Today marks four years since David Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservative party and his last as Leader of the Opposition. His task was to succeed where his predecessors had failed and turn the Tories into a party which the electorate could consider as a serious alternative to the government. Cameron has transformed the Conservatives into a party seen as viable oppostion and for the first time since 1987 we now head into a General Election as favourites.
Since 2005 Cameron has changed the party both physically and ideologically. The traditional torch emblem was replaced with the image of the tree to represent ‘strenght, endurance, renewal and growth’. From moving further to the right under William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, Cameron has progressively aligned the party back to the centre right with emphasis being placed on traditional values such as the family and its importance. During his time as leader he has also showed a committment to ensuring that the party is now much more representative than it has been in the past and as a result we now have many more women and ethnic minority candidates being selected as prospective parliamentary candidates in marginal seats.
Cameron has reiterated his support for the NHS and the Union, reminding us that we are in fact The Conservative and UNIONIST party and we will be contesting the election in all four nations. He has not been afraid to put forward bold and radical proposals whether that be on tax reform or the welfare system. The party have shown how it is us who have the policies required for change, unlike Labour who after 12 years of underachievement and failure have simply run out of ideas. The famous maxim that Labour have done it again and it is up to the the Tories to clean up their mess has shown to be true once more and i firmly believe that Cameron can provide the strong and effective leadership Britain has been crying out for.
BUCF have never had so many members as they have now nor as many activists across the City as they do today. Across the country there is now an air of excitement amongst people from broad backgrounds at the prospect of removing one of the most incompetent governments in history, and replacing them with the Conservatives. There is no doubt that David Cameron is responsible for this new found enthusiasm and this has been evident that within the last four years we have more councillors, more activists and receive more funding than before. We came first in the European elections in Wales, made breakthroughs in the North which no one could have imagined and have gained crushing victories over Labour in by elections in Crewe and Nantwich and Norwich North. All this has come under Cameron’s leadership and come the general election the electorate will have the opportunity to have their say and as Cameron has said ‘we will fight- Britain will win!’.
Birmingham University Conservative Future 
Fantastic post – I’m getting excited about the Election already!
“What a lightweight.”-B. Obama
“The voice may be that of a modern public relations man, the mindset is that of the 1930s.”-G. Brown
Thanks Hels, i am too!. I’m delighted that you continue to find the BUCF blog a good read Max and think it’s only fair that i leave a few quotes other politicians have made about your leader:
‘The house has noticed the prime minister’s remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean’ (Vince Cable)
‘The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government’ (Daniel Hannan)
‘He has psychological issues’,
‘control freak’,
‘totally uncollegiate’,
‘he’s deluded’,
‘I’m ashamed to be a Labour MP’. (Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke)
‘Youtube if you want to’ (Hazel Blears)
‘a lamentable confusion of tactics and strategy’ (Tony Blair)
‘When you put your country into debt to pay for operating costs, you have nothing in return for your debt and you ruin the country’ (Nicolas Sarkozy)
Of course the people will have the chance to have their say at the General Election on what they think about the two leaders. And to date whenever Gordon Brown and David Cameron have faced each other at the polls, the public have made it unequivocally clear who they prefer.
Of course I’m not going to get into a slogging match over quotes, as that doesn’t really get anywhere…ah go on 1 more, lol “When did you last hear David Cameron or George Osbourne last say anything about Britain’s industrial future?…I could ask Ken Clark.”.
But yeh, mutually I’m looking forward to their first poll, with substance pitted against style.
Ooh, ooh, found better 1, lol, or 2…then I am done: “David Cameron has been pursuing a strategy not of real change, but of concealment…change has to be more than a slogan.”.
Brown is, according to a very reliable source of mine, the most indecisive man in politics. He’s still unsure as to what to put in the PBR on Wednesday! And note that it’s Brown doing it, not Darling.
I’m not going to get into a slogging match over quotes either as i agree it doesn’t get anywhere but i couldn’t resist adding this one from a resident in Edgbaston who i canvassed recently and has switched allegiance from Labour to Conservative:
‘I never even voted for him (Brown). I can’t even understand how this man is running the country, as i wouldn’t even let him run a corner shop’
Maybe Max Attacks can cite the source for the Obama quote.
