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?
