Coffee House

Tory MP attacks Cameron for allowing party to become ’emaciated’

30 November 2012

5:20 PM

30 November 2012

5:20 PM

Brian Binley is fond of giving journalists new ideas for illustrations featuring David Cameron’s head superimposed onto a new and unusual get-up: his ‘chambermaid‘ allusion caused quite a stir back in August. Today he’s written another one of his angry blog posts, which takes his criticism of the Prime Minister on a little further. Today the Prime Minister is a caretaker, apparently, and one who isn’t taking great care of his party.

Binley describes the Conservative party as being ‘in a very sorry state’, and launches an attack on Cameron for setting his face against his own party. He writes:

Having been our leader for the last seven years, David Cameron has, too often, chosen to set himself against his party, and the generally poor state of morale amongst local activists is increasingly reflected in ever more depressing election results. The recent appointment of Lynton Crosby offers some hope that the party is being opened up a bit more, and is a sign of encouragement.

But despite this one step in the right direction, the Prime Minister has proven to be a rather disappointing custodian of our party. His decision to describe his personal commitment to gay marriage at the 2011 party conference as not being despite his political convictions, but rather in consequence of these has driven a dangerous wedge between Mr Cameron and his activists. In the fifteen months since that speech, that divide has grown wider. The irony that, in making those comments, he was expressing the value that he attached to inter-personal commitments is not lost on many of those party members who, in frustration, feel that they have had enough: our leader has presented himself as detached, with his threat to drive various policies through irrespective of the concerns of the wider political family imperilling our chances in 2015.


There’s more. Binley says that the Conservative political machine is suffering from ’emaciation’, and that Cameron’s ‘own prospects look increasingly fragile’. He calls on the Prime Minister to change course, partly by listening to those outside his trusted inner circle:

I believe that it is only by drawing breath, changing course, and reconciling with the widest possible right-thinking audience that the Prime Minister can avert that car crash. He – and his circle – needs to recognise that they do not have all the right answers, all of the time. They also need to acknowledge that good management is vital to the process, and that particular commodity has often been in short supply. The Conservative support base has a lot more to offer than the cabal hidden away in the bunker around the leadership have been willing to engage with to date. Trust us, David, we really do need (and want) to win the next election: and, what’s more, if you can find a way to work with your own party, we can still do it.

The Conservative party’s dismal showing in yesterday’s by-elections won’t have helped this impression of ’emaciation’, or party morale, either. As Jonathan blogged earlier, it may have added to the case circulated at the start of this week by Michael Fabricant for a UKIP pact. That was given short shrift, both in public and in meetings between senior Tories throughout the week, I understand. But Binley’s point is one that has been made by many others: Fraser criticised Cameron in June for operating a ‘chumocracy’. As the party turns towards 2015, the Prime Minister will find more and more advice coming his way from his backbench, and from more senior members of his party, too.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • diamond dave

    hitler was a dictator who only loved blonde hair blue eye boys, here we have cameron who loves the bankers the wealthy, hitler klled disabled people or people who did not meet his criteria, here we have cameron who hates the poor, sick, disabled, pensioners, and the unemployed who he has put on the dole because of their idiotic policies, it clearly shows what he thought of his son, anybody that does not have a silver spoon in their mouths he finds irritating, it is about time people stood up and fought for what they belive instead of sitting and allowing this arrogant snob to hit the poorest in society, even people who work are having to go to food banks yet this arsehole gives millions in aid to other countries yes you guessed it from taxpayers money, him and his cronies have mis-used and abused the tax payers money with the thieving, corrupt politicians, it is about time we stood up and got rid of this arrogant bunch of tories whos only anchor is to look after the wealthy maybe everybody on low incomes should stop working lets remeber this arrogant pig gave the rich a 5% DEDUCTION in tax and he claims we are in this together.

  • Jonathan Scrivener

    As me old mum used to say, you want to steer clear of those Binleys dear, they’re nothing but trouble, and in this instance I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know why the man’s still in Parliament. As for those of you who speaking so highly of Nigel Farage, I anagrammed, if there is such a word, his name, and came up with, and I was surprised, I thought it would be much worse, ‘complete and utter twat’.

