Daily Telegraph Leading Article urges Cameron to honour his EPP promise!!

The item is linked from here.

I fear it is now too late, for were Cameron to really go against his all too obvious natural character and live up to the exact intent of his sole firm pledge - the Tories would have been out of the EPP before last weekend!

Blair, Brown, Cameron and Kennedy - what hope for Britain?

EPP - Six days and counting

Daniel Hannan, to whom Vapid made the promise of having the Tories out of the EPP by Christmas, made a rather weak attempt to further justify the move in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, linked here.

THE MAIN REASON CAMERON HAS TO ACT THIS WEEK IS THAT IF HE DOES NOT - HE WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE TWO FACED OPPORTUNISTIC HYPOCRITE THAT THIS BLOG HAD SUSPECTED FROM THE START.

If on Boxing Day morning the Conservative Party is still within the EPP, then Cameron's election to the party leadership would have been gained on the back of one of the biggest lies in modern day politics - and that really is saying something!

Daniel Hannan MEP on Cameron and the EPP

The following quotation comes from the above MEP's web site and is extracted from an item dated 31st October 2005 and titled 'Its got to be Cameron' linked here, in which he urges party members to vote for Vapid. Emphasis has been added by me:


Quote

As regular recipients of these bulletins will know, Conservative MEPs have spent the past 13 years in an unhappy mésalliance with the federalist European People's Party. To his credit, Michael Howard substantially improved the terms of the deal, but the essential problem has not gone away. As long as we sit with the most Euro-fanatic bloc in Strasbourg, people will not believe that we can be trusted on the EU. Voters will assume that we are saying one thing in Britain and doing another in Brussels - and, God forgive us, they will have a point.

Here is an issue which is immediate and vital. It may not set the world alight, but it will be a token of a new leader's good faith - an indication, in Opposition, of how he plans to behave in Government.

There is a clear division between the candidates on this question. David Cameron would remove us from the EPP grouping immediately; David Davis would leave the decision to MEPs, a majority of whom favour the status quo. With Cameron, we'll be out of the EPP by Christmas; with Davis, we'll still have this albatross dragging us deckwards at the next European election.

That alone ought to answer those who wonder how much substance there is to David Cameron. On the one issue which he would have to decide within days of taking over, the one which he must have been most tempted to fudge, he has been unequivocal and bold.

Unquote

How many Conservative Party members voted for Vapid on the basis of this and similar assurances from both MPs and MEPs.

Will Cameron have the balls to stand by his sole promise given in the campaign, or will he cave in to the eurofanatics within his own party and pressure from the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy on the Continent as once again reported this morning in The Times, linked from here.

FT weighs in once more on EPP withdrawal - Vapid's vacillation drags on!

The latest pressure on the wavering and increasingly hapless looking new Tory leader may be read from here. It is headlined as follows -

EU conservatives threaten Tories with isolation
By Frederick Studemann, Political Correspondent
Published: December 15 2005 17:20

The final paragraph quoted below contains a curious contradiction:

There has been mounting fury among fellow EPP parties over Mr Cameron’s stance. Many feel that the Tories already enjoy a privileged position within the EPP thanks to exceptional terms of association negotiated when the(y) joined the grouping.

Surely if the Tories have been so pampered the other parties should be delighted to see such favouritism come to an end?

Another interesting analysis of the matter appears in the Times of Malta linked here.

What did Cameron promise Cash?

I had earlier reported the 'before Christmas' statement was made at Frimley, but now believe it was there Vapid actually started to backtrack stating he would hand the timing of the withdrawal to his shadow foreign secretary.

The best information I can presently obtain is this from the Guy Fawkes blog on 21st November, linked here:

Apparently Cameron has promised Bill Cash and Daniel Hannan that Tory MEPs will be out of the EPP by the end of Cameron's first week as leader. If wet Europhile Tory MEPs want to make an issue of it - all the better - a fight with them will be a pleasure. A move that will undermine UKIP to the point of extinction and pacify a right-wing base that is a little nervous about where Cameron is going to take them.

So either Hannan or Cash can probably confirm the time scale - if it were only one week then Vapid has already broken his promise - and rather than win over UKIP members to the Tories as was always the obvious intention of the move, it could immediately begin to have the reverse effect.

German Chancellor intervenes over Cameron, the Conservative Party and the EPP

The report of such an intervention appears in The Guardian and is linked from here.

Many in Britain might find such meddling inappropriate, only because the majority in Britain have not been following the reality of their country's loss of independence.

Cameron's increasingly likely abandonment of his firm promise to remove his party from the EPP before Christmas will highlight the truth of where the real power now lies in the non-democratic EU.

So maybe this publicity will prove positive!

Conservative MEPs' (Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton-Harris) brief on the EPP Issue

THE EPP ISSUE

There has been a lot of coverage in the media about David Cameron's decision to take Conservative MEPs out of the EPP group, and a great deal of misinformation. Now Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton-Harris set out the facts as they see them.

The need for consistency

You may have seen the recent press coverage concerning the Conservative MEPs’ relationship with the ultra-federalist European People’s Party. David Cameron has been attacked by several Euro-enthusiasts for promising to end this unhappy link.

