Is attacking Cameron on drugs the best strategy for Labour?
November 21st, 2005-
Could “Daily Mail-speak” be having less influence?
Will Labour’s first big Labour onslaught on David Cameron after, as expected, he becomes Tory leader on December 6th be on illegal drugs. Not only would an attack focus further on the ambivalence of the 39 year-old’s personal statements
but it’s the one policy area where he has said a lot on the record that Labour spinners could use against him.
For one aspect of Cameron’s relative lack of front bench experience is that there is a dearth of material of him saying things on key policy issues in public. One of the reasons, I believe, why Jeremy Paxman was less effective on Thursday night was that there wasn’t much for Newsnight’s researchers to get their teeth into.
-
On illegal drugs the Cameron approach is to take a much softer line than we have been used to and it will be fascinating to see if this is a vote winner or a vote loser. The danger for Labour in using the issue is that society has moved on and attitudes to drug use might be much less close to a Daily Mail front page than they were a few years ago.
We got a touch of it in yesterday’s second leadership debate on ITV’s Dimbleby programme. Cameron put the emphasis on education and treatment urging the creation of proper residential rehabilitation. Rejecting suggestions that he was soft on drugs he argued that it wasn’t credible that ecstasy and heroin were in the same drugs classification.
Davis responded in the typical “Daily Mail speak” hard-line manner that has characterised Tory drug policy. The reason, he said, why ecstasy and heroin were in the same category was that they both killed - while cannabis always caused harm and downgrading sent a disastrous signal.
A young man in the audience echoed what many have been saying - that the criminalisation of what several million people do in private discredits the political process and the rule of law.
Will the Cameron soft-line hold under the likely Labour barrage or are we seeing a change in the accepted orthodoxy that being less tough on drugs is a vote loser?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Cameron put the emphasis on education and treatment urging the creation of proper residential rehabilitation
Of course he did - it was in the last Tory manifesto! And who wrote that?
And of course he’s right. The only reason that it’s even a remarkable proposition is the prevalence of shame-based denial. Part of which, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say, is calling rehab a “soft” option. Ask anyone who’s been there and done that, or is close to anyone who has.
Mike - Why would a report stating that 44% of the votes are now in lead to a softening of the price?
IA @ 1: The problem is that most peoples’ closest experience of rehab is hearing of yet another celeb checking in to the Priory. Which gives a very misleading impression indeed.
It’s true that DC hasn’t said much on many things but what he has said I’ve found interesting. An apparently thoughtful approach to drugs policy even though it’s likely to be politically difficult; a refusal to promise tax cuts in all circumstances; a stated interest in social enterprise; and, as an under-reported aside, we saw a very liberal attitude to gay rights in the Paxman interview.
I’m in my mid-30’s and I’ve never voted Conservative - never even considered myself to be a swing voter - but DC might change that.
re 2. With 56% still to vote I think that one or two punters might find the current long price on DD worthy of a small punt.
Gamblers are usually crazy optimists.
I think they will go hard on drugs and justify by saying we have a right to know whether he was spending taxpayers money (his Special Adviser salary) on cocaine or heroin. They will also ask whether he was on coke or heroin during Black Wednesday. This is silly because he clearly never needed to touch the salary to fund any aspect of his lifestyle but the questions will still be asked. I still think that outside of London and amongst over 40s confirmed use of coke or heroin is politically lethal. Let’s be clear too that we know he took class a drugs because otherwise he would deny it. i would go further and say he must have been a fairly prolific user. Most people I know have tried coke but so rarely that they can remember when and with whom. His problem I would suggest is that he can’t remember when or with whom and therefore knows there is a strong chance of evidence emerging when his profile becomes higher.
I really think putting any conventional money on Davis is throwing it away but there might be some value to be had on an exchange if he does particularly well this week.
[4] Mac, you may well be right about the regional difference - and not only on this issue - indeed, I imagine a proposal to re-introduce the Poll Tax at £5,000 a head in London only would be very popular indeed north of the Trent
I think there’s a missing dimension to this. The point is not so much about Cameron’s actual views and experiences, but to drive a wedge between him and the Conservative Party. It is intended to make life difficult for the majority of Conservative candidates who hold social conservative views - endorse an approach with which they disagree, or cause ’split’ and ‘rebel’ stories. It’s the mirror image of the Cameron strategy of playing up the differences between Blair and his party. However, I think it would be exceptionally poor politics to concentrate on Cameron’s personal experiences - the risk of ‘blowback’ (to coin a phrase) would be massive. And it wouldn’t do politics as a whole any good.
[7] Lewis Baston wrote I think it would be exceptionally poor politics to concentrate on Cameron’s personal experiences . Agreed. The “social conservative” line would be to argue that drug abuse - and addiction generally - is a moral failing, rather than an illness - this is part of the denial I mentioned earlier. If I misrepresent the likes of Sean Fear, I’ve no doubt they’ll say so.
8. There is a middle ground whereby drug addiction is neither something over which an individual has no real control (an illness) nor a personal failing which should be loudly condemned. This is that while we know that addiction can have massive negative effects on the individual and on the wider society, it should nevertheless be tackled with practical and humane measures. Hence the Conservatives’ recent proposals on stepping up rehab provision.
7 - Lewis - I am not convinced that most modern Tory candidates are social conservatives. Some are no doubt, but my experience is that most are socially pretty liberal. They would have more in common with DC’s attitude to drugs than DD’s. However, I was disappointed that both DD and DC yesterday said that they did not support Capital Punishment. The Conservative line has recently always been that individuals have their views but it would be a free vote.
Rik, But weren’t they just expressing their personal views not committing the party: as you say, these kinds of issues are not whipped. I had thought that DD was in favour of restoring capital punishment
Are you a member of the Hang ‘Em brigade Rik?
