A friendly warning to Cameron

Fatbloke on tour

At some point there will be a lot of disappointed people in the Tory party when they work out who Dave the Rave is and why his loyalty is to the Clan Cameron project and not the party.

That disappointment will be all the more acute for the cheerleaders who have tried to explain Dave theb Rave's actions in the context of the party and its recent history and as the grassroots understands rather than what it will be in the future.

Esate agents = out, estate owners = in.
Upper middle class, public school educated = New elite.
The new orthodoxy will pander to their issues and concerns.

Their current and most pressing issue is the deficit, they are all dog boilers now.

That is why it is fire up the chainsaw, lets slash and burn, AD has built the foundations of a decent recovery, we need a squad of brickies to continue the job not the "Coalition" wrecking crew we are going to get.

Any thoughts on who in the Treasury Forecating department will get a knighthood over the incredible shrinking deficit?

Ideology = out, class / breeding = in.
The history of the 20010 election will show that this was when it was back to the future regarding politics in Britain.

Tweedle Cam and Tweedle Clegg = Match mkade in uopper middle class dog boiling heaven.

Unless of course you are Sniffy and BloJo.

One for the future, Wee Danny to take over the leadership of "The Coalition" from Cleggy sometime in 2025?

Sniffy will be fighting and losing the leadership of UKIP at the same time.

TGF UKIP

Come off it James, Chuck is just one of you lot - a fully paid-up arch Camerloon.

And as for being "the most skilful! Tory leader of the opposition", more like the Tory leader who couldn't knock the skin off a rice puddn, who failed to convince the ordinary British voter and failed to win what should have been the easiest elction of modern times.

Next time you and Chuck should try "the most nepotistic leader" and you'll be a damn sight nearer the mark.

charles hercock

Sadly from the media it seems as if Tinsel Clegg is in charge and whatever the reality this grates with the True Beleivers

saddleworth

There are two sides to this one. Back benchers worried about the PM's methods are one thing, but disappointments at lack of office or loss of cherished policies are another.
Yes, the PM should pay attention to his party and manage matters well. But I do not doubt that he has at the back of his mind what the bastards did to John Major.
The bottom line for those tempted to be the awkward squad is that bringing down the coalition will put Labour back into power. If that occurs there will be slaughter of back benchers who screw their own party and give us the PM from the Planet Fuck. I doubt very much if the electorate would forgive a Conservative party that did such a thing for a very long time.
Back bench pressure is one thing but there is a point beyond which they cannot go. This may well be hard for them as the obsessive press interest in all the problems that the press think they are going to cause might go to some heads. The best approach is not to give the press an inch an keep matters within the party. They must remember what the Brown/Blair regime did this country and if the bloody mindedness brings it back.......

shorpe

This is a genuinely fascinating little drama that's unfolding. Everyone assumed that the biggest threat to the stability of the coalition would be the Lib Dems, because of their differences with the Tories on Europe etc.. Be terribly ironic if, in his rush to shore up that partnership, it turns out Cameron has been taking chunks out of his own ship's hull...

Pass the popcorn :D

Liz Brown

Mr Cameron would do well to spend time in the HoC tea rooms and bar, spending time talking and listening to the foot soldiers. (I believe that the sainted Maggie was often to be found there

Chuck Unsworth

@ TGF UKIP

Chuck who?

Nicholas

Fatbloke I think your prognosis is too black and white rather than the shades of grey reality and maybe predicated on a concept of class war that is no longer valid.

Elite yes, but a political elite of which there are just as many "dog boilers" on the Left and in the Labour Party (they talk a good fight but look at their lifestyles/personal values where wealth and personal aggrandisement loom just as large). The paradox is that when these jokers go on about social justice and fairness people like you get taken in because of the ancestory of the party the noises are coming from, but when Tories talk about exactly the same things it is easier to discredit them with the class line. You need to look beyond that.

Your rhetoric tends to disguise the real issue because it polarises reaction into two, no longer entirely relevant, camps. It concerns me more that the current political elite - on both sides - comes from a professional political background rather than whether they are "upper class". There are just not enough "ordinary" people from professions other than politics or the law represented in parliament and the destruction of the grammar schools undoubtedly impacted the social mobility that allowed this to happen. The traditional Left is still partly represented by communist activists (although they won't admit it), unionists, etc., but the right has become more hybrid. The elite background you highlight just feeds into the political elite with fairly hidebound views on certain issues. The emergence of this political elite is one factor in making the parties less distinguishable.