It is usually the way in politics that, when a change is proposed, its opponents become hyper-active while its supporters sit back and take things for granted. I hope, though, that, on this issue, those who support the leader’s line will give him public backing. If you are one of the overwhelming majority of Conservatives who would like to restore honour and consistency to our position in Brussels, please tell our new Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague. His email is haguew@parliament.uk. You might also like to copy in the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope(tkirkhope@europarl.eu.int), and David himself: camerond@parliament.uk. I am sure they will appreciate your support.

For those unfamiliar with the issue, there follows a short briefing note.

What is the European People’s Party?

The European People’s Party (EPP) is a union of Centrist and Christian Democratic parties founded in 1976 to promote European integration. Its Basic Charter commits it to “compete for the realisation of a United States of Europe”. Its current manifesto advocates:

· A European police force and army

· Single EU seats on the UN, the IMF and the WTO

· A European president and foreign minister

· The abolition of the national veto

· A pan-European income tax, to be levied by the European Parliament

Isn’t the EPP the main Centre-Right grouping in Strasbourg?

No. British journalists keep calling it “Centre-Right”, but the EPP itself angrily rejects the label. It insists that it is “the Party of the Centre”, steering a middle course between the command economy demanded by the Socialists and the free market supported by the Liberals. According to its Basic Charter, the chief goal of economic policy is “social solidarity, so that the fruits of economic success many be evenly distributed”. The EPP campaigns for a high minimum wage, strong trade unions, a larger EU budget, a barrage of “anti-discrimination” measures and an extension of the Social Chapter.

Why do some Tory MEPs want to sit with the EPP?

It is largely a generational divide. Many of the MEPs elected during the 1980s have a view of Europe not very far removed from that of the EPP. Their careers have been built within the EPP, and some of them now enjoy positions in consequence. They fear that, outside the EPP, they would have to start all over again. The Conservatives would still have the same per capita entitlement to committee posts, overseas delegations and so forth; but there is no guarantee that the same people would hold them, since the Tory Euro-philes would be the minority in a Euro-sceptic Group.

Are there logistical advantages to being part of a large bloc?

No; quite the contrary. The British Conservatives are entitled to staff and financing in proportion to their numbers. But all such resources go through the Groups. As things stand, the EPP “top-slices” the Tory financial quota and spends it on various pan-European projects—such as a campaign in favour of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It even supported the “Yes” campaigns in the recent referendums. It is a similar story when it comes to employees. The British staff are paid by, and answerable to, the EPP. Many of them were hired during the 1980s on the basis of their commitment to federalism rather than any Conservative leanings and, far from answering to the Tory MEPs, they sometimes work directly against Conservative interests. Outside the EPP, the Tories would, for the first time, have significant resources with which to pursue their agenda.

Where would Conservative MEPs go?

They could either sit as Independents or form a new Group with like-minded parties. This is easily done: the rules of the Parliament stipulate that a Political Group must contain at least 19 MEPs from at least five member states. There are already 27 Conservative MEPs, and it would be a straightforward matter to attract respectable, Atlanticist parties from four or more other nationalities. In particular, many of the free market parties from Central and Eastern Europe have repeatedly sought to create a new Group under Tory leadership, and cannot understand why the Tories themselves are reluctant to leave the EPP. It is worth stressing that there is no question of sitting with extremist parties, or with parties that have a colourful past, such as Italy’s “post-fascist” Alleanza Nazionale (which is, incidentally, negotiating to join the EPP). It is also worth pointing out that several of the parties currently in the EPP are tainted by sleaze or extremism: Chirac’s UMP was involved in a number of funding scandals, while many of Silvio Berlusconi’s allies have been accused of corruption.

Why can’t the whole question be left to the MEPs?

It never has been before. Every past leader—from Margaret Thatcher onwards—has recognised that this is a question to be settled by the Westminster leader. The question goes wider than seating arrangements in Strasbourg: it encompasses the Tories’ relationships, as a whole, with other parties. Those who are currently taking this line strenuously argued the opposite when it suited them. When, in 2004, Michael Howard reversed IDS’s decision to leave the Group, pro-EPP Tory MEPs insisted that the question was up to him as the national leader.

Isn’t leaving the EPP at odds with David Cameron’s modernisation agenda?

On the contrary, nothing could be more modern than breaking with the 1950s federalist Euro-dogmas of the Christian Democrats. In forming a new Group, the Conservatives would be turning their backs on Old Europe and embracing New Europe. David Cameron has stressed the need for the party to change. It is striking that his fiercest opponents on this issue are palaeo-Tories of an earlier era: Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine etc.

When should the break come?

Immediately. That was David Cameron’s pledge during the leadership contest. Suitable foreign allies are lined up and ready to go. If the issue is postponed, they may start to lose interest.

Does any of this much matter?

Yes. Leaving the EPP was the one firm commitment that David gave during the leadership campaign. He has since repeated it in public on at least four occasions. If he doesn’t deliver on the one thing that is in his gift as Opposition leader, voters will be reluctant to believe that he would deliver on his manifesto as Prime Minister. It is, as David himself has repeatedly said, a question of consistency and integrity. The Conservatives cannot say one thing in Britain and do another in Brussels.

