John Redwood has posted on his party's recent conference and his lack of enthusiasm for the format adopted of late. He complains about the lack of debates; the lack of a balloted motion, so the audience could choose something they wanted to talk about; that party conferences are organised by media experts who want to control the message, stop dissent, control the camera angles and the story; and lastly, on the subject of debates, wonders why no debate was staged on the whole question of global warming?
That the Member of Parliament for Wokingham would appear to be suffering from failing eyesight and/or a loss in his power of reasoning is indeed sad. Media experts may organise conferences, may actually control message, stop dissent etc, but they are only carrying out the wishes of the cabal that controls the Tory Party. That there is a lack of debate is obvious, as is the reason why there is no longer a balloted motion. Why on earth would the Dear Leader want a discussion on a subject he does not wish to discuss - such as Europe and Global Warming/Energy Provision. On the point of global warming and energy provision, where is the logic of holding a debate on a subject over which his party has no actual control as that control lies in Brussels?
John Redwood may believe that Tim Montgomerie's idea of an alternative conference is worthwhile, until - as John Page writes in the comments section - Steve Hilton puts an arm round both their shoulders and explains why it’s not an awfully good idea. On second thoughts, when considering John Redwood's views of late on certain matters, one does have to wonder whether the long arm of Hilton has already been felt on his shoulders?
3 comments:
I'm sorry WfW but I consider JR one of the good guys and someone unlikely to be intimidated by the likes of Hilton. If he can stand against a prime minister (Major) as he did in 1995 then he won't be bullied by Cameron's henchmen.
There seems to be a trend recently, especially exhibited by Richard North, to attack any politicians, whether Tory or UKIP, who are not 100% behind the new agenda as propounded by either Richard (with his Referism) or yourself with your constitution. It rather reminds me of the way the French revolutionary leaders turned on themselves when they saw any slight divergence from the latest party line.
I know you will disagree with me and I promise you I support your ideas, but I think we should recognise who our enemies are and try to unite our friends behind a single, broad-based, banner.
Redwood is right to complain about lack of debate, motions and votes. What passes for Party Conferences these days is a far cry from the energised debates of old. I wouldn't bother, nobody cares really. It's just about making speeches promoting the Party line these days. It's used to promote and herald soundbite policies for the media - it isn't meant for us.
k: I take your point, however I have to come back to mine that if a politician is to maintain he is not a career politician, then surely he would not remain a member of a party with whom he disagrees on so many policies. If his idea of suggesting a debate on global warming and thus energy provision was to drive the proverbial wedge twixt the elite and the members, to question the direction of the party, then why not say so? Why leave himself open to the obvious criticism that I made?
He may be, as you say, a good guy; unfortunately he only appears thus to me in a few areas.
GV: Naturally agree with all but your first sentence. I do have to revert to my questioning his motives, as raised with k, above.
It is not the first time he has shown a 'bending of the knee' - witness his support for the 120 'eurosceptics and like Helmer, for a renegotiation process?
Post a Comment