  • TomTom

    Cameron and Osborne do not understand that a Labour Leader gets applause for standing out AGAINST his Party but a Tory Leader has to stand WITH his Party. It is to do with internal power structures and Union Bloc Funding but Cameron has never stood out against City Funding of his Party only against Activists and Local Party Volunteers


    With economy flatlining + more recession in Europe + damaged banks in UK + LDs reneging on AV referendum/redrawn boundaries deal the Tories have a choice – a deal with UKIP which can only happen if Mr Cameron is deposed / LOSING 2015 ELECTION.

  • michael

    Our leaders continue to appear to prioritise all things foreign. This above all else is alienating the electorate. So they take a veiw, play the system, and vote for the most likely hand out.

  • michael

    So another two and a half years of ‘the center ground’ …shock horror, the same old PR con. Yet more shallow rhetoric drowning principle and, cheap as chips hollow promises are quantitatively eased ad infinitum. So, voters go native. – Birds of a feather.

    One day some bright spark will replace think-tanks with ‘do’ tanks. At least then they may produce something tangible that we can actually take a shovel to.

    • Ron Todd

      You are right the old saying was ‘when all is said and done a lot is said and little done’

  • HooksLaw

    It comes to something when telemachus is the only shred of sense on a thread.

    • Swiss Bob

      Just shows what a faux conservative you are.

  • Watcher

    Blair succeeded because he was worshipped by the BBC and he appointed donors & placemen to every post and rank within it. He also sprayed honours at every media tycoon who would give him the time of day. The BBC bias & corruption is now more recognised in the public domain. The honours system is more transparent and less amenable. Leveson has recognised the flawed relationship between Press & Politicians. Labour will be put on the rack by the unions and forced to move left and promise what it knows it can’t deliver. The Conservartives have easy targets in Red Ed and the reptile Balls, their record in the last Government is indefensible. DC needs to get his ducks in a row but has little to fear from Red Ed. No consistency, no coherence and no character just a covert Marxist clone.

  • Anthony Makara

    The internet age has created a platform for various new opinions to be heard. Yet the loudest voices online often do not reflect public opinion but just appear to do so. The Conservative Party has been guilty of chasing populism. In backing causes that do not appeal to the mainstream and are often progressive to the point of being militant in their demands. For example Green and Gay groups have had too much influence on the Conservative Party given that both represent the interests of minorities. However my greatest concern relates to how ideological bodies such as The CSJ, have practically taken over the Conservative Party. The CSJ and others are handing down policy and taking the Conservative Party down radical paths of social engineering that represent a complete inversion of Conservative political philosophy as we have known it. David Cameron has taken populism too far and has allowed ideology to infect the very core of the Conservative Party. He has now lost control.

    • Dimoto

      IMHO, you are entirely right.

      Cameron has embarked on a whole series of trivial, wholly unnecessary, and attention-seeking gimmicks, which have opened numerous flanks for attack and disillusion.

      He should have just kept supporting his three key ministers Osborne, Gove and Duncan-Smith, whilst hammering home the simple core messages, and smiled at, and ignored the drivel from his fop-tendency “chums”.

      On one thing, however, the UKIPpers are quite wrong. Cameron still has the respect and empathy of the electorate, however much the activists are frustrated.

      In this country, good manners, civility and decency can get you a long way.
      Any attempt to remove Cameron would be suicidal (and that’s without even considering the gruesome “quality” of the pretenders).

      • Ron Todd

        I am one electorate he has lost the support of. Goveand IDS yes Osborne damaged goods.

    • 2trueblue

      He is as you say too easy to accept the views of those who are vociferous in their attack and yet are not representative of the majority. The internet is the area Cameron thinks his new followers will come from and I think he is wrong. The rel truth is as you say he has been taken down a route that the rest of us do not want to follow.

  • 2trueblue

    Cameron has 6mths, and if he can not put it together by then the Conservatives will not win in 2015. We are over half way through this parliament and he is unable to communicate, or to create a platform for his party to instil confidence that the party can govern. The LibDum mix has created its own difficulties and damaged both parties, but think what we would be going through if Liebore had got back in?