Latest reports on Tory EPP Crisis

Times Online heads its report, linked here, 'Cameron's first big bloomer'.

The FT , linked here, titles its report 'Tory leader's snub threatens links with continental allies'

Open revolt among Tory MEPs

One week after the announcement of his startling leadership victory Vapid Cameron faces open revolt within his party. The latest report is in The Herald linked here.

Also well worth reading is this analysis of the problems the Tories have with Europe written by the editor of UPI, Martin Walker, titled Walker's World: The Curse of Europe

Drug use and the proposed candidate'A' list.

The full text of Vapid Cameron's Leeds speech setting out his proposals for a candidate 'A' list made in Leeds yesterday, may be read from this link.

Most major corporations when filling positions of responsibility ask the question as to whether the candidate uses or has used illegal substances. They also require that the question be answered!

What, one then wonders, will be the situation with Cameron's super-candidate list. Having refused to answer such a question himself it would be the height of hypocrisy to demand an answer from those aspiring to become his fast-tracked colleagues.

There is nowadays a dividing line within British universities between those who refuse any use of drugs and those who do not. The former group generally look upon the latter with either contempt or pity depending upon whether the abusers are viewed as perpetrators or their weak-willed victims. Graduates from the former group will fill the best positions available, expecting to answer the drugs use question as a fact of modern life throughout their future careers. Knowing the question has been asked gives some assurance that their future colleagues possess their own moral fibre or acuteness of vision to have been aware of the degradation and despair that abuse of drugs so frequently brings.

Simon Heffer in his column in the Daily Telegraph last weekend, linked here, made several good points regarding the difficulties of operating a list to favour the selection of women, of which this seemed the major point:

First, politics is such a disgusting profession these days that, with the exception of a few saintly figures on both sides of the House, most of the participants are so depressingly revolting that few civilised people would want to spend their working lives with them. Inevitably, women have more refined taste in this respect than most men, who are always more suited to the bear-garden. It might just be true that there are so few women in national politics because so few women actually want to go into national politics.

Given the obviously sleazy nature of the new conservative leader as confirmed by his own refusal to answer the drugs question, is it likely that non-drug using British graduates of the calibre sought by Vapid will really be likely to put themselves forward to be associated with the likes of Conservative MPs in particular who have promoted to their head such a vacillating and vacuous man.

What then will Cameron's 'A' list eventually become, already having excluded fifty per cent of candidates with no reference to character, experience or ability but merely whether their gonads are formed in a way acceptable to the Tory leader?

I have some thoughts on that, perhaps his Alist will be A for 'Abusers' of illegal substances or perhaps just plain A for 'Addict', whatever it finally becomes, serving under a man such as Vapid Cameron seems to be - looks increasingly likely to require 'Amorality'

Tory EU split deepens - while Letwin opts for cash over country!

Kenneth Clarke staes on TV that leaving the EPP would be disastrous, read the Telegraph report from here, while from the same paper Oliver Letwin proves that it's still the same old Tory party as he again puts cash before country, read that story from here.

I will withdraw the Conservative Party from the EPP by Christmas. (Frimley 23/11/05)

As quoted on the blog The Anglo Saxon Chronicle linked here.

Simon Jenkins on Vapid Cameron

The title of this week's column is "Cameron’s face fits — but he can’t look both ways at once" - the whole article is worth reading and may be reached from this link.

I, naturally enough, particularly enjoyed the section quoted below with my added highlight in red, having coined the nickname 'Vapid Cameron' on this blog even before the announcement of his victory and his public demonstrations of this 'vapidity' as his clearly main defining characteristic! See the postings beneath this. From Jenkin's column comes this:

Hence the significance of Cameron’s most cryptic remark in his coronation speech on Tuesday, “There is such a thing as society: it’s just that it is not the same thing as the state.” This was an enticing dichotomy. Was it more vapidity or did it presage a real constitutional departure?

Collins Dictionary defines 'vapid' as follows:

1.vapid adj Bereft of strength, sharpness, flavour, etc.; flat 2. boring or dull; lifeless: vapid talk [C17: from Latin vapidus: related to vappa tasteless or flat wine and perhaps to vapor warmth] -vapidity n. -vapidly adv. -'vapidness n

The voters will soon also twig in spite of today's polls!

Vapid Cameron failing at first fence

Like a novice showjumper on a knackered mount Cameron has faced a refusal at his first major hurdle and is now returning to make a second attempt to remove the Tories from the EPP as he had so clearly promised.

If the federalist Conservative MEPs really stick to their guns then Vapid's 'career' could be spectacularly through the air and into the dirt on the wrong side of the EU fence. The latest report on the growing rebellion is in the Telegraph linked from here, remember particularly this quote from Shadow Europe Minister which was in yesterday's link:

However, shadow Europe minister Graham Brady said: "David Cameron has made a completely firm, solid, bankable commitment that we will end the relationship with the EPP.

"That does not mean we are going to stop talking to them. It doesn't mean we are going to sit in a corner on our own.

"We believe we can have warm, helpful relationships with a lot of EPP member parties into the future because that is the essential way to proceed.

