminski affair.

Neather not mentioned - Why??
The fact that Labour are being very quiet on the subject says it all.
Trust The Mirror bloke to ask a question about Ashcroft, I think Cameron should have made more of the answer.

KB

Blunkett...Education...success. Three words never before seen in the same setence.

Bichard also gave us the ISA. Thanks for that.

Frank P

Oh My! All very light hearted. Where were the ball breakers? I'm beginning to think that the reason he can't challenge the Government on Neather's revelations is that he and his cabal have been up to similar ploys themselves and knows that the other side knows that; in other words - stalemate, as with the expenses scandal! Jeez! So the 'statement from Cameron on the Neather scandal today' was complete bullshit? Over to you Verity!

This blog is fast becoming a litmus paper for Cameron to use, not to address the concerns of the conservative constituency of the electorate, but to take necessary steps to further the interests of the Pro Europe, pro Muslim and pro immigration lobbies. In other words, WE are the enemy! Well, you've got fight on your hands Davey, boy, because unless you can assure us that ain't so, you're going to be scraping for votes by the time the election campaign takes off in earnest. And talking of Ernest, where is EC? On hols, sick or dead? Come in EC, or I'll have to organize a search.

Peter From Maidstone

So no-one among the gathered journalists asked about Neather. Shame, shame upon you all. You are all treasonous leaches! How can we sweep away all of this corruption? Who is paying for your silence?

Verity

And how about that other elephant in the room, the suicidal elephant, the accession of Turkey, with 90m Muslims? Did "Dave" address that?

Kevyn Bodman

For some reason I can't get on to this week's Wall.

So I'm back here to talk about Cameron's response to the Neather revelations.
Tomorrow we have PMQs.
Since the policy revealed by Neather we've had 2 General Electons and a change of PM.
Plenty of chance for ministers to have told us what they were doing and what their goals were.
That they didn't shows that they were afaraid/ashamed to do so.

Come on Cameron, pick this up and run with it.

However I subscribe to the Verity analysis of Cameron,so I think he'll wimp out.

The Neather revelations have made me both angrier and sadder than any political event I can recall.

Pete Hoskin

Kevyn: I've fixed the Wall link now, so it should be going to the right place.

Verity

Yes, Kevyn Bodman, but he won't "wimp out" because he has absolutely no intention of taking a stand on Neather or mass immigration used as a bludgeon to control the indigenous owners of the country.

David Cameron has already announced that he is the heir to Blair. In some arcane way, he takes the Labour whip.

In a pond full of politicians, this is the iguana I trust least, because he is lolling on the mud banks in camouflage.

Richard

I doubt that Cameron will mention the Neather revelations at PMQ's. Same as he hasn't mentioned expenses, which I suppose would embarrass him as someone who is part of the Westminster Crime Wave. There seems to be a tacit agreement not to mention anything that will embarass the other too much.

That sums it up really, the whole lot of them are as bad as each other and their own disgraceful behaviour precludes them from really taking the other to task. We truly have a situation where it is us against the corrupt political class and we have no voice apart from places like this.

2trueblue

He can't answer questions he wasn't asked. We have no real inverstiative journalists figuring at present. In fact the media in general have not served us well for years, the question is what is the cure for that?

Peter From Maidstone

Pete Hoskin, can you or some other Spectator staff member, explain why you are ignoring the Neather issue, despite the overwhelming concern and interest of your readership?

Beer Moth

KB and Nicholas

Yes, the Neather matter: the screaming silence thereabouts.

One item only across the whole site - and that a tentative attempt to defuse the situation.

I posted a comment over the weekend asking why this had received at that time, no attention. No show.

As part of that attempt, I pointed out that Verity has been shouting this from the rooftops for the last year that I know of. Thanks and congrats Verity for your astute appraisal of the NuLab project.

I wonder how it is that a casual contributor is able to steal the march on so many professional political commentators here on this magazine? (Mel P aside of course)

This comment will NOT appear automatically.

Beer Moth

Well there you go, it did!

Edward Sutherland.

Like many other posters on this site and others I am totally bemused why the press/ Conservatives are not giving the Neather revelations the major attention they undoubtedly deserve. The only explanation I can come up with is that the Conservatives want to keep it as a stick to hit Labour with come the election campaign should the smear brigade spring into action.

strapworld

I noticed Damian Green asked a question about the report but that awful man with a mouth full of teeth and 1940 glasses, Phil Woolly or something, said he had seen no report! So that shows, in my opinion, they are concerned.

Straw has said everyone knew about it! What a man of straw!

I think we will never get the truth. The MSM the great untouchable MSN those intrepid fighters for the truth have been found out to be wimps, total and absolute whimps.

Mr Hoskins yesterday said that Neather had made another statement! Well that was surprising was it not.