    Blair was great at ‘bull shit’ but we have moved on since then and frankly Cameron has no idea. Blair also had the media in his pocket and A C.

  • Noa

    “..[to]…many of those party members who, in frustration, feel that they have had enough: our leader has presented himself as detached…”

    They are detaching themselves in ever increasing numbers as UKIP offers an increasingly credible alternative and a charismatic, listening leader.

    • Stuart Eels

      Thankfully there does seem to be a party of the people for the people and the Westminister Village are now beginning to realise, too late just how fed up we are with the continual lying propaganda that fools no one.

      As Winston Churchill said of Stanley Baldwin “Occasionally he stumbled over the truth picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.” substitute Cameron-Clegg-Miliband.

      I’ve got a feeling that the Lib/dems and Tories are going to lose a lot more deposits!

  • In2minds

    “the Prime Minister will find more and more advice coming his way from
    his backbench, and from more senior members of his party, too” – just so long as he never listens to the public, that would be awful. .

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Cameron has based his strategy on Blair’s. Blair’s strategy was to hold the centre ground. Blair won 3 elections on that strategy. However, what is often overlooked is that in holding the centre ground Blair foresook the left of centre, the trade unions and the working classes (beginning with his clause IV moment) and made overtures to the Libdems. His own reputation also suffered. He was accused of being two faced, shallow and only being interested in power. In doing so between 1997 and 2005 Blair lost 4 million votes (just as John Major managed before him between 1992 and 1997) .

    Furthermore, the Blair years were considered a series of missed opportunities and by the Brown years Labour looked like the hollowed out and divided (Brownites & Blairites) shell of a party riven with internecine trouble.. Another party (the Libdems in that case) increasingly soaked up Labour’s disaffected vote. Sound familiar?

    Now we see echoes of the Blair years. Cameron has planted his flag in the centre ground, made overtures and coalesced with the Libdems and increasingly has deserted the right not in a single Clause IV moment but in a series of botched positions and postures which defy his parties normal stance. As a result Cameron is seen as duplicitous, aloof, untrustworthy and indecisive and Tory fortunes are on the slide. There is no question that there is a growing chasm between Cameroons and their more traditional colleagues and we have seen many examples of internecine troubles within the Coalition, UKIP are now advancing at some rate of the back of voters disillusioned with the establishment parties having probably moved into 3rd place just abovethe Libdems in the polls and in by elections are now regularly outpolling both Coalition parties.

    The thing is despite all the fanfares about how brilliant a Prime Minister and Leader Tony Blair was his strategy was fatally flawed. It may well be true that you cannot successfully become the Government without holding the centre ground but its equally true I believe that you cannot retain the Government if you desert your traditional political grounds. When that happens you end up stuck in what has become the no man’s land of the centre ground, fighting on two fronts (left and right) and in doing so inherently looking two-faced and untrustworthy.

    The thing is trust is the most important characteristic of a successful political leader I believe. Both Blair and Cameron have lost that trust with too large a part of their own party. If their own party don’t trust them why should anyone else? Thats why there was no way back for Blair after 2005 and I don’t think there is any way back for Cameron. You cannot ‘betray’ your core and recover. Still you might say Blair survived to win three times. Blair also had 3 million more votes to play with than Cameron has and an electoral bias in his favour. I suspect if Cameron receives lower votes in 2015 than he did in 2010, which I expect, the Tories will be thrown out of government and Labour will have a majority. Even if the Tories increase their number of votes Labour will likely win.

    Given the circumstances, I do not believe there is anyway that Cameron is going to win the next election. So to me the only option possible for the Tories will be to get rid of Cameron. It worked when they replaced Thatcher with Major and don’t forget what happened when Major managed to keep his leadership. However, it wouldn’t be simple and I still believe its highly unlikely. . If Cameron were removed by his party the Coalition would be at severe risk. That leads to the question is there anyone who feasibly could replace Cameron and keep the Coalition going long enough for it to die its natural death in the run up to the next election? The only person I think that might have any chance of fitting that bill is WIlliam Hague even though even his rep has suffered in the Coalition because of its compromised nature.