So in reality you have two parties with centre-left credentials and their "tagging along for the ride" extremist rumps and one party with centre-left credentials and a rump that doesn't know what it is. The rest are mainly single issue or xenophobic war bands.

denis cooper

Votes from Ministers accepted, when apparently under the existing rules Ministers were not allowed to vote; proxy votes accepted, when apparently under the existing rules proxy votes were not allowed.

One might ask why Cameron even bothered to hold a vote; if as party leader he actually had the right to order a vote to be held in contravention of the existing rules, why didn't he just order that the rules be changed to his liking?

And one might ask what sort of spineless people were on the executive committee of this Committee, that they allowed the party leader to arbitrarily dispense with its existing rules?

And one might also ask how the backbench Tory MPs who slavishly voted as Cameron wanted in an illegitimate SECRET ballot will behave when it comes to OPEN votes in the Commons?

If Cameron decided to disregard the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to get a vote through, would that concern them at all, or would they just do as he told them to do?

Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper if all backbench Tory MPs just signed forms empowering the whips to act as their proxies in all votes, and then they went back to their constituencies and stayed there?

Naomi Muse

It seemed foolish to put the kybosh on the 1922 committee of backbenchers, particularly when it is easy for them to complain that Clegg is having regular meetings with the whole of the LibDem parliamentary party to ensure they are on side.

Cameron should try harder at this one and ensure that all Tory backbenchers are at meetings of the whole parliamentary Tory party and not left out for therein lies insurrection.

chris as usual

All this is rubbish. The MPs need to settle down and rebuild their trust with the electorate, do a good job, nothing else. Everything else on this subject is premature twaddle. The 1922 committee is a total irrelevance.

It is about results, getting the job done, and they should be judged on that. Somebody has to be in charge, and take the responsibility.

I am surprised you have not brought up Simon Heffer's article in the same newspaper. The usual complaining. Had we followed Heffer's advise we would have had a glorious majority. Not. But some would have 'felt better' in defeat. Get real.

Perhaps when the junior posts have been handed out, and the parliamentary committees are up and running, the MPs can start getting on with helping to produce results.

Pity they will be travelling 2nd class like the rest of us.

Ivan D

I'm reasonably sure James could have squeezed another "Charles" in there if he had out his mind to it.

denis cooper

I'm puzzled.

Here's a Daily Express article by one Leo McKinstry

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/176352/Leo-McKinstry

in which he writes:

"... the man we should really thank for keeping Britain out of this mess is the late tycoon Sir James Goldsmith. The impact of his Euro-sceptic Referendum Party in the mid-Nineties forced John Major’s government to promise a national vote before joining the euro, a pledge that was echoed by Labour."

I'd agree with his praise of Sir James Goldsmith, but I also think that if more Tory MPs had rebelled then THEY might have forced Major to promise a referendum on the euro, and what's more they might have forced him to entrench that promise within the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 to approve the Maastricht Treaty.

And yet a couple of days ago somebody here was praying a Leo McKinstry in aid to condemn those rebel Tory MPs, troublemakers, bastards, disloyal to Major, "odious" I think was one word used.

So I'm puzzled - are there two different people by the name of Leo McKinstry, or what?

Charles

O/T but there were some interesting hints in Cameron's interview in the Telegraph today that the 50% rate may not be long for this world:

- he stated he was sceptical that it would raise much money
- that the advantage of being in government was that they could study the data
- that if it was proved not to be worth its while then there would be a strong argument for getting rid of it

What's the betting that Osborne announces a study in the emergency budget with the result that the rate is cut in the March 2011 budget (i.e. from April 2011)

Fraser - surely this must make you happy...

George Laird

Dear All

I think that the ‘Condemnation’ will fall apart, not due to leadership difficulties between Cameron and Clegg but Tory backbenchers.

It must be hard for many Tory MPs who thought they would end up in a ministerial position only to find that a Lib Dem cuckoo is in their ‘nest’ eating their porridge!

War is coming!

Finally, a poster pointed out I made a spelling mistake in one of my previous posts, so yet again, I am forced to concede an apology to the board.

It was laziness on my part for not having enough education and doing proof reading.