A gift for the Tories ignored by Cameron. Which does not surprise me. The man will prove, like Obama, like Blair a total and abject failure. These modern politicians who have never fought for their country. Never have shown any pride for their country are all the blinking same.

The Queen has let us all down. So I want the Stuarts to reclaim the crown!!!

I think it is time to consider a radical change of party.

John Richardson

Yes Richard 5:32pm

James Forsyth is a part of our national problem also.
Above he spews out the PC poison that he has ingested.
He suggests 'negative stereotypes' when what he means is 'incoherent hatred'.
Has he forgotten the Conservatives elected Thatcher ?
Has he forgotten what all women forced selection has done to the PLP ?
Does he know anyone outside the tiny corrupt world of British politics who wants all women selection ? Or gives a toss ?
Does he subscribe to the twisted,almost insane, notion of 'representative of modern Britain' MPs ?

Thank goodness we can take direct action against this slithering mendacity in our own lives.

Verity

But a comment I wrote on the Neather thread is being held prisoner in a basement in Queen Street. It simply will not post. It looks as though it's going to post, but it doesn't leave the posting page.

Both Pete H and I, independently, tried taking key words out and it still will not leave the comment box. What is going on around here? I thought it might be a bit long, so tried running it as a two-parter, but it still wouldn't leave the comment box.

Verity

James writes: "Third, Cameron’s lightness of touch allows him to dodge tricky questions."

Well, Fagin also had lightness of touch and was also a skilled pickpocket, although I doubt that selling his country down the river ever crossed his mind.

Verity

I just saw this headline, in The Mail: "I don't want Il Presidente Blair... but I'll work with him if I have to",
says David Cameron

Missing the point there. (Mind if I call you Mr Cameron instead of Dave?) We don't want a President Anyone speaking for us.

JONNY

Maybe the media don't think Neather is such a hot issue as some hotted-up folks here.
It takes a newsman to spot news.

EC

Frank P,

Since the party conference season I've rapidly been losing the will to live. I despair of the political classes or should I say the tripartite cabal of career politicians that is running (ruining) this country. An alternative is desperately needed. If a credible local independent candidate stood in every constituency at the next election it could just break the mold(sic) of British politics.

Snowman

Neather isn't the only ticking bomb, the DT poll suggesting that one in five voters consider voting for the BNP's another. I reckon this is more serious if you buy AA Gill's argument in the last Sunday Times that people are increasingly voting against rather than for a party. If the BNP, the Greens and the UKIP rob the major parties of a substantial chunk of the votes, the Tories may not get an absolute majority. Anyone for a nuLabour/LibDem pact?

Dennis Churchill

Snowman
“nuLabour/LibDem pact?”

I think we already have one.

Verity

Strapworld, HM has let us all down. She watched as Blair took an axe and a wrecking ball to our Constitution, our civil institutions, our House of Lords, our Police, our formerly admirable education system, sluiced in backward aliens with very unsavoury habits and loyalty to a grotesque desert diety - probably fearing that she and her family would be next, said nothing. Nada. Zilch. The complete destruction of Britain happened, deliberately and with malice, under New Labour and she had a front row seat.

I would say that she perhaps feared that Charles would be a bloody sight worse if she abdicated, but what could be worse than standing by while aggressors pull down your civilisation around your ears?

Betrayal.

Peter From Maidstone

JONNY, sorry, but what a stupid comment.

Peter From Maidstone

I have to say I am no longer sure who to vote for. I had voted Labour when I first gained the sufferage in 1981. But then as Labour became more and more loony I was glad to be able to support the Social Democrats, but felt rather let down when they morphed into the loony Liberals. Then I was glad to vote for Tony Blair in 1997, imagining that it was indeed a new start for the country. Slowy I realised I had been conned, by New Labour and by socialism in general, and voted for Anne Widdecombe who seemed a principled woman.

But now what? Someone appears to have been parachuted into the Maidstone constituency. I don't know what her views are on immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. She doesn't mention them on her campaign website.

Cameron doesn't seem too interested in them either. But if the English nation is wiped out then anything else is irrelevant.

I watched a good comedy this afternoon while I was working (I own a web development business). It was called Idiocracy and it proposed that by the year 2500 the stupid and workshy had reproduced at such a greater rate than the intelligent that the average intelligence of the world had plummetted.

With the rate of reproduction of the workshy, of Muslims and of other new immigrants I wonder how long we have before we are no longer a majority, both in particular locations and generally? Does anyone have the figures?

Nicholas

I have read the report and the part addressing immigration benefits reads like it was written by the most junior and starry-eyed members of the happy clappy, multi-culti brigade straight out of the sixth form or what passes for university these days. All sunshine and romantic, rose-tinted (and patronising) perceptions of foreigners. A few prominent and famous immigrants are named as examples of how enriching immigration can be but the argument is both fatuous and superficial. Talented and artistic indigenous people also enrich our society so there is really no basis for special pleading. Also, immigration is not restricted to the exceptionally talented or artistic and we are talking here about MASS immigration.

