Talk:David Cameron: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:31, 19 June 2006

Latest revision as of 02:43, 23 August 2025

Line 1:

{{talkheader|search=yes}}

==Manifesto==

{{British English}}

{{ArticleHistory

| action1 = FAC

| action1date = 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

| action1link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Cameron/archive1

| action1result = failed

| action1oldid = 66712757

| action2 = GAN

| action2date = 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

| action2link = Talk:David Cameron/Archive 2#Successful good article nomination

| action2result = passed

| action2oldid = 161874912

| action3 = GAR

| action3date = 13:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

| action3link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/David Cameron/1

| action3result = delisted

| action3oldid = 685689449

| action4 = GAN

| action4date = 13:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

| action4link = Talk:David Cameron/GA1

| action4result = not listed

| action4oldid = 720861792

| action5 = FAC

| action5date = 2016-12-22

| action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Cameron/archive2

| action5result = failed

| action5oldid = 756150536

| action6 = GAN

| action6date = 18:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

| action6link = Talk:David Cameron/GA2

| action6result = not listed

| action6oldid = 1277573578

| currentstatus = DGA

| topic = Social sciences and society

| itn1date=11 May 2010| itn2date=17 September 2012| itn3date=18 September 2012| itn4date=19 September 2012| itn5date=24 June 2016

| otddate=2014-05-11|otdoldid=607875399|otd2date=2018-05-11|otd2oldid=840555807|otd3date=2020-05-11|otd3oldid=955816299

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Cameron, David|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=top|politician-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Berkshire|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject International relations}}

{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}

}}

{{contentious topics/talk notice|blp}}

{{Top 25 Report|Jun 19 2016 (22nd)|Jul 10 2016 (16th)|Nov 12 2023 (9th)}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 7

|minthreadsleft = 2

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:David Cameron/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Press| subject=article| title=David Cameron's Wikipedia page hacked to display Ed Miliband’s face and huge 'vote Labour' banner| org=[[The Independent]]| url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/david-camerons-wikipedia-page-hacked-to-display-ed-milibands-face-and-huge-vote-labour-banner-10233212.html| date=7 May 2015| accessdate=7 May 2015}}{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[American Revolutionary War#North Ministry collapses|since 1782]]</nowiki> The anchor (#North Ministry collapses) has been [[Special:Diff/978855690|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"North Ministry collapses","appear":{"revid":783544587,"parentid":783535803,"timestamp":"2017-06-03T00:34:05Z","removed_section_titles":["Downfall of the North Ministry"],"added_section_titles":["North Ministry collapses","CITEREFBrayley1810","CITEREFHallahan2004","CITEREFLarrabee1964","CITEREFGreene2005"]},"disappear":{"revid":978855690,"parentid":978852770,"timestamp":"2020-09-17T09:39:04Z","removed_section_titles":["Taxation and legislation","Colonial response","Political reactions","Continental Army","France","British army","North Ministry collapses","Treaty of Paris","Peace of Paris","Territory","Casualties and losses","Women","Hessians","Loyalists","British America and Empire","Topics of the Revolution","Social history of the Revolution","Others in the American Revolution","Lists of Revolutionary military","\"Thirteen Colony\" economy","Legacy & related","Bibliographies","Primary sources","Bibliographies"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}

{{Old move |date=17 November 2023 |from=David Cameron |destination=David Cameron, Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton |result=Snow closed as not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1185698257}}

