Manifesto
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.Cp6ap 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As nobody has commented on on my suggestion I am going to go ahead and remove the information regarding the manifesto. Cp6ap 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
Notes
- News links
- Handy links for Cameron / Black Wednesday details should anyone want them. --bodnotbod 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Current Event Flag
Is the Current event flag appropriate? The leadership election is the event - can a person be a current event? --cp6ap
- A lot of people involved in current big news stories (and this is easily the biggest story in UK politics at the moment) have had the current event tag for the duration. Timrollpickering 23:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a more recent picture? --jozephb
Perhaps a different template could be used, like :
<div class="divbox divbox-blue" title="
" > Information may be added or change rapidly as the event progresses.
just a thought. 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 1st Earl of Carnarvon, the 2nd Earl of Egremont, the 6th Duke of Somerset and the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury". Link to the interview is on this page (click on "VIDEO Watch the interview"). Chelseaboy 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I saw the interview that night and immediately thought of this page! 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? 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! --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. 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 *[1] which was actually written as *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. 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: [[2]] 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. 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. 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! 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'. 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.[3] I've edited it quite a lot now, hope that's a basis for moving forward. 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/ 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 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. Morkyboy 20:43, 9 December 2005 {GMT+1)
Balance
Every attempt to get a balance on this entry is being frustrated by Cameron groupies. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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, 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! --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, SqueakBox 16:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Paxma interview
Watch it here and you will see he did not say what was claimed, thus removed the whole paragraph, SqueakBox 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
NPOV tag
So what changes, if any, do we need to make to the current version before everyone's happy with removing the tag? 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. 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. 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!!!! --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. 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 [4] 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'
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.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.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/ --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.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. 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. 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 Gretnagod 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hundreds of thousands? Probably less than 2 thousand living. 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? Megawattbulbman 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- A long way back, because, his descent is illegitimate (from William IV and his mistress Dorothy Jordan). 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, 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. --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. Arniep 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Arniep is wrong, he's not a "long way" back, he's not on the 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. --82.4.86.73 18:48, 15 February 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.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. TheTallOne 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. 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? "