Google obama and cameron who thought what about whom and you’ll find from a better source that Obama was somewhat taken with Cameron and found meeting Brown ‘faintly depressing’.
Max Attacks will find that here in the West Midlands Brown is roundly despised. His cheerleaders are pariahs.
The Obama quote amuses me muchly.. the proverb “People in glass houses…” springs to mind. :P
@ hladavies
Nah, it’s Cameron who’s got the reputation for indeciviness, but I’m not going into that long list of Mr Cameron’s “Flip-flops”
@ maxattacks
It just so happens that my source is a Grade 2 civil servant who deals with politicians on a regular basis. This source is currently – yes, I do mean right this second – drafting legislation underpinning what will be said tomorrow in the PBR. Throughout his time as both Chancellor and Prime Minister I am told that he has continually changed his mind on economic policy up until the last minute.
Gordon Brown’s middle name, one of many, is ‘indecision’. Was he not the front runner to succeed John Smith as leader of the Labour Party but was persuaded, or pipped to the post – depending on which version of history you socialists prefer, in favour of one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair? Gordon Brown’s career is based on indecision and incompetence.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this post on David Cameron not Gordan Brown, hmm, who am I to judge. Either way I’m really impressed with Cameron’s overwhelming collection of flip-flops or thongs (as they call them in doawn ander [attempted auzzie accent, lol]).
Yes, the post is about David Cameron but a certain maxattacks directed the comments towards the slanging match I now see before me.
“directed the comments towards the slanging match” dunno how you came to that conclusion
@maxattacks – you mean jandels, surely?
I heard it was “Thongs” on mock the week, from the auzzie with the artificial leg, lol
your first comment:
# maxattacks Says:
07/12/2009 at 04:16 | Reply
“What a lightweight.”-B. Obama
“The voice may be that of a modern public relations man, the mindset is that of the 1930s.”-G. Brown
this comment started it all.
And….? Rise above it then if it’s so bad, sheesh
“Throughout his time as both Chancellor and Prime Minister I am told that he has continually changed his mind on economic policy up until the last minute.”
Like Thatcher.
Well seeing as I was born in 1989 and I don’t recall discussing politics during my first year of life I cannot comment on Thatcher’s economic policy making.
Well that’s a fascinating attitude to history. It’s just a shame that you didn’t keep up that habit of not discussing politics. ; )
Its fascinating that Jack Matthew hasn’t matured since 1989.
It’s also fascinating how valid a point Jack Matthew made
I assume from hladavies comment that she has no opinion on the holocaust.
A completely outrageous and highly offensive comment Jack, not that I would expect any less from what I have heard about your decorum, or rather lack of it.
I’m sure that Helen is referring to firsthand knowledge which being in our twenties would not extend past the late 80s. What we can discuss firsthand are our experiences of Gordon Brown’s appalling premiership; and equally poor calibre of surrounding political fodder.
We are also able to look at Mr Cameron as an individual who may be far from messianic, but offers Britain the soundest choice for the forthcoming election and, in direct contrast to Mr Brown, he has around him some of the sharpest, most impressive; political, and economic minds in Britain today.
J3NSY
Actually, no it isn’t when you realise what he’s tryng to point out, that you don’t need to be there to know what happened and have a relevant opinion on it.
And on Brown’s “appalling premiership;” and Cameron’s apparent “impressive; political, and economic minds in Britain today.”, I’m not even going to go into the contradiction in that statement.
j3nsy is absolutely right. I am not a Politics nor a History student therefore I am not aware of the ins and outs of the past to the same level as some of my BUCF colleagues. I wish I had the time to study some of these in more depth.
I have no idea why the Holocaust is at all relevant to this discussion and I don’t know what on Earth you are suggesting by your comment – would you care to elaborate.
Max, I can only assume you’re not going to go into the “contradiction” because there isn’t one.
J3nsy, thanks for backing me up!
Nah, there’s a contradiction, but there’s no point trying to explain it against dogma. The holocaust is an example given to show that you don’t have to be there(i.e. alive or aware at the time) to have a view about it.