{{Annual readership|scale=log}}

__TOC__

== Lead image ==

I'm a bit troubled by the inclusion of Ming Campbell's plainly partisan comment on the 2005 Conservative manifesto. What troubles me is to what extent Camreron who we are told "drafted" it should personally responcible for it's contents. Indivdual Shadow Ministers make policy, the leader of the party approves policy, others will have an input but the guy who drafts the manifesto (Cameron) hasn't written the policy. His job is to present those policies which have already been created in a cohernent whole to hang together as a programme of government. I'm minded to remove all reference to the manifesto as is misleading.[[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Time we change his lead (infobox) image back to his main portrait as Prime Minister. The 2023 portrait in use worked from November 2023 to July 2024 due to his return to government, but with Labour's victory in this year's general election, they have taken over government. So it's time to bring Cameron's image back to the portrait taken during his time in office as Prime Minister as this was his highest rank and what he is inarguably best known for. [[Special:Contributions/92.236.118.94|92.236.118.94]] ([[User talk:92.236.118.94|talk]]) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As nobody has commented on on my suggestion I am going to go ahead and remove the information regarding the manifesto. [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the more recent image, which is official and of much better quality. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::Every US President has a portrait image '''from their time in office''', to signal their status as a President. This should be the same with UK Prime Ministers. Their time as Prime Minister is more significant than anything else about them. [[Special:Contributions/92.236.118.94|92.236.118.94]] ([[User talk:92.236.118.94|talk]]) 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:::No, not every US president has a portrait image from their time in office, [[Herbert Hoover]] being the most recent example otherwise. The rest of your argument doesn't outweigh image quality. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 20:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Using Hoover as a reference point is such a weak argument, it was taken the year before he was sworn in. [[User:TheFellaVB|TheFellaVB]] ([[User talk:TheFellaVB|talk]]) 21:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's far from the only reference point. Just take a look at [[Benjamin Harrison]] for another example. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 22:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yet again a weak example, his image was taken just 3 years after leaving office, and is used because '''there are next to no other images of him while he was in office'''. The gap between Cameron's portraits is 13 years. Additionally why are we even bothering to using examples from over a century ago? Go ahead and correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm rather sure far more photographs are taken nowadays than they were in the years of Herbert Hoover or Benjamin Harrison. We have an official photo of Cameron from his tenure in the office that people will remember him for, let's use it. [[User:TheFellaVB|TheFellaVB]] ([[User talk:TheFellaVB|talk]]) 09:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The more recent portrait is official, high-quality and accurately reflects how Cameron looks and is known to the public today. He's not a historical figure yet. He's an active peer who served again in 2023-24. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 18:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Most U.S. Presidents don't hold a formal public office again after leaving office, but David Cameron did. [[User:ParliamentarianCA|ParliamentarianCA]] ([[User talk:ParliamentarianCA|talk]]) 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see [[User:TheFellaVB|TheFellaVB]] has made this change, but I think it's quite dubious. While this may be a common trend with US Presidents, it's not with UK politicians who remain notable after leaving office. See [[Theresa May|Baroness May]] (who like Cameron was made a peer), [[Nick Clegg]], or [[Tony Blair]] (though his is from 2010 which was after he left office but not recent). Similarly, see [[Michael Gove]] and to a lesser extent [[Robert Jenrick]] where the most recent 'portrait'-like photos are used.

:Things are different where a person is deceased (the lead photos of [[Elizabeth II]] and [[Pope Francis]] changed after their passing) or where a person is no longer notable in their own right (i.e. outside of their status as a former office-holder specifically, as is the case with former US Presidents, [[Al Gore]], and [[Boris Johnson]])

:There is also a practical difference between the US and UK photos. The US photos are "flag photos", government taken images of office-holders (and so public ___domain) whereas the only UK equivalent are occasional ministerial photos taken for press releases or website use (see the lead photos of Michael Gove, [[Angela Rayner]] or [[Keir Starmer]]); these photos may look similar to flag photos but they are different, and they are licensed differently (UK government copyright is not automatically public ___domain). [[User:Cabinetkey|Cabinetkey]] ([[User talk:Cabinetkey|talk]]) 20:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2025 ==

i would like to know why, after 500 amendments to this page there is no reference to him going to the bilderberg meetings in recent years. i would find it extrodinary if this was thought to be unimportant.

{{edit semi-protected|David Cameron|answered=yes}}

==Notes==

in the sentence

*[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.guardian.co.uk+OR+site%3Awww.ntk.net+OR+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+OR+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk+OR+site%3Awww.telegraph.co.uk+%22David+Cameron%22+%22Black+Wednesday%22&btnG=Search&meta= News links]

'Blairmore was built by Cameron's great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[6][7] who had made a fortune in the grain trade in Chicago, Illinois, before returning to Scotland in the 1880s.[8] Blairmore was sold soon after Ian's birth.[7]'

**Handy links for Cameron / [[Black Wednesday]] details should anyone want them. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

change the link on the word grain trade to direct to the page grain trade, rather than the page commodity market [[User:Crowgirll|Crowgirll]] ([[User talk:Crowgirll|talk]]) 09:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 09:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

== CurrentSlavery Eventand profits Flag==

There are multiple serious reports about the fact that his family profitted from the money given to slave owners in about 1833. Money which the british taxpayer had to give until 2015.