    Would Hague become Cameron’s Geoffrey Howe? Would he accept the leadership to ‘save his party?Could Hague second time around lead the Tories to victory? I’m not sure, it’s improbable but I think he stands a better chance of victory than Cameron.

    In the meantime the Tories are adrift in the no man’s land of the centre ground and are starting to take on water and leak votes to UKIP.

    And in the future, political leader’s need to revise their strategy. By all means win the centre ground but do so without sacrificing your traditional ground as well. Never leave yourself in the position of having to face both sides of the political landscape at once.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Well, they have to dump the LD’s, and that means they have to dump somebody and something from the Cameroonian lumps who brokered that coalition. That means Dave has to go. That’s the only way they can mitigate the LD’s influence in the revised coalition, and change course. There has to be a scalp belted.

      You could put Osborne into a caretaker role at the top, and that would also allow a replacement in his stead. One suspects the bubble denizens are preparing the ground for such a happenstance, as the Osborne apple polishing has been laid on a bit heavy recently, at least here amongst the Speccie teenagers.

      • ButcombeMan

        “Osborne into a caretaker role at the top”

        Oh please no. Brainless. Have you forgotten that last budget already? Fiddling with pasties and missing the point? He really has no idea. Part of the twin problem with Cameron,

        • the viceroy’s gin

          I think I agree with you, but I’m thinking about the Cameroons’ approach here. They have to dump Dave, but they also want to stay true to their Cameroonian leftist roots.

          • ButcombeMan

            The Cameroons, were the future, once.

    • 2trueblue

      Blair won because he was good at bullshit and had the media eating out of his hand, and he had AC. The Blair Broadcasting Corporation was now official and we are still paying for it. He changed the whole country and put no infrastructure in place to cope with the population explosion, grand.

      We have all learned since then, bullshit baffles bullshit and we had lots of it. There was also all that borrowed money sloshing around that made everything look so attractive, until we got the bills. The whole world was awash with the borrowed money so it was alright? Now we know.

      • Russell

        And yet all we hear from all politicians is “how can we get the banks lending”! They want businesses and individuals to borrow money again!

        • 2trueblue

          Money makes it all happen, but there is none left. No one wants to accept it.

    • Noa

      “..Cameron is seen as duplicitous, aloof, untrustworthy and indecisive…”

      Seen as?

    • Ron Todd

      We are not where we were in 1997, Blair might have had the mythica lcentre ground but what he did changed the country for the worse. Since 1997 we have had the EU /ECHR taking more power, we have had 15 years of mass immigration we have built up debt and had our pensions destroyed and we have had the growth and growth of the public sector. Any competent Tory leader should be able to make the ground to the right of Blairs centre ground his own new centre ground. The liberals on his left are losing support UKIP on his right is gaining support.

  • Archimedes

    UKIP are not the brothers of the Conservatives. Getting into bed with them may well avert electoral disaster in 2015, but UKIP will not relent in their battle to destroy the Conservatives, because they are not conservatives – Farage is not the whole party. It can only lead to a single scenario where UKIP call the shots with little to lose themselves, and a Conservative party dependant on them as they elegantly oil themselves up for the slide to insignificance.

    Anyone that thinks that UKIP can be shaped into what might be a modern incarnation of the Conservative party hasn’t come to terms with the fact that UKIP lacks the basic elements of institutional pragmatism to ever deliver such a political platform. In the same way that Labour is still enslaved to the demands of it’s unions, UKIP will always be enslaved to the extremists that they originally attracted. The only option that the Conservatives have is to destroy UKIP at the polls.

    • William Blakes Ghost

      If you think that Cameron’s weak-arsed, limp wristed, insipid impotent ‘liberal’ centre ground nonsense is going to ‘destroy’ anything other than the Tory Brand you’re having a laugh.

      Incidentally when you are referring of those UKIP ‘extremists’ who are you talking about. Lord Pearson? Lord Monckton? Stuart Wheeler? Roger Helmer?

      • Archimedes

        Pearson – 2004, Monckton – 2009, Wheeler – 2009, Helmer – 2012. When was UKIP started? Did you read the part where I said “originally attracted”, or are you one of those socialists ala Kilroy-Silk who is all a little foggy upstairs? Awww, is that it – you’re a little bit of a thicky? Don’t worry pumpkin – just stick your tongue out the side of your mouth and it will help you concentrate.