The Holocaust, in my opinion, is a much more significant event in Modern History than Thatcher’s economic policy-making decisions.Therefore I am likely to have a view about it, especially as I studied it during my History GCSE course.
Also, I find your tone patronising and I really don’t like it, especially given “tis the season to be jolly” and all that…
hladavies, you may not realise that I don’t study politics or history; but I like to form my political opinions from a good understanding of past events. How you can throw your weight behind a party when you are completely disinterested in its record in government is not only beyond me but out-right worrying.
I also find ‘ohh I know about the holocaust because of my GCSEs’ a little bit scarry.
I prefer to think in terms of the present instead of dwelling on the past.
Well then you’re missing all the important lessons that can be learned from history
I appreciate that lessons can be learnt from the past – I’m not thick. I just think it’s important to look forward and see how things can be improved rather than going on and on about things that can’t be changed.
Further to what Jack said, if you’re talking about records in government, you may want to look at the Labour Party’s appalling record over the last 12 years before lecturing me.
It’s such a shame that politics always has to become personal. I think this is why many people are so disengaged with politics these days. There are too many personal attacks rather than well-founded political ones.
Good manners cost nothing guys.
hladavies is quite right about personal attacks. I drop by here occasionally looking for interesting debates to follow (I’m a lurker :)), but always, on both BULS and BUCF blogs I see threads that degenerate into this. I know it isn’t my place to say so, but its just depressing really. If a hack like me can tire of it, then a normal student would surely run a mile?
To my comrades – let us not forget that this is a Tory blog and we are but guests here. Least we can do is be civil and maybe accept our differences. Are we trying to convert here, or just argue when there is no ground to be given? The written word is often an ambiguious medium, and even innocently intended comments can be perceived to be hostile. We’re not here to troll, but sometimes I fear we act like we are.
re: ‘past a key to present…etc’ – the points may be valid and the argument sound in itself; but it was sneeringly, and yes, patronisingly made. The choice of historical example could have been made more carefully, could it not?
Anyhow, if I were a mod. I’d close this thread – It seems to have veered waaay of topic.
Here here!
hladavies if you’re so upset by personnal attacks perhaps responding with comments like:
“Its fascinating that Jack Matthew hasn’t matured since 1989”
is not the best way to counter them.
Comradenash, when you say that hladavies is perfectly right about personal attacks, are you suggesting that she’s right in making those attacks or right in condemning them?
We have this time and time again. People try to play the game, find that they’re just not up to it and then complain about the rules. I’m sorry if I’ve offended people, but would it not be better to ask me to tone it down without prefacing that request with comments that are if anything more patronising and more personal than the ones I made?
To return to what sparked this off: can you honestly say that you expected anything other than a condescending response when you suggested that you are unable to comment on a period that pre-dates your own birth?
I simply suggested that Margaret Thatcher was a big ditherer behind closed doors; something that many of her associates agree on (and consider as a strength). If you can’t comment on that because you genuinely don’t understand events before the 90s, then don’t.
I believe she is right to condemn. Whether or not she was also making them is quite immaterial. We are responsible for our own actions are we not? Max made a very good point earlier when he said “Rise above it then if it’s so bad”.
re: “unable to comment” – I may be wrong, but I believe hladavies’s comments on current economic policy are part based on a current contemporary source(of which I am rather envious to say the least) to which she has access. Within this context it seems rather more appropriate for any conclusions and opinions to be limited to the time period covered by available data.
At no point can I see hladavies suggesting she has no opinion whatsoever on anything prior to 1989. Could you admit that there may have been the slightest bit of selective interpretation on your part? Declining to comment on a historical matter due to seeing oneself as less than fully informed on the subject is actually a modest and noble course of action. I sometimes feel that political discourse in general would be better if we were all to follow such a lead (see climate science).
To hladavies – I apologise If I have misrepresented you on any of the above points.
Wow this threads gone o/t.
I think Comradenash above makes some sensible points above. I’m sure Jack Matthew meant no offence beyond putting his argument strongly amid the hurly-burly of debate.