Is the Current event flag appropriate? The leadership election is the event - can a person be a current event? --[[User:cp6ap|cp6ap]]

Why is it not a topic here? Would his family been able to make him go to elitists private schools without the money?

Tims wondering ... [[Special:Contributions/90.160.109.62|90.160.109.62]] ([[User talk:90.160.109.62|talk]]) 14:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

:A lot of people involved in current big news stories (and this is easily <b>the</b> biggest story in UK politics at the moment) have had the current event tag for the duration. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a more recent picture? --[[User:jozephb|jozephb]]

Perhaps a different template could be used, like :

<br>

{{divbox|blue|<center>[[Image:Current event marker.png|50px| ]]| '''This article features a person involved in a [[current events|current event]].''' <br> <small>Information may be added or change rapidly as the event progresses.</small></center>

|}}

just a thought. [[User:DTR|DTR]] 12:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Jeremy Paxman reads this page! ==

During his ''Newsnight'' interview of David Cameron on 17 November 2005, [[Jeremy Paxman]] put the following passage on Cameron's family history to him practically verbatim: "he is... descended from the 7th [[Earl of Denbigh]], the 1st [[Earl of Ducie]], the [[Henry Herbert, 1st Earl of Carnarvon|1st Earl of Carnarvon]], the [[Charles Wyndham, 2nd Earl of Egremont|2nd Earl of Egremont]], the [[Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset|6th Duke of Somerset]] and the 2nd [[Earl of Shrewsbury]]". Link to the interview is on [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4446864.stm this page] (click on "VIDEO Watch the interview"). [[User:Chelseaboy|Chelseaboy]] 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

::Yes I saw the interview that night and immediately thought of this page! [[User:Dpaajones|David]] 19:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He has mentioned wikipedia elsewhere on newsnight, and with compliments, so he clearly reads this encyclopedia and is a fan (very sensible, I find wikipedia no end of use in my own UK media job as well as generally). Wikipedia is a part of that trend towards much greater access to knowledge by individuals. Perhaps he contributes too? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:How reassuring it is to hear that so many journalists of the United Kingdom rely upon wikipedia - almost always un-referenced, often vandalised or plain incorrect... but apparently it's convenient if you're a hack in a rush! --[[User:86.144.85.93|86.144.85.93]] 00:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:I imagine he had a researcher write this for him. I wouldn't have thought Jeremy Paxman on hundreds of k per year would write all his own notes. [[User:87.74.15.60|87.74.15.60]] 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== Privy Councillor / "Rt. Hon." ==

I think we need to wait until he is actually inducted into the Privy Council before adding "The Right Honourable" and PC post-nomials to the header paragraph.

See:

[[Privy Council of the United Kingdom]]

[[Right Honourable]]

I agree. He'll be one soon enough, but I'll remove them for now.

This should be added see http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page76.asp - he is on the list [[User:Gretnagod|Gretnagod]] 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Experience ==

Is Cameron the least experienced leader of a major party? I should think [[Benjamin Disraeli]] and [[Lord George Bentinck]] are pretty close. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::It would depend entirely on how you define experience. Cameron certainly doesn't have that little boy look that Blair had at 41 (and was parodied for having) and definitely doesn't any more. I heard on the BBC today someone saying that whereas his formal political experience (time as an MP, time in the shadow cabinet) is clearly less than Blair's was his real political experience (working for Chancellor Lamont, etc) is actuaslly greater than Blair's was. IMO the fact that Blair became an MP at a younger age isn't so great, and one could argue that Blair had less experience of real life than Cameron (something his face, which they say we are responsible for after 40, gave away). On another note contrast Cameron's humour with humourless Blair. Someone said on the telly Cameron was always cracking jokes and he then made a quip about Brown. Maybe it should be mentioned but I couldn't see where. The present structure of the article doesn't encourage that kind of new information right now though I am sure the article will get restructured eventually now he is on a new level of importance, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention on this page about how some Tory MPs are worried that David Cameron's rapid success is due to him, and most of the high-up Tories, being freemasons. - RadioElectric

I would suspect that is because he won an election that was open and transparent and run by an independant body - Oh that and because DC is on the record as not being (and never having been) a freemason [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about him only speaking four times from the Despath box before coming leader becuase i don't thin it's true. I had a quick look on They WorkFor You And quite quickly got to more than four appearances since becoing a Shadow Minister before becoming leader [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

==Bloodline==

Is it just me, or do all the 'see also' bits, and many of the links at the bottom, seem to assume the only thing worth knowing about him is his bloodline? 10:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)(Skittle)

Have removed this bit for now, as it clearly doesn't belong in 'see also'. Maybe the information, and sources, can be added back in a more constructive manner?