It really is the most stupendous drivel and it surprises me (actually, no it doesn't) that a government could take it seriously or use it as a reference. For each supposed benefit an opposite liability could have been considered, but wasn't. There is no proper risk analysis and the question of security (post 9/11 bear in mind) is completely overlooked. There is not even an impact analysis. It is staggeringly naive. There is not too much about critical infrastructure or resources, constitutional or religious complexities and one has to question the sanity of a government that can boast about investing in public services to "improve" them and then knowingly expose them to the overwhelming burden of mass immigration. The document has a caveat that it is not policy but of course now we know it was.

It is like one of those horrible management-speak consultancy reports where the argument and conclusion is contrived on the basis of what the recipient wants to hear. In other words it is a facile justification for decisions which had clearly already been made. There is apparently no critical faculty in the government, the opposition, the civil service or any of the other £91 billion worth of quangos, to analyse or take a balanced, reasoned, mature view of anything. No wonder we are being overloaded with laws and regulations conceived by jibbering idiots.

The British, or English people, were not of course consulted or even "consulted" (in New Labour terms). It is a shameful piece of treason worthy of the most serious investigation but the "establishment" response speaks volumes about how far we have already travelled along the dumbed-down road to infantilisation.

We need something more than "Wouldn't it be a good idea if" optimism and the Marxist equivalent of the Blue Peter cast in determining sensible policies for the nation. The words "mature", "serious" and "circumspect" spring to mind but there are many others, most of them apparently removed from government text books along with those naughty counter-revolutionary words which so offend the rather stupid children governing us.

Nicholas

Jonny - you are right. It is not news. It is history. It requires a crimes against humanity investigation team to probe it. It stinks like a disinterred murder victim and requires the same forensic approach to identify and punish the guilty perpetrators.

2trueblue

Peter from Maidstone, yes, what and why are the media rubbish at investigating and asking the real questions. We have so little in the way of quality reporting and real journalism in the UK, and have not had any for many mnay years.

JONNY

Sorry too Peter.
I'd have hoped it might have entered your excessively smart brain that there is no smoking gun here.
Your over-excitable bias doesn't by itself make it an established fact.
Nothing concrete. Nothing substantiated. All vague and easily refutable.
Sorry about that but that's life for you -
even in Maidstone.

IH

Neathergate, Neathergate, Neathergate, Neathergate................................

mac

Verity,

Had HM intervened as you suggest while the charlatan was PM (as opposed to the current deadbeat), then the Labour-Gramscian-Guardianista wreckers gleefully would have made the issue a constitutional vote-of-confidence in this disgraceful government. And with the BBC and the MSM as willingly onside as they were, a republic would have been a Labour party manifesto promise. Jeez, the likes of sneering Mrs Blair as first lady, what a prospect.

I'm not saying that it's inconceivable for the monarch to act, but for a royal intervention to succeed in this age of ersatz 'democracy' it would have to reflect the nation's clear will; unfortunately, whatever depths Labour's third rate government plumb, the socialists' client base ensures a captive vote of 25% or so of the electorate. And no prizes for guessing which camp the Cleggites would support.

Moreover, even while our shameless marxist masters continue to ramp their highly selective narrative the MSM still won't expose the real nature of the New Labour 'project'. And an unreformed BBC never will.

Beer Moth

One interesting point I noticed in the report - or The Report - is that Straw referred to the effects that the planned open door policy would have on the 'native population'.

A favourite message of the multiculties, is that there is no such thing as a British native, no such status as Indigenous Briton.

So what constitutes then, the British native population? By what characteristics are they recognised?

Peter From Maidstone

JONNY, I think that the majority here recognise the significance of Neathergate. That the MSM chooses not to is not a surprise, they are not journalists, and are not often people of honour or patriotism. They are just hacks and will report what and how they think their readers want.

TGF UKIP

It is getting increasingly difficult to resist the suspicion that there is a wholesale conspiracy of silence regarding the Neather revelations in which the whole of the village, hacks as well as politicos, is complicit. But why, seriously, WHY?

That the Cameron Tories have gone nowhere near it, is absolutely no surprise - Dave's impeccable right-on pc credentials might be jeopardized. Moreover, given the multicultural european jelly Dave would obviously like this country to be, he probably considers his mentor has done him a favour.

Of much greater concern and suspicion, though, is the position of the hacks and especially those closest to home.

By any reasonable norm this was/is a huge political issue. The subject which consistently ranks as no.1 public concern has been the subject of gross government deception yet no Speccie hack goes near.

Indeed, neither the Political Editor of the Speccie nor the Editor himself chooses to comment. Instead we get the feeblest of late attempted diversionary stories from Pete Hoskin which boils down to - Labour knew where he lived and got at him since last Wednesday.