All I merely wanted to add is that though I hardly know her well, on the few occasions I have met hladavies, she seemed like very much an intelligent sort. Whatever this topic was about I don’t think it was about Thatcher’s plasticity on economic affairs.
There are people in BUCF who can comment reasonably authoritatively on the subject and others who can’t. None of our reading or knowledge run entirely in parallel (thankfully!) and we all have our own interests.
This is blog not an academic discussion and we all have a lot more to learn, yet we still hold and offer opinions.
“Whether or not she was also making them is quite immaterial.”
Well I see hypocrisy as a fault I’m afraid.
“Declining to comment on a historical matter due to seeing oneself as less than fully informed on the subject is actually a modest and noble course of action.”
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, suggesting that that lack of knowledge stems from not being there at the time wonders far into the realms of the ridiculous.
I haven’t noticed any hypocrisy worth commenting on (but I’m not planning on re-reading everything to check) however whether it’s there or not two wrongs don’t make a right. Oh great now I sound like a primary school teacher…
I do disagree on one thing though, I can’t help but feel that not being alive at the time of an event is far from the worst excuse ever for not knowing about it.
Short of further study, which she is quite capable of doing, how else would she know about Thatchers economic policy?
Do you know in detail every aspect of history as pertains to the Labour party ? Do all comrades have sufficient knowledge? Of course not, If you did your party wouldn’t have put out that historically illiterate PPB where you tried to take credit for (among other things) the suffragette movement and defeating fascism.
I think it was unfair and exaggerated to characterize her as “entirely disinterested” in the Conservatives record in government. I beleive she knows what the party stands for today, and what her own values are, and can thus make an informed choice as to whom she supports.
Honestly much as I love Maggie arguing about the 1980’s really isn;t for everyone…
The hypocrisy took the form of making a personal attack and then condemning others for making ‘personal attacks’.
“Short of further study, which she is quite capable of doing, how else would she know about Thatchers economic policy?”
So she should have said that the reason she didn’t know was because she hasn’t made the effort to learn much about it. No I don’t know every detail about the history of the Labour party and if the issue of the Zinoviev letter arose, I would say that it’s something I would have to research; not something on which I’m ignorant due to my not being alive at the time.
You see you’ve missed the point. I’m not castigating her for being ignorant about an era, I’m just dismayed that someone can fail to realise that the reason that she doesn’t know about it is because she has not researched it. I wasn’t old enough to be aware of it at the time but that doesn’t stop me learning from others.
“The hypocrisy took the form of making a personal attack and then condemning others for making ‘personal attacks’.”
Yes quite, when did this happen though ?
I re-read her comments and other than saying she didn’t like your tone and found it patronizing (which I would too) she didn’t make any personal attacks.
The only Tory who made anything like a personal remark was j3nsy calling you immature. Yet most of your comments were targeted at HLADavies.
For contrast you and Maxattacks did manage to lace your comments with sarcastic/patronising/less than gentlemanly remarks.
Secondly, I haven’t missed any point. You DID castigate her for being ignorant about an era when you said:
“How you can throw your weight behind a party when you are completely disinterested in its record in government is not only beyond me but out-right worrying.”
What’s more it’s quite clear to me (and dare I suggest you) that stating her lack of awareness stemmed from her not being born at the time did not in anyway preclude the fact that impliedly it meant she must also not have done further study.
Listing one reason for not knowing something – not being there – is not the same as claiming it to be the sole reason. If you said you knew nothing of the Zinoviev letter because you weren’t there in 1924 it would be a factually accurate statement, I might interpret it as a slightly defensive response, but no more.
Unless you are seriously suggesting that you REALLY thought at any point that she really meant that the only knowledge she could have stemmed from personal experience then you’ve no reason to be dismayed.
At any rate I think I can assure you that she does indeed realise that her lack of study contributes to her lack of knowledge on this vital subject. Hopefully that will satisfy your concern ?
Well, on that note, Merry Christmas! Hopefully we can put this “heated discussion” behind us in the New Year?
Many thanks to those of you fighting in my corner – much appreciated!
Hels x