      • Archimedes

        On Cameron’s liberalism: yes, he threw in a couple of nonsense policies because they were necessary when he became leader in 2005. You think it would be better for him to back out of those policies now, do you? Yes, that would be a good idea – sure to convince people that they can trust the Conservatives to do what they say they will, wouldn’t it? A new kind of politics, and all that – or maybe, you’ve just become a bit too attached to Blairite politics.

        Other than those policies, what Cameron has done in office has been distinctly conservative. When the riots kicked off, there can be no doubt that Cameron’s response was a conservative one. On spending cuts they have delivered a small reduction – a better position than the 3.5% real term rise that Margaret Thatcher managed to deliver at this point in her premiership.

        Oh, and if you think that Cameron’s refusal to hold a referendum on EU membership is weak then you appear to have misunderstood the term. Weakness is caving into what an intolerant majority demands when your convictions lie elsewhere. Do you believe that there is a majority in favour of a referendum, and exit? Perhaps he just believes that while a majority may demand that, they don’t really want all the consequences that go with it.

  • Magnolia

    I delivered leaflets for the Conservatives at the last general election and put up posters as well. I put three up and only one was taken down. I converted a few waverers on the doorstep, made some new contacts for my parish work and said hello to some lovely dogs and chickens. I will not be doing the same next time.
    I may still vote for the Conservative parliamentary party as a whole but my own MP is a 2010 entry Cameron clone who’s never shown any sign of being a Tory.
    I will probably spit on the ballot paper as I make my cross, but stuff letter boxes?
    Forget it.

    • EJ

      Then stick to your principles and don’t vote for the shower! Vote for UKIP.

      • 2trueblue

        The trouble is we do not know what UKIP really is apart from the big juicey promise of an EU referendum. Stick to being cautious Magnolia. the next stage is going to be a real cock up as we have no foundations. That is the reality for me right now.

        • Noa

          If you don’t know what UKIP is you should familiarise yourself.

          • 2trueblue

            UKIP have so far not got one elected MP so maybe I am not the only one who has not seen their all encompassing colour. They are growing very fast and have a lot of ground to make up. We have seen what an almighty mess the LibDems are with their shot at the big time. Not to mention the complications for the main part of the coalition, and for those of us who voted Conservative.

            • Noa

              And very reasonable concerns those are, I think, for loyal Conservative voters, who will and are now making up their own minds on what is best for the country.

        • Magnolia

          I think Dave and his chums believe they’re talking to the electorate when they give their silly speeches and go on telly etc. but their words are only interpreted by the media medium that they’re being projected through. When I go ‘leafleting’, I’m a real person with a pleasant smile on my face and I’m willing to ask the voter what they think. I then give them my Tory take on it. Last time it was child’s play to turn Labour voters but now I couldn’t look them in the face for feeling like dying of shame. The youngsters (most ministers) have no real feel for a Tory government. Tories are action men/women and they execute an action plan. The pussyfooting nappy changers don’t understand.
          Actions and freedom produce reactions and glory.

          • 2trueblue

            The trouble is we are going through the worst economic disaster for nearly a century and a lightening speed media network which is full of vacuous journalists…… they never saw it coming and have no idea how to communicate reality. It is all a surprise to them. When the world could borrow it was easy. Now it is not so easy. The Chinese and Russians hold a phenomenal amount of dollars that they can not afford to do what they would like to do… create mischief, especially for the US.

            We are not very high up the pecking order, but not as far down as the BBC economists, the Left and the EU would like us to be. That is why it is important that the information we get has real value and is factual.
            There were and are very few really solid journalists who are engaged in our main stream media. That is the main problem.

            Real people are in the minority. They get out and vote, but for everyone of them there are 2 or 3 who will not. Engage them and you are really winning. That is the task. The percentage of those getting out and voting is continually falling and until that changes our political landscape will continue to wither.

          • 2trueblue

            Forgot to say, until Cameron came along the BBC would not give any airtime to any Tory. That he achieved, but what they do is still manipulate.

  • Vulture

    Wishful thinking from dear old Binbag.