The story was mentioned but relatively buried in the Warmgraph while the Mail ran it more comprehensively but still not as a main story. But the most glaring opportunity to bring it to the attention of not only most voters but the voters who are most affected by swamping immigration, fell to Fraser Nelson and his weekly comment piece in the News of the World. What makes the omission even more bizarre is that the whole of his column on Sunday was on the BNP and immigration and the failure of the main parties on the issue. Yet not a mention did Nelson make of Neather.

Not just curiouser and curiouser, but stinkier and stinkier.

General Zod

It's not a stupid comment that Jonny made PfM. Not a single person I have met this week has mentioned the Neather storylet.

You lot have seized upon it, because it presses all your buttons, but even though there will be plenty of Labour activists who will have talked excitedly in terms of such a policy, there is no chance whatsoever of pinning it on the Labour government through any concrete evidence of implemented policy.

You can scream as much as you like, but you will get nowhere (apart from ruining debate on CH).

If Cameron appeals to you lot, he will get 30 to 32% of the vote and lose.

Don't worry, Verity, he really, really doesn't want you to call him Dave.

General Zod

This site is broken. Some posts appear instantaneously. Others take as much as an hour.

Verity

Yes, Mac, I'm aware of all that and said so above. But HM has the power to sack the government and put the military on the streets. What could Gordon have done? Have Sarah stand at the door of No 10 and refer, with stunning lack of sincerity, to "my hero"?

Seriously, what could they have done? Do you think Sarkozy would have sent over the French army to fight our army on the streets? Do you think Obama would have dared, or cared, to get involved?

She could have put in a coalition cabinet for a year. Or better yet, had the Commonwealth, except Mugabe's dunghill, send one representative each to sit in an emergency cabinet. That would have been a strong move. (I vote that the Indian be temporary PM, although I could also go with an Aussie.)

Meanwhile, put Blair and the usual suspects on trial for treason. I know they can't be hanged any more, but they could go to prison. Maybe we could send them to Pakistan as part of an exchange of undesirables.

BOO

What assurance do we have that the questions are spontaneous? Who decides which questions will be aired?

Verity

TGF UKIP – I too have been feeling a chill of uneasiness. It’s not the elephant in the living room. It’s the elephant in the downstairs half bath and it is still not being officially noticed.

I’m in accord with you not being surprised at the Tories, because they’re all (especially Cameron's elitist crew) part of a larger conspiracy against Britain.

But the newspapers? The Mail ran it two days in a row and got masses of comments. Some posters got over a thousand clicks of agreement for their posts. There is revolution in the air.

Yet mum's the word in the rest of the media. The Speccie only mentioned it when it had the opportunity to run it as a non-story.

I now think it’s a pan-EU conspiracy of not just the left, but in alliance with the lefty rights. Like Cameron. They’re all in it together, so it’s omerta time.

Just think of the tens of millions of Muslims inexplicably in Europe, most now, inexplicably, with the power of the ballot.

When I lived in France, most people I knew were very opposed to a Muslim presence. And the behaviour of the Muslims - for example, turning Christmas into a festivity of car burning - as in, at some Christmasses over a thousand cars burnt. I believe (but can't remember for sure) that they also burn cars at Easter. (Admittedly, Sarkozy, in public, shouted 'scum!' at them, but I think he isn't one of the omerta gang.)

Now, we are talking of Muslim immigrants in the streets of formerly orderly France, torching cars on public streets, and the gendarmes (means 'men of arms') standing by helplessly because they have been ordered not to intervene.

Isn't it time the citizenries of Britain and Europe asked themselves, "What the hell is going on?"

Frank P

Verity

Getcha bum over to Melanie's patch old friend; she has really done the business and needs every one of us to back her up. What a trouper - or perhaps I should say Field Marshal.

Verity

Frank P - Apologies for having not posted in response to yours ... circumstances ...

I will respond, though.

egh

General Zod at 10:51 - I think the staff members have lost their magic touch. You know, the one that makes things "appear on the website."

egh

Sorry to post again, but another thing --- What's with all the out of season poppy-wearing? Do all these traitors think it's a 2 month-long fashion; or something to do with supporting Afghanistan; or are they just campaigning for the 'military vote'?

General Zod

Verity - "But the newspapers? The Mail ran it two days in a row and got masses of comments. Some posters got over a thousand clicks of agreement for their posts. There is revolution in the air."

Revolution? By Daily Mail readers? That is one of the funniest things I have read in quite some time.

Verity

egh - both your posts above, seconded. The staff who "make it appear on the site" have lost their touch. The whole system's haywire.

Agree about the poppy as right-on fashion accessory. I suspect that David Cameron knows better, but he is only too eager to degrade the specialness of the poppy in his quest to disguise himself as Mr Ordinary.