"As a descendant of Samuel Eliot of Antigua, he is also a cousin of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, the Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Salisbury, actress Rachel Ward and actor Timothy Bentinck (Earl of Portland).

Sources :

Debrett's Book of the Royal Engagement, London, 1986, by David Williamson and Jean Goodman

Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage, several volumes

The Complete Peerage, vol IV page 286, vol V page 101

Burke's Peerage, 1938, 1967, 1970, 1999

Blood Royal, From the Time of Alexander the Great to Queen Elizabeth II,

London 2002, by Charles Mosley

The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal,

The Clarence Volume and The Anne of Exeter Volume"

Also removed *[http://www.genealogics.org] which was actually written as *[http://www.genealogics.org it's all explained here] or something along those lines, at the top of the links. If someone has time to follow the link, determine how relevant it is and link to the relevant bit, please do. Otherwise, it looked like following that link would lead you directly to a page explaining EVERYTHING about David Cameron, which is clearly untrue. 10:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

==Neoconservative==

My addition on Camneron's neoconsrevative links is, I think, NPOV although one contributor reverted it. It is carefully NPOV and accurate and I hope that it can stay. [[User:PaddyBriggs|PaddyBriggs]] 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:The text you added is biased and negative, therefor I removed it once and will remove it again.

I don't know who '''you''' are (no signature) but the text is unbiased and accurate. The source is:

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1660457,00.html]]

[[User:PaddyBriggs|PaddyBriggs]] 18:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:I realy don't believe a Guardian Commentator can be described as a neutral source, let alone as a valid source of factual information. [[User:Morkyboy|Morkyboy]] 1941, 8 Decemer 2005 (GMT+1)

::Though I agree that a comment is not the most neutral of sources, one within the Guardian (or any broadsheet/mid-market and most tabloids) can be viewed as at least factually correct. Ive added a link to his voting on the 'public whip' site to substantiate the claims a bit more.

::As for the paragraph; I dont really see anything in it that is not neutral. In the end, how can a conservative party member be irked at being labeled a neo-conservative. As for his voting record; like I say, you have the sources given. Given this, I've removed the neutrality tag and would rather you explained why it should be there before reinserting it. [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 19:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

These days ther neoconservative is generally used in a perjorative sense. Jonathon Freedland certainly was in his article. Labelling somebody a neoconservative is meant to damage them. David Cameron would not describe himself as a neoconservative - he was't a former lefty who got "mugged by reality" which was my understanding of the term. I think it's use is innapropriate and certainly doesn't warrant a sub heading. Hence I've removed it.

The stuff about his voting record was irrelevant one vote against the party line (if indeed it was as i would imagine parliamentry reform vote were unwhipped) is a one off which just creates clutter in an article like this. I left in that he is a loyalist who voted with his party. Indeed because of that I wouldn't draw conclusions from his voting record apart from that he exists comfortably in the Conservative Party which is quite a broad Church these days.

The stuff about Osbourne and Vaizey I removed ultimately because it was about them not Cameron. While there should be room in the article for a word about his supporters it needs to be better placed. Phew! The article as a whole needs a stucture that will beter allow it to grow - the most interesting stuff about Cameron is yet to come! [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

: The Neoconservative stuff PaddyBriggs keeps putting in is blatantly biased. Things like 'he has voted consistently against extra investments in the public services and against the increase in [[National Insurance]] that was dedicated to the [[National Health Service]].' are simply designed to present him as this US-style slash-and-burn Conservative dedicated to public spending cuts. The phrase 'the increase in [[National Insurance]] that was dedicated to the [[National Health Service]]' is so loaded it is untrue. It implies that he is this evil man who voted to stop health spending. This of course is claptrap because (a) he was following a party whip, and politicians oppose government policy as a matter of principle, (b) it implies that he stifled NHS spending and that he opposes necessary public service spending because he is a big bad conservative who just wants to slash taxes. This is so hugely oversimplified that it cannot stay. We aren't given any context (perhaps he doesn't agree because spending has increased at twice the rate of the increase in output and therefore efficiency has gone down; perhaps he disagrees because he would fund it in other ways), just a list of accusations designed to make him look bad. The whole section is based on an *opinion* piece by a Guardian journalist who sits on the comment page of the paper.