"But he has been very clear. We are going to end that relationship and seek to replace it with a new group closer to our thinking."

Mr Brady added: "They will not persuade David Cameron to change his mind on this."

So why now wait months - to quote Lady Macbeth - 'If it were done when 'tis done then 'twere well/ It were done quickly.'

So this from today's link, particularly the direct quote from Cameron himself in bold is likely to become long remembered, as why now the necessity for the anticipated months of delay? Many who have suffered the pains of a divorce know the impossibilty of negotiation with a partner before the act of departure!

While running for the Tory leadership, Mr Cameron declared that, if elected, he would sever the relationship between Conservative MEPs and the "European People's Party and European Democrats", the largest faction in the parliament.

He reaffirmed that commitment immediately after he was elected, and said he had asked William Hague, who has returned to the shadow cabinet as foreign affairs spokesman, to put it into effect.

Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme yesterday, Mr Cameron said: "We will leave the EPP. We will form a new group and we will be consistent Conservative politicians.

"It will happen. It is a matter of months not years."

The party's links with the federalist grouping has been a constant thorn in the side of successive Tory leaders, but Mr Cameron has decided to make it an early test of his leadership.

Predictably Vapid prevaricates on EPP

Now the withdrawal from the EPP will take place 'within months' . WHY NOT NOW AS PROMISED? Read the Telegraph report from this link.

The Drugs Question

Dennis Skinner MP, the acknowledged master of the cutting parliamentary barrack, was yesterday banned from the House for the remainder of the day for accusing George Osborne the continuing Shadow Chancellor of having used cocaine. Read the Telegraph report from here.

The conclusion I draw from this privilege protected accusation and its wide reporting in the press is that the statement is most likely true and that Vapid Cameron's defence of his friend in the leadership campaign was at best misplaced. If it is not true and no evidence exists for Osborne's use of cocaine then sooner or later the issue will presumably be settled in the courts.

The drug question will continue to haunt Cameron's new conservative party which increasingly appears to be New Labour Mark II with the so far only obvious apparent objective of keeping its prototype in power, AND that just as Blair's reduced majority appeared to give some hope of a re-emergence of parliamentary democracy via Labour's own disgruntled backbenchers.

Vapid was admired in the media during the campaign for refusing to give a direct answer to the question of whether or not he had used illegal substances. The thinking public will however assume from this lack of a straight denial that he surely did.

While the majority of Conservative Party members and much of the nation's youth might consider this of minor importance, those responsible for legislating, administering or enforcing the law will surely have to give considerable thought as to whether they will in the future be able to serve under a government led by individuals who seem to have in the past knowingly indulged in illegal activities, albeit ones for which they have as yet tobe brought to account.

The knives are out for Vapid!

As foreseen on this blog, the media annihalation of the non-entity that is Cameron, has not been long in taking off! It was predicted here that DC would be mutilated and mangled by the media well before the next election!!!! At this rate he will hardly last until the next council elections.

Witness these quotes from a BBC report which overall is one of the most effective character assassinations I have yet to see, and may be read in full by clicking here.

Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money".

"To describe Cameron's approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green's mouthpiece," wrote the ex-BBC business editor.

"In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair," Mr Randall wrote.

Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

'Vapid' - After PMQ maybe Prat would be more apt!

The SNP MP Salmon probably summed it up best as 'a debate between Fettes and Eton'

Simon Heffer also makes some good points in his column in the Daily Telegraph this morning, written of course well before the embarassment in the Commons at lunchtime.

The Conservatives - What a bunch of no-hopers to have democratically elected such a plonker, one who has managed to make his complete lack of leadership credentials startlingly obvious less than twenty four hours in the job. With Hague it took a year or so, IDS some months and while admittedly Howard's failings were obvious well before his annointment at least the media and general public gave him a few weeks breather. The verdict in the media this time (as was obvious on the Radio Four PM programme) can be only delayed by their own shame at their earlier misplaced enthusiasm (or duplicity?)

May I now suggest the English Democrats to bemused ex-Tories - perhaps one (or more) perceptive and thoughtful Conservative MP is wise enough to read the writing on the wall and make a bold change of loyalties.

God knows the country badly needs it!

The Guardian report on PMQ is linked here, the Heffer column from here.

Vapid Cameron and the EPP

Only one firm commitment, that I can discern, was made by Vapid during the leadership campaign - that being the withdrawal of Conservative Party MEPs from the EPP Group (federalist to its very core) in the European Parliament. Let's see what now transpires ......and when ......and if!!!!

A perfect chance to see if I have read things wrong!

'Vapid' Cameron looks set to win

The Conservative Party appears headed for oblivion today. We will know at four o'clock Brussels time.

If the Bookies, press and pundits are correct then the nothing that seems to be David Cameron (who this blog will refer to in future as 'Vapid') will ostensibly take over the leadership of Britain's still main opposition party.

With Simon Hughes seemingly positioning the LibDems to steal the English Democrats clothing that may not long be the case!

The British people can hardly be worse served if the leadership result is as predicted. The English people even less so!

'Tory Party faces meltdown ...' The Times

The report from the online edition of the paper may be read from this link.

Is Cameron's vacant look hiding nothin?