    A few facts: 1) Cameron is a sure-fire vote loser. The Tories had already lost Scotland. Now they are losing the north too. The posh-boy Lord Snooty image of Dave, Oiky Osborne and their wretched little clique as the rich friends of the wealthy is toxic to ordinary people.

    2) Tory MPs are too gutless and/or too stupid to get rid of the current leadership.

    3) Ukip is the natural repository for ex-traditional Tories, ex-working class Tories and now ex-Labour people too. ~Their support will increase rather than diminish in the run-up to 2015 – especially in the Euro-elections of 2014.

    4) barring a sudden economic miracle even with the black magic of Crosby the Tories under Dave cannot win in 2015. If you really want to have any chance of wining, Brian, you must depose Dave.

    • telemachus

      Dear Vulture

      It is not Dave that is irrelevant but the Tories

      They are approaching the Nadir of Labour in 1983
      The smiling face and common sense of Sarah Champion point us to a bright future.
      Folks do not want to tinker with failure

      • Andy

        If you regard Fascism is a ‘bright future’. Has never panned out that way in the past and it wont here.

        • telemachus


          Sarah is a salt of the earth local girl made good

          Sarah is Rotherham’s first woman MP and was Labour’s “clean
          break” candidate for the town.

          “There are some people who from the moment they were born
          wanted to be a politician,” she said.

          “Whereas for me, since I started working I’ve always been
          working with the community and I want to carry on doing that,”
          After graduating from the University of Sheffield with a psychology
          degree, she spent 12 years running the Chinese Arts Centre in Manchester.

          Until she was declared winner of the by-election in the early hours of
          the morning, Sarah Champion was chief executive of Bluebell Wood Children’s Hospice in Rotherham, which opened in 2008.

          “I got a bit tearful, I had to text my resignation,” she said.

          Her focus will now be on raising the profile of Rotherham, which she
          said has been “kicked about” by politicians and the media.

          “One of the reasons I stood is that Rotherham is a great town, and
          it always seems to be in the news for negative things.

          “Why would people invest in the town and create jobs if they think
          it’s awful?”

          Ms Champion insists she is unlikely to be on the shadow front bench
          anytime soon

          A prime example of the bright future

          • IRISHBOY

            ” . . . . . . text my resignation”!!
            Is that what Common Purpose would describe as “leading beyond authority”? Plain bloody rude and puerile more like.

            • Noa

              “Why would people invest in the town and create jobs if they think
              it’s awful?”
              And so another useless public sector idiot moves from a local to the Westminster trough. Her departure to there from Rotherham having as much effect as plunging and withdrawing her hand from a bucket of sand.

              With a 24.6% unemployment rate they’re not of course, investing that is, most work is in the public sector, and the only growth areas are polski schleps expanding to cover other EU diversity opportunities. So, even after 13 years of labour ‘investment’ there’s not a lot going for the local boys and girls.


              • telemachus

                Tragedy is it not that the coalition cannot do more for these disadvantaged northern towns

                • Noa

                  A tragedy? It’s a disgrace that a Tory led government has failed to implement policies reflecting conservative principles which would encourage growth: by cutting taxes and wasteful government spending, the legislative burden on small business, halting the cheap immigrant labour and deporting the illegals who deprive our own young people of work opportunities and generally getting the economy people working again.
                  But that’s what Labour proposes too, Comrade?

                • telemachus

                  Re The Tory disgrace
                  So you support Build for Growth

                • Colonel Mustard

                  If you believe in something as vacuous as ‘Build for Growth’ you should commune with Heseltine. But before doing so you better read the article about him by Robin Harris.

                  “It assumes (he writes of Heseltine’s ‘In Pursuit of Growth’) that government can create economic growth, that it can only do so if it has a ‘strategy’, and that this is, in practice, how successful nations behave.”

                  This should be music to Mr Balls ears but is on a reverse par with Mr Balls plonking his well-padded arse on a chair on the beach and telling the waves not to come in. Build for Growth, you fatuous clown of the Socialist Half-Wit Circus is an empty slogan – like “Breathe to Live” but real growth requires money and freedom. Freedom from government “initiatives”, regulation and interference and freedom above all from excessive taxes. The rest comes naturally. If you don’t believe it look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Both made a commitment a very long time ago not to let their public sector costs exceed the benefits of business freedom.

