David Cameron is wrong, pure and simple

Richard

I cannot see anything that makes this other than a gimmick. I have never been to Auschwitz, but I cannot see how that harms my understanding of the horrors of the Holocaust. I still see every justification for its capital 'H', for the assumption that this is a fundamental evil.

C Powell

Sorry Stephen but it is you who are wrong. There is plenty of anti-Semitism around today, much of it in this country, aided and abetted by a fundamentalist Muslim ideology. See, for instance, the HoC Committee's recent report on the issue. Treating the subject solely as a historical event means that we risk ignoring the reality of it now. If the Government were really serious about teaching all students about the evils of racism and where totalitarian ideologies can lead - not just one or two students going on trips - it would do something to challenge those ideologies in Britain today. But it won't, will it, because that would be to challenge some of its own supporters, would involve admitting that minority communities are not just victims but can be bullies too, would involve criticising the MCB for their refusal in the past to attend Holocaust memorial services, would involve telling schools that Muslim students should not be allowed to opt out of learning about the Holocaust. And Labour too has not been hesitant in the past to invoke anti-Semitic imagery when campaigning against Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin. How dare they - with that sort of history - use Auschwitz to make party political points against the Tories!

Ben

I'm so disappointed in you, Stephen. Government gimmicks are bad - except if they're to Jewish related stuff!! You're pathetic and your own worst enemy.

Ian C

I repeat my previous comment - you are being far too sensitive, jumping to non-sequitur conclusions and stirring the pot unnecessarily for Cameron. We have all rightly criticised the Tories for not being an opposition and now when they are trying to be, even intelligent reporters such as you are taking offence at the slightest thing. No wonder they keep their heads down unless it is a 'slam dunk'. Get over it and give him a break. The context of what Cameron was saying is everything. He did not say going to Auschwitz is a gimmick. What he said was the way it was packaged and announced by the government was a gimmick because the outcome was different from the announcement. If Mr Rosen (your defender on the earlier piece) is right that the total trips have increased as a result then it is fair to say that Cameron has perhaps not been briefed as well as he might have been. But it is not fair to report or interpret it that he called the trips a gimmick. This is unintelligent, bordering on the dishonest, of you and those who have taken a similar line. Mr Rosen please note.

Ian C

Stephen - You need to reply to these comments. If you are going to run a credible blog you need to answer the points made, which seem to cover the objections to your interpretation pretty comprehensively.

Max Kaye

Saying something twice doesn't make you right.

Michael Rosen

Ian C - Having just returned from the said trip to Auschwizt yesterday, it was interesting that Baronness Warsi (Shadow Minister for Communities and Cohesion)was on the trip. I wonder if she may have a different view as to the 'gimmick' nature of these trips to David Cameron and his advisors. RIchard - I have no doubt you understand the horrors of the Holocaust. I equally have no doubt that you have absolutely no idea of the sheer scale and horror of Auschwitz-Birkenau becuase you have not seen it for yourself. That is surely self-evident. There is a vast world of difference between watching Schindlers List and have a broad body of knowledge on the subject, and actually visitiing the site. Clearly, that is even more true for 17 and 18 year olds who are idealistic, want to learn and we need to be reaching. That is the value of this trip - no more and no less. As far as I can see, there are two separate issues. Either you agree with Cameron because the Governmnet should did not say that Schools would need to pay £100 towards the total cost of the trip. This is a total non-sequitor. Nowhere in the announcement did the Government claim it was underwriting the whole trip and giving studenst free places. It simply said it was giving £1.5m every year for three years. This is true, and has enbaled the programme to grow to such an extent that 2000 more students are able to visit than before. Alternatively you agree with him that the entire concept of taking students on a one day visit to Auschwitz is a gimmick. It is undoubtedly true that there are serious educational and pedagogical issues surrounding such a visit, not least that the Jeiwsh community itself needsto to be asking. For exmaple, is it right that these sdudents will be seeing Jews simply as victims? At the same time, the lessons that they take away with them regarding standing up to bullying in their school, protecting the vulnerable in society and speaking out against all injustice, are lessons that are surely vital to convey. A visit to Auschwitz is a unique way of doing this and should be praised not treated as a gimmick. Dangerous Dogs Acts are gimmicks. Trips to Aushcwizt are clearly not!