We wonder what other possibly really startling pieces of gossip will be slipped to the press if the 'man of straw' Cameron actually succeeds in being gerrymandered into place. This item was from the Rod Liddle column in today's Sunday Times:

I am happy that David Cameron believes in relaxed licensing laws, but that is no more than one should expect from a chap who until recently was a director of a nightclub that sold to its undoubtedly poncy customers such alcoholic concoctions as Slippery Nipple and Pink Pussy.

Big Beast backers of Cameron - in it for WHAT" ????????????

The Times this morning, linked here, reports as follows

THREE Tory heavyweights who will be offered senior roles in the Shadow Cabinet if David Cameron win the leadership contest grossed more than £1.7 million in outside earnings in the past 12 months, according to figures released yesterday.

Their combined earnings account for more than half the £2.7 million declared by MPs in the annual Register of Members’ Interests.

William Hague leads the list, with more than £1 million from book deals, a newspaper column, directorships and after-dinner speaking. He made six speeches, worth £65,000, in April during the general election campaign, when most Tory MPs and party workers were on the campaign trail.

Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor, who was defeated for the leadership for the third time, earned close to £500,000 from five directorships, including British American Tobacco. An MP’s salary is £59,095.

Francis Maude, the party chairman and leading moderniser in the Cameron camp, declared ten paid outside interests, including two directorships he took after the election, when he was recalled to the Shadow Cabinet. Mr Maude, like Mr Clarke, does not declare any of the fees, as is permissible in Parliament’s rules.

Cameron chooses cheap and easy Blair criticism rather than complicated and risky "course" charting

Given the incredible opportunity of an entire opinion column in today's Sunday Telegraph, what does the star dust touched, wonder boy use it for - tired and predictable attacks on Blair! Is this really all the Tories hope to have to offer for the years ahead?

Read the simplistic claptrap from this link.

Haig and Fox for Cameron

My warnings of MP's opportunism of yesterday (see posting beneath this) were well timed as today's Sunday Times reports both William Haig and Liam Fox today declaring for the empty vessel.

Remember that this is the same William Haig who once commanded respect in the party and country yet without shame wrote in his News of the World column in the early part of this year that he was making far too much money on his US speaking tours to consider an active role either within the party or then certain General Election campaign. What weight should party members put on the recommendation of such a man?

Remember also that the timing of his declaration seems curiously timed to have possibly been made with the advantage of some knowledge of the early voting results, if these are being deliberately slanted by those pulling the party strings, a travesty of democracy could be underway!

If David Cameron is elected, how long will the supposed "stardust on his collar" or as Haig is quoted as saying " “a certain quality which was impossible to define but you know it when you see it” really last. Such qualities are best used by confidence tricksters as far as I can see.

Look at the likely consequences as reported in the same Sunday Times article, linked here:

As prospective party leader, Cameron is preparing to help Tony Blair push through a series of public service reforms that, aides say, will keep a “wounded” and “isolated” prime minister in power.

The leadership favourite signalled his support for the government against Labour rebels on greater independence for state schools, city academies, benefit reform, foundation hospitals and more private sector involvement in the National Health Service.

Although he argues that he supports Blair’s modernisation of public services because he believes it is the right thing to do, his aides pointed out it is also designed to have the political effect of making Blair look “isolated” from his party. The move comes after the prime minister faced a first Commons defeat over his anti-terrorism bill.

If Cameron becomes the opposition leader next month, it could be Tory votes that keep the prime minister in power. “It will leave Blair badly wounded if the only way he can get his reforms through is with our support,” said a senior aide.

Tories heading for oblivion?

If the headline article in the online edition of the Daily Telegraph is to be believed the Conservative Party is doomed as David Cameron, the media darling who will become its mauled and mangled victim by the next General Election were he to become Party Leader, is reported to have opened an early and large lead over rival David Davis in the leadership contest.

Such are the results of a YouGov poll which has been so manipulatively reported as to condemn the Telegraph to the lowest possible level of even present day journalism. The report may be read from this link.

To try to grasp the degree of distortion it is necessary to recall the basis on which YouGov polls. Anybody can join YouGov and participate in those polls as they may wish. Is it really likely as the report seems to imply that one third of those conservative party members who have already voted are signed up as YouGov contributors. Unlike most polls published as far as I can find there is nowhere any reference to the size of the sample. Just how many conservative party members who have already voted could have been polled - it must be an incredibly small number unless there was some collusion or identification of names of those who had voted from party sources, any names thus provided could then well have been tilted towards the results desired by the Telegraph group owners and editors and/or the party establishment.

Evidence of the desired outcome of the senior party hierarchy comes later in the same report which states:

"Anne Maine, the MP for St Albans, who formerly supported Mr Davis, said she was now backing Mr Cameron, taking his support to 107 MPs - well over half the 198-strong parliamentary party.

Michael Ancram, the party's deputy leader, said the backing of a clear majority of Tory MPs was an important signal to party members."

The Gaderene rush to support the dubious, media reported front-runner by sitting MPs and their European counterparts is understandable when looking at the calibre and motives of the present elected party and remembering that were Cameron to win at only 39 years of age and given his apparent lack of policies and therefore presumably either character or principles, future advancement within the party is likely to be lost pretty much forever as far as the present entire elected members are concerned.