                • TOMTOM

                  Yes I am trying to recall what Blair-Brown did for them…..but they were too busy brown-nosing in The City…….you should be so proud of Blair Little Troll, he is the most successful Labour Leader and JP Morgan loves him

            • telemachus

              Read this from Julia Middleton

              Is the ‘glass ceiling’ surrounding female leaders moving?

              I was recently sitting on the top table next to a speaker at an event. The next speaker due to address those present sat on my right while the Chair was on my left.

              At the last moment the Chair leaned over and whispered in my ear: “Would you mind terribly if I made a slightly sexist remark when I introduce you?”

              I turned to the guy on my right due to follow me and said: “Our chair would like to know if you would mind terribly if he made a slightly racist joke when he introduces you?”

              That shut the Chair up.

              I know the world is changing. I can see it in my daughters and even more in my sons.

              But sadly it is not changing that fast.

              She said that on International Women’s Day and continued. Do you
              think that perspectives surrounding females and their abilities to lead are changing? Or are some old-fashioned attitudes so ingrained that they will never change?

              Sarah is the future

              • IRISHBOY

                Would you mind if I formed The White Police Officers Association, or the White Lawyers Association, or the White Power Movement?
                Would the Government fund the Church of England Brotherhood?
                Would the Labour Party, conscious that the party doesn’t as yet reflect proportionately the diversity of the opinions of the population as a whole, instigate a quota system so that by this time next year, a majority of its members wished to stop wholesale immigration, leave the EU and bring back capital punishment?
                Can you name a firm of Human Rights lawyers dedicated to ensuring that the victims of murder and terrorism, or those hounded out of their jobs for not holding the ever more narrow and ever changing, unpublished, and unknowable definitions of the Left Consensus are appropriately re-dressed by seeing that those murderers and terrorists are imprisoned for exemplary periods, or those Nazi thought-police, who demote people whose opinion they don’t like whilst promoting their CP brothers in spite of their inadequacies, are themselves sacked for, oh yes, let’s call it ‘inappropriate behaviour’?

                • telemachus

                  Is that different from Semtex Day?

                • IRISHBOY

                  When you went on your Common Purpose course thingy, did you pay for it, or was it your employer? In other words the tax payer.

                • TomTom

                  Must it always be Czech with you ? Don’t you know any British PETNs ?

                • Hexhamgeezer


                • IRISHBOY

                  It’ll be in the post on Monday, but I need to know for delivery purposes, if you don’t mind me asking, how wide is your letter box? Ahem!
                  Catchy though, isn’t it?!

              • Harold Angryperson

                Wilfully misquoting what somebody said to get your way? Sums up CP perfectly…

              • Chris Morriss

                And you think that chairs can speak. Deluded, as well as a Troll.
                ‘Chairman’ if you can bring yourself to say it, possibly ‘chairperson’ if not, but never ‘chair’.

          • Harold Angryperson

            “After graduating from the University of Sheffield with a psychology degree…”

            Ah yes, Psychology – in my youth it was the equivalent of Media Studies today.

          • TomTom

            Well with 12.2% female Unemployment in Rotherham it is good to see one woman got a job

            • Noa

              Unfortunately it wasn’t the Right one.

              And the one that won was already in a job.

          • Colonel Mustard

            There are good, independent-minded Labour MPs like Gisela Stuart but the problem is always the tone of a Labour government and more importantly its fellow travellers in the public sector and quangocracy who drive so much illiberal legislation. And as always there is that undeniable dichotomy between socialist intention and Marcusean fascist execution, the latter often exacerbated by the inevitable unintended consequences of almost everything they propose.

            Polarised politics in Britain rests on the twin myths of the Tory upper-class twit and the benign, benevolent socialist. Those naive souls who buy into those myths are investing in a bleak future. Not much point in drawing your attention to it, as you appear to live and breathe by the propaganda, but the country needs, above all else, truth and honesty in politics – perhaps an oxymoron.

            PS And before we get another slogan – neither your “truth” nor your “honesty”.