: Deciding someone is Neoconservative, or that they oppose this or oppose that without explaining for instance is just part of this hatchet job. For instance, the following sentence was in an earlier edit, but deleted 'Cameron, whose young son, Ivan, has cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy, was named Disability Champion in the ePolitix Charity Champion Awards 2004. In the article supporting his nomination the National Society for Epilepsy wrote, "David has been a vocal supporter for improvements in services for those caring for severely disabled children and those with long-term conditions'. And yet, this text has him adopting a Neoconservative 'position on social and fiscal issues (voting against extended maternity leave and against proposals that would have given parents of disabled children special employment rights'. [[User:147.114.226.174|147.114.226.174]] 10:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::You're right, we can't conclude much about Cameron's views from following whipped votes. I'm sure Freedland's views are formed by other pieces of information too; but we don't have those, so we can only report his views. Also Freedland didn't throw around "neoconservative" quite as much as the text in question did.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=30699902&oldid=30699848] I've edited it quite a lot now, hope that's a basis for moving forward. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 11:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I have now done a policy section based on his actual stated views. There is a lot of information available, so we don't really need to rely on Guardian opinion pieces by someone opposed to Tories out of habit. This might need a little editing. There is a lot of source material at http://conservativehome.blogs.com/toryleadership/2005/11/ [[User:147.114.226.174|147.114.226.174]] 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd accept all of those criticisms about the text that was there. However, I do think his position on parliamentary reform is quite interesting and important, given that he might be leading the thing in a few years' time [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 11:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I actually think that his stance on parliamentary reform are not all that interesting, since this are unwhipped votes and the partly leader has not got that much influence over them. I totally agree with above mentioned comments on the balance of the article. The whole 'neoconservative-thing' is quite biased. [[User:Morkyboy|Morkyboy]] 20:43, 9 December 2005 {GMT+1)

==Balance==

Every attempt to get a balance on this entry is being frustrated by Cameron groupies. [[User:PaddyBriggs|PaddyBriggs]] 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I slightly resent being called a Cameron "groupie". No factual information presented in a NPOV has been removed. [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever is busy on this site the achievement of balance is not part of their agenda. Just read through some of the recent text and you will see that it is the '''"Cameroonies"''' who are in charge! I hold no brief for Cameron, and none for his opponents either. But until proper balance is achieved in this entry the '''dispute''' tag must remain. [[User:PaddyBriggs|PaddyBriggs]] 15:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please say what you think is unbalanced about the article so it can be fixed? I like Cameron so I know making an article too pro him would not help his cause. People have been saying the Blair article is too pro Blair for a long time, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:Eh what? You insist on trying to insert partial analysis that describes him as a Neoconservative. Removing this does not make this article POV. I haven't seen any objections to the content of this article, it's all factual and accurate and nobody has disputed that, it's simply that you want your own opinion inserted. [[User:87.74.15.60|87.74.15.60]] 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I Quite agree with User 87.74.15.60. Unless a specific problem is identified the scare baner should definitely be removed. Mind you I think the Values and Policies section needs substantial rewriting just so it reads better. [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 20:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes well we should give Paddy some time to res[pond with details of why he thinks there is a POV problem, and I don't see a problem with the tag remaining till then, though I also agree with Cp6ap that to me it looks okay POV wise, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Cameroonies need to relax about this article - I have seen my legitimate edits regarding controversy over some shadow cabinet appointments vandalised despite being balanced by own additions regarding appointments of Hague and Davis. Let a balance view prevail! --[[User:213.121.207.34|213.121.207.34]] 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

==Private Eye Picture==

Shouldnt it read "Cameron becoming Blair" and not vice versa?

No. Blair cam first and the joke is he has had a face transplant and is now David Cameron, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

==Paxma interview==

Watch it [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/newsnight_interviews/default.stm# here] and you will see he did not say what was claimed, thus removed the whole paragraph, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV tag ==

So what changes, if any, do we need to make to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&oldid=31051779 current version] before everyone's happy with removing the tag? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Eton record ==

I'd like to add some information on his achievements or otherwise at [[Eton College]]. Anyone know which House he was in?