Ian C

WATCH MY LIPS Mr Rosen - he did NOT say the trips were a gimmick - see the press release. He said the gap between government announcement and outcome was a gimmick. If he got that wrong he was badly briefed and criticiseable for that, but NOT for saying that the study of and visits to Auschwitz were. I did not see the original aanouncement but did it say that schools would have to find £100 per pupil, regardless of what government were putting in? If it did then Cameron is wrong. If it did not then Cameron has made an error, that he should have avoided for precisley the reason of the wrong sort of interpretation that people like you and Stephen are putting on it. It is nothing to do with whether the trips are a huge success. It is about the gap between announcment and actual. Understand and accept the difference between getting the angle wrong and saying that visits to Auschwitz are a gimmick. Any other reading of the situation is wilful, hyper-sensitive and damaging misinterpretation, at the very least.

Michael Rosen

Ian. Let me clear too. I am sure that David Cameron does not doubt the value of the visit.

Indeed, his spokesman has since clarified that "they were trying to highlight that a Labour promise of a free trip to Auschwitz for sixth-formers had not been delivered."
(http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/topstories/Tory-leader-under-fire-over.3808670.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000)

This is wrong. The Government's announcement never mentioned that they would provide free trips. It stated simply that "£1.5 million support to the Holocaust Educational Trust for its lessons of Auschwitz Educational Programme. The funding will enable the trust to facilitate visits to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp for more than 6,000 students, that is two students from every secondary school and further education college in the UK."
(http://www.het.org.uk/content.php?page_id=266)

On this it has kept its word and never overpromised anything. It is simply misleading of the Tories to suggest that the Government ever agreed to provide free visits for students.

jonathan

Mr Rosen I have no idea whether the Govt only promised additional funding or free trips. I would certainly defer to you on this point and if the Tories are in error, so be it. But that is not what this story is about nor is it the basis of Stephen's or Labour's criticsm. To recap: Cameron is criticised by Stephen and Labour for making an anouncement that, in their view, can only be read as attacking the whole concept of these trips as a "gimmick". I do not believe this is a fair analysis of the Conservative press release or of Cameron's position. It does some violence to the English language to try and reach that conclusion and I am afraid that there is something slightly hysterical about Stephen's response. Finally, it seems to me that if anyone has been playing politics with Auschwitz, it is Ed Balls. I wonder that you and Stephen do not seem so bothered about this.

Dhimmier&Dhimmierer

Cameron didn't say, but should have said, that the trips to Auschwitz are a gimmick full stop. They serve an anti-British liberal agenda and no true conservative, small-c or big-C, should be favour of them. The fact that it was New Labour who introduced Holocaust Memorial Day in 2000 is very good evidence for that.

Michael R

Jonthan - I don't share Stephen's politics and wish to make no political points on this subject. As I mentioned in my very first post. I am an educator first and foremost and have been taking part in these visits for the past 6 years- long before the Government gave any money when we could only afford to take two trips per year. My only concern in this matter is that as many students as possible are given the opportunity to take part in this initiative, and Labour's funding has allowed this. If Ed Balls is doing only giving the money for political reasons, I really don't care. david Cameron has repeately said he was not describing the trips themselves as a gimmick and I have no reason to doubt him. But he is wrong to say that the government has not followed through on promises. As I mentioned above, they have! And just to be clear, I am a lifeling Tory Voter ( well, ever since I turned 18 in 1993) Dhimmier and dhimmier - it will not surprise you that I disagree with you entirely.

phil

You guys who are arguing on this blog surely realise that DC meant no harm to the history of the Holocaust-he made a slip in the way it was said or interpreted and that needs to be an end to it .it was a terrible part of history and every other Holocaust is equally terrible,so please do not demean it by these arguments -what needs to be done is that young people become aware of what humans can do to each other,lest it happens again .you all seem to want to score points off one another and all that is acheived is the history being demeaned so please stop it now.

Ian C

Now that M Rosen has shown that it was hyper-sensitivity not wilful misinterpretation (per Brown at PMQ's) we await Stephen's new computer (mines a Dell and its fine) for his justification. I do agree with M Rosen that the visits are an extremely good thing and for anyone to think otherwise is quite extraordianry.

Ian C

C'mon Stephen. You cannot pretend that you got this any where close to right. Time to 'fess up and say something - having read Mathew Paris's piece in today's Spectator Online Mag. To make it very easy for you: http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/the-magazine/the-week/526571/order-order.thtml