The announcement by the comparatively youthful Owen Paterson MP for David Davis is particularly commendable in this regard.

This blog quite correctly predicted the outcome of a Michael Howard leadership takeover - I feel equally certain that if the Tories go for Cameron then it will be the end of their party. How best to then restore decency and democracy to British politics will then become an even trickier problem.

Strange concept for Conservatives in today's Torygraph - Deeper Democracy!

A column by Danny Kruger makes interesting reading, even for regulars on this blog, with some IT analogies for a real opposition - highly recommended and linked from here.

David Davis gets Lord Tebbit's backing

The letter of support is in today's The Times as reported in Times Online linked from here.

The full letter may be read from this link. It concludes as follows:

"So Davis will have my vote. Perhaps that nice Mr Cameron will get it in ten years’ time if he learns as much from experience as David Davis has in the past ten years."

One of the few cheerful thoughts from today's news.... that Norman Tebbit with his innate common sense might still be around in ten years....as Mark Steyn concludes in his Daily Telegraph column this morning, quoted below and linked here, how many Telegraph readers can now really wish that:

As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that Telegraph readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" - a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day". But that's a false consolation. As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought. That's the problem: unless you're planning on croaking imminently, you will live to see it.

East Midlands eurosceptic Conservative MEPs back Cameron

The statement is reproduced herewith:

LEADERSHIP ELECTION

A Joint Statement from East Midlands Conservative MEPs

IT HAS TO BE CAMERON!

We have looked carefully at the two remaining candidates for the Conservative Leadership, and we have decided that David Cameron offers the Party the best prospect of returning to government at the next General Election. We will be voting for him, and we would urge all East Midlands Conservatives to vote for him too.

Little to choose on policy

Both men are Conservatives, so the policy differences are relatively minor (except for the EPP issue: see below). We believe that the choice hinges on personality and electability, and in our judgement, Cameron is well ahead. He would be the first Party Leader in recent years to create an immediately positive impression on the television with uncommitted voters. He has a little star-dust sprinkled on his Eton collar

So is his privileged background a problem?

We don't think so. It would be perverse if Conservatives rejected an excellent candidate because he went to a good school. It would be the worst kind of inverted snobbery. And Blair, after all, went to Fettes, one of Scotland's finest public schools

Cameron can reach the groups the Party desperately needs to recover

We believe that Cameron will appeal strongly to groups where the Party has lost traction and desperately needs to get it back. Critically, these include:

· Middle-class professionals who have drifted to the Lib-Dems

· Young people who may currently not vote at all

· Women, where our vote has slipped dramatically

Against this, Davis says he will play well in the inner cities. But we are not convinced that this will bring in the volume of votes we need.

Was Cameron damaged by the drugs stories?

We think not. His firmness and dignity in the face of attacks from the press showed him in a good light, while many younger voters if they cared at all would be positively impressed by the fact that he had, as he says, "a normal university life".

Cameron has made a clear commitment on the EU issue

One policy difference that does impress us is Cameron's clear commitment to take MEPs out of the European Peoples' Party group in the European parliament. It may not be a big issue in the overall scheme of things, yet it sets out a clear marker on policy. But this is one of the few things a conservative Leader in the opposition can deliver. No longer will we talk a good euro-sceptic story in England, only to go and cosy-up to the federalists in Brussels.

We are concerned that Davis has been equivocal on this issue, with some of his lieutenants telling sceptics "Vote Davis -- he'll have us out of the EPP in two years", while others tell former Clarke supporters "Vote Davis because he'll keep us in". We believe that politics should be based on clear principles, and we are not impressed by prevarication.

If you share our views on these points, please give David Cameron your support.

ROGER HELMER MEP CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS MEP

www.rogerhelmer.com www.heaton-harris.com

The UKIP factor!

The former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore, in an article explaining why he plans to vote for David Cameron in today's edition of that newspaper states the following:

".... a pedantic, historical, 20th-century point, is that, when he had the chance, Mr Davis did little for Euro-scepticism. As a whip, he helped bash through the dreadful Maastricht treaty. I notice that most of the committed, expert Euro-sceptics - David Heathcoat-Amory, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan - are backing Mr Cameron. Mr Davis wants to maintain the Tories' membership of the Europhile European People's Party at the European Parliament, while Mr Cameron says he will stop it."

This is indeed a worry as this blog has consistently pointed out. The double referendum proposal by David Davis seems initially attractive and potentially answers concerns about the past stance of David Davis, but the fully detailed proposal is hard to find therefore final judgement remains suspended.

Conservative Party voters concerned about the EU deserve a full explanation from the three individuals named above for their support for David Cameron, (they should also however, bear in mind the presence on the BDI refusnik list of Bill Cash and David Heathcote-Amory).

The Conservative Party, regardless of leader, will likely find it nigh impossible to win any General Election without neutralising or compromising the UKIP. More on this as the campaign develops. The Davis referendum proposal might be a step in that direction but could subsequently be adopted under a Cameron led party. No party should select a leader based on the nature and calibre of its opponents! But which of Davis and Cameron will be most effective in dealing with Nigel Farage MEP and regaining the votes of his natural supporters?