==Civil Partnerships==

to rd232, please stop repeatedly adding the incorrect information that civil partnerships are not only for same sex couples. It's just wrong, and easily verifiable.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40033--c.htm#3

Eligibility

(1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if-

(a) they are not of the same sex,

Now let that be the end of it.

(sorry my tilde doesn't work....)

:I don't know what you're on about. The text I added back didn't make that mistake; I made it once in a remark in an edit summary (misremembering point that a civil partnership can be between any two unrelated people ''of the same sex'', it doesn't have to be gay/lesbian relationship). I've clarified and updated [[Civil Partnership Act 2004]]. I only wanted explicit reference to what the point of the Act is, and now we have that. No problems here. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

==Bullingdon Club==

The sentance regarding the Bulllingdon club has been rewritten many times since it was first introduced to the article. I think the problems surrounding the constant revision are because it's only included becuase it's quite controversial because of it's alledged "binges" and "destruction" - If DC had been a member of the fishing society we wouldn't care abot that. However nobody really knows what they got up to when he was a member all those years ago - so that the implication that he was involved in "binges" or "destruction" becomes an unsubstantiated slur. I'm not sure there is a satisfactory way to square the circle - personally i preferred the revision that called it an exclusive dining club which was undoubtedly true and left out. What do others feel - if nobody objects i think the references to binges and destruction should be removed. [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Cameron came on the scene the Bullingdon Club thing has been mentioned in the press a lot - and articles have surfaced about past and more recent destructive binges by the club. The phrase "destructive binges" is indeed taken from the Wikipedia entry [[Bullingdon Club]]!!!! --[[User:213.121.207.34|213.121.207.34]] 14:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==Gay Issues==

A further sentance that has been subject to numerous edits which needs some consensus is that regarding "Gay Issues". It presently reads

He also believes that the party needs to be seen to be more liberal on gay issues, an area where it has been perceived by some as backward and alienating potential supporters. In a free vote in 2004 he voted for the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which gave legal recognition to same-sex couples.

I'm not sure this is true - to my knowledge DC has not talked about Gay rights at any length. Furthermore all the main current political battles regarding Gay Rights Section 28, adoption, and Civil Partnerships have been settled before he became leader. It's misleading to suggest that DC will change the Consevatives policies regarding gay rights in comparison to his predecessor - there was a free vote on the Civil Partnerhips Bill under Howard and would expect that to be the case if votes regarding similar issues come up. I am going to edit the sction again to remove his unsubstantiated "beliefs" so the section reflects what is known that he is personally a socially liberal Conservative who voted for the Civil Partnership Act. I understand if people want change it again but I would appreciate it if they would explain the basis for there assumptions. [[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

: It's a symptom of the soft approach. He introduces positive discrimination, talks about needing more women and people from ethnic minorities. All of this, plus the gay issue, is part of a softening of the Tory image. It's 'we're not the nasty party' any more. Cameron *is* different Howard, because he is saying 'we need to be nice', 'we need to be modern', and I don't think gay rights should be taken out of that. Things like this [http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-135.html] also reflect his attitude, which pretty much does reflect what was said in the article - the Tories have been perceived as backwards and alienating potential supporters, whereas even if he hasn't said or done all that much on gay issues, he seems, because he is younger and generally more socially liberal (drugs, women's issues, crime) than other Tories, that he indeed is softening that image. So perhaps 'he believes' is unproven, so perhaps 'In the past the party has been seen as backward on gay issues, alienating potential supporters: Mr Cameron is perceived as more modern'

[[User:87.74.15.60|87.74.15.60]] 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

::: I don't disagree with your basic thesis - i agree that Cameron is seeking to be nice not just because he is but because it is politically the best approach. I agree that he is a personally a social liberal. However i also suspect that Cameron would rather not make a big thing about gay rights. So i think the sentance "needs to be seen to be more liberal on gay issues" is false. Michael Portillo's leadership bid faltered because like Clinton in his early days he gave the impression that he was fixated on issues that are outside the main political cut and thrust - like Section 28 at the time. Cameron won't want to make that mistake - so he hasn't made speeches about gay rights - he will be a social liberal but he won't shout it from the rooftops. So my feeling is that the article is wrong and until there is evidence that demonstrates that the approach is the one outlined in the current article it should not be there.[[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==Laurence Robertson and Gerald Howarth==

The article surrently reads - "However, the appointments of Laurence Robertson and Gerald Howarth, controversial MPs to whom allegedly racist comments have been attributed in the past, to junior shadow positions has caused some controversy."