But on the bright side I am learning :)

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

JohnAnt

I cannot see what is so upsetting in the new arrangements. Cameron is pointing backbenchers in the direction of collective party responsibility, and government ministers too are MPs and members of the parliamentary party. He is trying to save backbenchers from themselves, as behind-the-scenes internal party squabbles turn off the electorate and prevent the government from governing. Tories should leave that kind of chip-on-the-shoulder behaviour to the Labour party.
His coup and its elegant and well-timed execution was the first sign I'd seen that Cameron has some strategic intelligence. (Pity he didn't use it to win the election!)
If you were to have a comp in which readers had to complete the sentence: 'The magnificent achievements of the 1922 Committee have been...' - would you get many entries?

jon dee

The Tory discontented are getting wide media coverage and a clearly delighted BBC includes it in its coalition cracking campaign.

Perhaps those MP's, whatever the merits of their case, might contemplate caution and some consideration for the many voters who are satisfied with progress to date, but who are saddened by the constant discordant and disloyal voices offstage.

Norman Dee

Nicholas, there's no point in trying to engage people like Fatbloke and richard of York in a discussion, their mind set is permanent and incapable of the flexibity required for conversation. With selective sight and hearing they peddle their bile where they can.

Verity

I used to love Charles Moore when he was the Editor of The Telegraph and thought him to be an individual of integrity.

Then came the cowardice over the Motoons stupidity. Neither Moore nor any other English newspaper publisher mentioned this in any meaningful way - if they mentioned the worldwide brouhaha at all.

Of all the editors in England, I would have expected Moore to have the bottle. But he didn't. He didn't even read anything about islam or he would have read that the "no depictions of mo'" rule was sectarian. It isn't even a universal law in islam.

He, the editor of a respected national newspaper, allowed himself to be bullied by hordes of primitive,hysterical, ignorant yahoos.

I don't care what he has to say about anything, because I have no respect for his judgement.

Verity

Chuck Unsworth - Oh, for God's sake! TGF UKIP was referring to Charles Moore! Duh!

Verity

That Cameron could not win a majority after FIVE YEARS of playing his cards close to his chest, putting his finger alongside his nose and saying "trust me" - against the worst and most hated government in living memory - tells me the man is a vacuous, over-expectational, self-regarding, shallow, greedy moron.

They should have a putsch right now and throw him out onto the pavement of Downing St, followed by his bags. The man is going to be an unmitigated and horrifying disaster for Britain.

The British didn't want him. THEY DID NOT VOTE HIM IN.

TGF UKIP

Denis Cooper at 3.28 pm, nice one! It's probably what they like to see as journos licence. Not that it stops them from criticizing politicos for trying to have it both ways.

Mycroft

Am I getting this right? Cameron must be nice to the dinosaurs, otherwise they'll stab him in the back at some opportune moment, ensure that the Conservative go into the following election with good right wing policies à la Heffer, and then we'll all enjoy another thirteen years of Labour rule.

Verity

A Swedish newspaper ran the story about the Motoon riots with a reproduction of one of the cartoons. So did brave Jordan, an Islamic country. So did Mexico. And stalwart Denmark, of course. But Britain? The "freest press in the world"?

Well, that boast can never be made again.

Steve Tierney

Condom. Condem. They both protect you from Labour.

Fergus Pickering

Nonsense, Verity. I saw all the cartoons straight away on the BNP website. I didn't have to go to foreign parts. I thought they were amusing.

Nicholas

Verity it might have been the worst government in living memory but the most hated? I think we have to re-appraise that from the votes they managed to garner. Maybe in England, but the fact that so many people still chose to vote for them despite their record is of far more concern to me than the numbers who chose not to vote for Dave (not mutually inclusive).

I look at people in the street now and wonder whether they voted for the authoritarian, cod-communist, dynastic, lying, cheating, fascist gang of misfits and if so, why. Could anyone really be so stupid as to be taken in by them? Or is it just about tribal values and as long as Labour bleat "What abaht the children? Equality, fairness, blah, blah, blah" it doesn't matter what they actually do.

Snowman

Nicholas:

it's not about the values, but the money; the number of people who voted for the lot is a sum of those who are still getting out of the society more than they put in. Not only welfare payments, but also government contracts count. A single mother with three kids and a guy who's on a cleaning contract to an NHS outfit are both clients. Why should they vote for a party that's likely to kick them?