I would also suggest the party deserves the detailed views of Roger Helmer MEP on the EU position of the two leadership candidates. The relevant website may be reached by clicking here.
Queries could also be sent direct to rhelmer@europarl.eu.int

David Davis offers double referendum on EU

In an interview in The Sun today and as reported on Radio 4 it appears that David Davis is prepared to finally offer something meaningful on the EU. This blog will comment fully on the proposal when it is has been fully detailed. With several more weeks remaining for the final vote, there is now much to be gained by party members pausing to await developments - as well argued by Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph this morning, linked here.

Leadership Election

The following post was put on my blog Ironies Too this morning under the title 'Cameron, Davis, the EPP and the EU' it is clearly also of interest here.

Quote
This blog has earlier made clear its strong doubts as to the suitability of Conservative Party leadership candidate David Cameron and in particular the depth and sincerity of his supposed euroscepticism. In the past few days it has been reported that he has been gathering so-called right wing eurosceptic support based on pledges regarding withdrawing the party from the EPP group in the European Parliament something this and my other blogs have repeatedly urged. (Some of the names mentioned should be checked against the information as to their position on the EU at the last election as reported on the results page of the British Declaration of Independence website linked here.)

An item in today's The Times covers this topic and may be read from here.

Conservative party members with the final say over the next leader are now faced with a very real choice and a real dilemma. Only a full and detailed explanation of each candidates' plans regarding the EU, Britain's place within or outside it and the exact strategy for achieving those ends both in government and opposition will now allow a well-informed vote to be cast by party members on the real number one question today facing the nation.

One major question for each contender I would suggest might be the following:

Is David Cameron proposing the Conservative Party will immediately join the group in the European Parliament which presently includes UKIP, or will he try and tempt UKIP away from the more extremist members of that present grouping or does he consider UKIP itself to be extreme?

David Davis owes the conservative party members a fuller explanation of his activities and views at the time of the Maastricht vote and a detailed summary of how they have evolved since that time.

Unquote

Root out Conservative cronyism!

Janet Daley skirts around the problem in her article in today's Sunday Telegraph , linked from here.

The rest of the media have been, sometimes timidly, other times more obviously (such as this item in the Telegraph click here) making the same point - that the media darling and conservative leadership candidate David Cameron 'has no clothes'

And there in a nutshell is the country's problem epitomised!

The Tory Party that propelled Old Etonian David Cameron into Leadership favourite with one of their safest seats in the country inherited from fellow Old Etonian Douglas Hurd ( probably one of the most disastrous Foreign Secretaries in the nation's history), with apparently few other earler or subsequent qualifications than advising Norman Lamont during the country's crashing out of the ERM and partly penning the awful manifesto for the election just past, is in no state to be the main opposition to the present government!

The ninety Tory MP's who voted for Cameron should now be probed to fully explain their motives and reasons for so doing to their Constituency Associations. Where there is the slightest suspicion that either cronyism, possible future preferment or even capitulation to establishment pressure were motives in their decision - deselection, for which much time now remains available, seems the best option.

Conservative Constituency Associations for such MPs seem like a worthwhile area of spare time activity for true democrats in the coming years. Party attempts to limit the membership vote, and how far it is prepared to go to achieve the installation of its obvious puppet, widely reported this weekend, clearly indicate how low the Conservative Party has presently sunk.

Cameron's background and career to date, like so many within the party (not least Sir Michael Spicer, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, who ran the leadership election) screams out to the world at large the true depth and nature of the Tory Party's problems. Even at this early stage in the countrywide campaign, the establishment pressure for Cameron to succeed is self-evident while the attempts to hide his obvious flaws become ever more absurd.

In my opinion only by David Davis making this into a real bare knuckled fight and highlighting these facts will the country receive the kind of opposition any democracy deserves!

Self-confessed drug user Cameron's central office allies move to disenfranchise membership!

Ninety Tory MPs will have to increasingly learn to live WITH the reality of their unprincipled and opportunistic vote for this shallow man, who within hours of topping the Conservative Party second poll for leader, effectively admitted a youthful use of drugs - a fact about which - he had ducked, dived and weaved during the Commons campaign.

No wonder the old party stalwarts, who must be looking in his direction for continuance of their stipends, are now set to take the kind of disgraceful steps as reported by the press below.

The Tory establishment dirty tactics have already begun. as may be read in the full report (click here) from The Times - of which the following is but a brief quote:

Reports this morning suggested that as many as 60,000 of the 300,000 members across Britain may not receive a ballot paper when they are sent out in a fortnight’s time. Members who pay less than £15 a year to the party or have joined since 1998 may not get a vote, while husbands and wives who have joint membership may receive only one ballot paper, the BBC reported.

Christopher Montgomery, who led the Better Choice campaign that saw off Mr Howard's plan for his successor to be chosen solely by MPs, said that the number of ballots was "not going to be anything close" to the total membership and accused Francis Maude, the party chairman, of trying to boost Mr Cameron's chances.