Has it? Where has this "controversy" been reported it's pased me by entirely. I think it needs backing up with a source.[[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Voila - feast your eyes - http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/12/13/pbcs-labour-general-election-index-down-just-2-points/ --[[User:213.121.207.34|213.121.207.34]] 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think comments on a blog (they're not even in the main blog post) count as a significant enough controvesy to warrant being mentioned in Wikipedia. Cameron is leader of the Opposition somebody somewhere will be commenting on him every hour of every day. They can't all go in - and this in my opinion dosen't doesn't rate as a big enough controversy to warrant it - hence - and i'm sorry - i 'm going to change it again.[[User:Cp6ap|Cp6ap]] 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

== Libdems4cameron ==

http://www.libdems4cameron.com

Interesting. Cameron appeals to Lib Dem supporter that he is 'liberal and progressive'. Worth adding and contextualising. [[User:147.114.226.174|147.114.226.174]] 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:I'm inclined to believe that libdems4cameron is run by the conservative party (or a supporter of). It reminds me of the tory website, and has a link to it early on. [[User:Ud terrorist|Ud terrorist]] 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Ancestry ==

While I agree a lot of the ancestry is interesting, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people who are fifth cousin twice removed of the Queen, etc. It seems a bit daft, nay political, to list this. Also, to say he has aristocratic links is enough as the majority of those families are linked [[User:Gretnagod|Gretnagod]] 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Hundreds of thousands? Probably less than 2 thousand living. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::I take your point but once someone is related to one member of the aristocracy they are related to many members due to the inherent "inbreeding," for lack of a better word. The number of relatives mentioned smacks of a political attack upon Cameron for being "posh" when the number of so-called aristocratic relatives is self-pepetuating.

Out of general interest, does anyone know where this places him in line for the throne? [[User:Megawattbulbman|Megawattbulbman]] 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:A long way back, because, his descent is [[illegitimate]] (from [[William IV of the United Kingdom|William IV]] and his mistress [[Dorothy Jordan]]). [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 18:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::Arniep is wrong, he's not a "long way" back, he's not on the [[Line of succession to the British Throne|Line of Succession]], because he is descended from illigitmate lines. And he's not known to descend 'lawfully' from [[Electress Sophia of Hanover]], he wont be on the Succesion at all. --[[User:82.4.86.73|82.4.86.73]] 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Good point! I thought that he may be descended from a monarch further back legitimately, but I forgot about the Sophia rule. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of the entire ancestry section being removed - I think it serves no meaningful purpose. If someone can articulate a reason why it should be kept, I'd like to hear it. --[[User:Jason Hughes|Jason Hughes]] 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

== April Fool ==

This looks a little out of place where it is. Perhaps it could go in a new "trivia" section at the bottom of the article?

: Agreed though I think it should probably be deleted it's not really not important enough to be part of this article.[[User:Alci12|Alci12]] 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

== Dave the Chameleon ==

Today the [[Labour Party (UK)]] launched a series of Party Election Broardcasts attacking David Cameron, and creating the website www.davethechameleon.com , mocking his decisions to what other parties want to hear.

Should this be featured on this or any other related articles? Should a new one created. The first 'episode' is featured on the website given above. [[User:TheTallOne|TheTall]]<font color="red">[[User_talk:TheTallOne|One]]</font> 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

==Question==

"The Tory frontbench have confided to reporters that the excitement they gained from watching Cameron in action saved them hundreds of pounds in traditional Lib Dem "expenses"."

What exactly does that mean? Seems out of place. I also removed the reference in the opening paragraph to Cameron attending Eton; unnecessary as it is stated in the next section.

:I got rid of it. The article has been taking a heavy assault of POV edits and they can be quite tricky to spot. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a reference to the Liberal Democrats' leadership election, where two of the had "disclosures" about themselves.

Definately POV.

He and others in the so-called "Notting Hill" set [15] have sought to focus on issues such as the environment, work-life balance and international development - issues not traditionally seen as priorities for his party. Cameron is seen as more liberal on social issues than many of his predecessors, including the issue of gay rights. In a free vote in 2004 he supported the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which gave legal recognition to same-sex couples [16].

OK SO "CAMERON IS SEEN AS MORE LIBERAL ON SOCIAL ISSUES...." SEEN BY WHO?

"