          • Seepage

            Another Labour statist to join the 1000s already in Westminster.

        • RealTory

          Common Purpose fascism rears its ugly labour face in that ugly fascist labour dump Rotherham. Another CP graduate who has never done anything that added any value to society goes to Westminster to represent the proles who can’t vot anything but labour. God it’s depressing.

      • MirthaTidville

        Sarah Champion is a non political lightweight parachuted in by idiots like Balls.Common sense is something she doesnt have.She does as she is told….bit like you mate

        • jazz6o6

          The way things are going the only people selected as PPCs by the main parties will be those who can be guaranteed to do as they are told. I suppose on that basis we should value Nadine Noris

        • telemachus

          Sarah is attractive articulate and passionate about the advance of the people

          • Hexhamgeezer

            What? Like your other Blair Babes?


      • Colonel Mustard


      • TomTom

        You are way out at sea if you cannot see where Europe is headed. Labour cannot turn out voters and Champion got fewer total votes than MacShane’s majority !

    • EJ

      Some of us were arguing that Cameron was a left-leaning fraud from before the leadership election (which David Davis should have won). Now his position grows weaker by the day as grass roots conservatives turn against him in their droves.

      If Cameron remains leader, the Tories will lose the next election pure and simple. If the Tories keep moving to the left, they will lose the next election. The party needs a leader with real backbone and real conservative principles – who will tackle the issues that matter with vigour: the economy, the EU, immigration, Islamification – and tear away the iron grip that The Left has on all our sickly institutions. This requires a bruiser of Maggie-esque stature – and the only one on the political scene who comes close to that now is Nigel Farage.

      • Andy

        David Davis impresses me more and more.

    • ButcombeMan

      I agree again. Common Purpose Cameron is absolutely hopeless, he just does not connect with those prepared to knock on doors, he does not connect with many long time members, he does not connect with the wider public, except by way of being less desperately hopeless as PM, than Red Ed is perceived to be.

      One wonders if Cameron understands how remote and alien a figure he has become to his bedrock support, He has been careless with the Tory party.

      Dorries was almost right but it was not about the price of milk. It was about his beliefs.

      I do not think Crosby can rescue him.

    • jazz6o6

      Even if they get rid of Cameron the Tories will lose the next election. They’ve distanced themselves too far from the traditional conservative voter to be able to recoup the situation in the time left. Alway supposing that they wish to do that, there is yet no sign.

      • TomTom

        29% in Polls on 59% turnout looks dire

    • Daniel Maris

      Cameron has shown himself of being anything more than a PR spokesman.

      If they had displayed economic competence, they might still have a chance but they have been completely incompetent. The lower middle classes of our post-affluent society are being driven into Labour’s arms by Osborne crass policies.

      • TomTom

        Jeff Randall casts doubt on his PR skills too

    • D B

      Splendidly constructive, as ever.

  • Heartless etc.,

    Or as a Noble Lady said in France, when faced with an unpalatable truth – “let them eat Brioche” (no pun intended).

  • Austin Barry

    Surely, he means emasculated.

    • telemachus

      Be a bit careful about criticising Binley

      He is an enthusiastic user of the courts

      This from his business partner Walter Brinzer

      “…. We have long realised the
      importance of actively enforcing our rights when infringements have been
      identified, not only to safeguard the integrity and value of our key business
      assets…I would hope that the Court’s decision in this case will highlight the
      need to respect third party rights……

      • telemachus

        You might also go back to the expenses scandal
        This from Wikipedia

        “On 17 June 2009 it was revealed that Binley had claimed over £50,000 in expenses, renting a flat from his own company, BCC Marketing.[9] Two months after beginning to rent the flat, expenses rules were changed to clarify that MPs could no longer rent properties from businesses in which they had an interest. Binley appealed to the Speaker of the House Michael Martin, whilst still claiming for the flat. Binley lost his appeal after two and a half years, during which time he still claimed for the flat in question. Binley has not had to repay the £57,000 he received while the Speaker deliberated”.

        • Ed balls is my boy

          That reliable source called Wikipedia. Would not trust Wikipedia as far as I could trust your beloved Ed Balls. I don’t trust him one inch.