"It’s an open secret that Francis and the outgoing leader would prefer David Cameron to win. They are the people who originally didn’t want the mass membership to get a vote," Mr Montgomery said.

"Now they are the people who are going to determine who among the mass membership gets a vote. There are moves afoot in Central Office to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Tory members. You don’t have to be too much of a cynic to say the people who are going to be disenfranchised might tend to be more at one end of the party than the other."

Second ballot - A Good Result for Britain!

Cameron 90, Davis 57 and Fox 51 ensures that no case can be made by the so-called 'modernisers' to claim they have majority support among MPs.

For me it is now inconceivable that David Davis can falter and not show the other David for the flash in a new and empty pan that he seems to be! Cameron's sparse biography, which may be read by clicking on this link to epolitix, must surely make this immediately clear.

If Cameron can gain a majority amongst the clearer thinking and more sensible electorate of the mainstream Conservative members after six weeks of hustings, then he might well have the potential his backers allege or perhaps merely prove that Davis is as lacking in substance as his conference speech left many to believe. An Old Etonian background remains hugely problematical particularly if the possibilty of a rapidly declining economy becomes reality, with Brown then likely being ditched as a scapegoat - and recession then causing privilege to again become a matter of resentment - a not unlikely scenario and one easily to be exploited by other New Labour contenders for Blair's position!

Dr Fox fought a good fight but for me his nationality and accent made his rejection presently necessary. The Shadow Foreign Secretary has, however, now probably eclipsed William Hague in importance within the Conservative Party.

The Radio 4 PM programme this evening reported a Tory MP as stating that ideology in the party was dead. Effectively this seems correct, further strengthening my earlier advice (on my specialist blogs immediately after the last election to UKIP and Veritas Party members) to join the Conservative Party to have a say in the choice of the next Prime Minister.

That apparently opportunistic advice still holds true today, but if David Cameron wins (is he really Eurosceptic as frequently reported today?) then a switch to the Lib/Dems to have a say in their next leader might become a possibility! Why not? In a political world without principle or policy, those who believe in a best way forward must look to the best means of securing their ends. UKIP with Davis leading the Conservatives will become an even greater irrelevance.

In the meantime serious eurosceptics should be within the Conservative Party. Davis's wobbling on the EPP illustrates the need for strong grass roots agitation on the EU - the suggestion that such a major policy and financial decision should be left to the MEPs is both absurd and disingenuous!

In the battle for our democracy and against the EU, party loyalty counts for nothing, the best means to restore our sovereignty must be the major consideration.

Gordon Brown or the Lib/Dems could even become the best means in securing that end.

When politicians merely follow fads through focus groups then common sense may again prevail!

Ninety Tory MPs today showed their lack of mettle!

Clarke finally finished!

Another minister from the disastrous Major administration mercifully gets his come-uppance ending last with 38 votes in the first round of the most recent Conservative Party leadership battle.

David Davis at 62 votes is now clearly in trouble with Liam Fox needing to pick up a mere further eleven Davis supporters to make it into the run-off against David Cameron who now looks a certainty as the runner-up in the broader membership ballot. (Assuming that inexperienced and unpolicied Old Etonian gathers all the clearly politically challenged Clarke votes)

Dr Fox now needs to address the major problem of how - as a very obvious Scot- he will counter the problems of a potential General Election contest between himself and other main parties led by fellow Scots. An Englishman leading the Lib/Dems in such a scenario would be the safest bet as the first post-New Labour PM. Gordon Brown will need little time as PM to immediately highlight the present inequities of the Scotland vs England political status quo.

If David Davis can play on that point and appreciate the cause of Dr Fox still remaining in the contest is a direct result of his own lack of robustness on the EU question, then he might yet survive.

In all events the Conservative Party looks condemned to irrelevance - who can shed a tear after looking at the pattern of votes today?

Clarke becomes the bookies outsider

Kenneth Clarke's odds go out to 12 - 1, were Rifkind's and Ancram's endorsements the 'kiss of death'?

Meantime the new front runner has attracted the following constructive criticism from Frank Johnson in today's Daily Telegraph:

Only one candidate knows just how dangerous policies are

Never mind about him and drugs. What about him and policies? That is what supporters of David Davis, Kenneth Clarke and Liam Fox ask about David Cameron. He showed brilliantly at the party conference that he has a speech. But has he ever had a policy?

Mr Cameron's reply can be imagined: "I'm not prepared to answer that question. I might once have had a policy; not that this should be taken as confirmation that I ever did.

"But if I did, it was before I knew I was going to become a politician.

"I went to a fairly ordinary secondary school near Slough. I probably did a lot of things there that I now regret.

"But I don't see why I should answer questions about them. I know how the media operate. If I confirmed that I had one policy, they would ask me if I had another. Then another.

"Before long, I would be having to say how much I really would cut taxes or where I stood on the Iraq war. These are personal matters.

"I didn't become Tory leadership favourite in a week by having policies. I did it by making lots of people think that I was in favour of their policy, and because Davis's speech flopped."

Later, Mr Cameron would issue a statement saying that a very close member of his family had a policy, and it didn't do that person any good.

That is all the more reason why he is the candidate who understands that policies are dangerous.

Leave the boy alone, I say.