DD used to be in favour - he certainly was a couple of years ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/16/ncrim16.xml
the upper echelons of today’s conservative party are extremely socially liberal but this has yet to translate into policy. Until it does you run the risk of saying one thing and doing another. The hedonistic lifestyles of the young(ish) turks could still catch up with the party under DC. I would only want clean cut, clean living people in my shadow cabinet if i was him. if that means disappointing some people who feel they are owed a job then so be it.
Politicians are generally a good deal more libertine than the people they represent.
Just to surprise you, Innocent, I am in favour of liberalising our drugs laws, simply because the “War on Drugs” can’t be won, at least without adopting the sort of approach that Mao Tse Tung adopted towards opium users. However, you’re right that I would see addiction as more of a moral failing than an illness.
“I am not convinced that most modern Tory candidates are social conservatives”
Only a Conservative would think it possible to be a “socially liberal” ‘hanger and flogger’. A sort of Jeffrey Archer character where drugs and prostitution are OK as long as you can flog the lower orders who peddle them. The ’socially liberal’ Conservatives dilemma must be Saudi Arabia where they execute drug pushers.
16 - roger - it is perfectly possible to be socially liberal and believe in Capital Punishment. As with all these things there are no absolute tests of liberalism or authoritarianism. I have always supported capital punishment but I am also socially liberal!
I think that quite a lot of people will take socially conservative positions on some issues, and socially liberal ones on others.
There’s no logical reason after all, why the same person should not be persuaded by an argument in favour of gay marriage, and an argument in favour of capital punishment.
16 - Former President Clinton presumably counts as socially liberal yet extended the use of the death penalty in the United States.
10,11 - is it even possible to reintroduce capital punishment without leaving the EU and tearing up the human rights charter?
In answer to your second question, No. I’m sure though that if an EU country with sufficient political and economic clout were determined to reintroduce capital punishment, then a way would be found to accomodate them.
sorry, but what evidence is there that labour has had anything to do with cameron/drugs stories? there is none because labour has stayed well away. the only people to raise the cameron drugs stories are cameron himself, other tories and tv interviewers. can anyone point me in the direction of a single labour mp who has commented on this story?
Doubt Labour will make a big thing of drugs - it may crop up in the Mirror and in a few leaflets but not much else, and only in so much as Labour think Cameron will solidify their working class base.
Interesting how the Lib Dems will play it, their party activists have often tried to push more liberal drug policies while being held back by the leadership, will Cameron make it harder for the leadership to do that?
[15 - 18] I’ve just finished listening to a radio programme on philosophical pragmatism which concluded by informing me that it’s making a comeback - and this discussion suggests the same
In that spirit I don’t see why my view or yours on, say, the cause of addiction should logically lead to one view or another on the role of the State in family life.
On what sort of issues would a social liberal use corporal punishment, Rik?
This has got me thinking about what it means to be socially liberal in Britain today. It seems to met that in the United States the issues that divide social liberals and conservatives are much more clear cut. In Britain what are they?
Gay marriage
Abortion
Capital punishment
Attitude to drug use
Immigration
Euthanasia
Any others?
I think that attitudes towards crime and punishment generally would be one clear dividing line.
People with punitive attitudes towards criminals would be taking the socially conservative position, people with forgiving attitudes would be taking the socially liberal position.
4 – mac
“…we know he took class a drugs because otherwise he would deny it.”
Pretty flawed logic, the reason why Cameron won’t answer the question is because he’d then have to say weather he took cannabis or not, that was the original reason why the issue of “class a drugs” was raised by Davis and Clark partisans… so that Cameron would say no and then be forced into saying that he had indeed smoked dope at university… which is probably very likely.
I agree that taking class A Drugs, or being found to have done so, is political cyanide. However I think you fail to see there is zero evidence to suggest that he has taken class A Drugs, let alone been a regular user as you seem to suggest. Consequently there’s little basis to guess that Cameron wouldn’t continue to perform well amongst floating voters, especially in the south and midlands, as he is currently.
Then again I seem to remember it was you who suggested the disabilities suffered by his son must be the result of his wife being a heroin addict.
25 – Chrisco
Interestingly social issues in this country remain far more peripheral than they are in the states, but I suppose that goes without saying.
As a catholic, less observant than I should be, I’m pro-life (abortion and euthanasia), yet I can sympathise with the arguments in favour of the death penalty (I think its important to differentiate between a convicted guilty criminal and a innocent be they an unborn child or an ailing adult) yet on gay marriage and attitudes to drug I’m fairly liberal and then on immigration again (looking beyond the hyperbole) I’m fairly tough. So what on earth does that make me? Social Liberal or Conservative?
Ben, I’d say that makes you a social conservative with drug-taking gay friends!
25. maybe stem cell research and assisted procreation could be added.
Social liberalism has to have a context. Some Popes are considered liberal even though they forbid contraception and homosexuality. To say Clinton is socially liberal in a European context doesn’t mean much. In the UK by any definition someone who believes in corporal and capital punishment is not a social liberal!
28 – Chrisco
How on earth did you know?
To be fair though, gay marriage would seem a fairly conservative thing to propose, sure it accepts the viability and worth of same-sex relationships but it also promotes a stable, monogamous relationship within the law… consequently I wouldn’t be opposed to gay adoption… as long as there is a stable, loving environment for children to grow up in, though I might worry about the children lacking a role model from the gender not represented in the relationship.
26 Sean - I would disagree. I want tough and long sentences for those who harm others in society - burglars, muggers, rapists etc but I also want a proper re-education and rehabilitation process in prisons. I am very happy to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding and incorporate proper training programmes. Banging people up for 23hours a day does no one any good.
Is that liberal or conservative?!!!!
Mike @ 3 - Thanks
Chrisco @ 25 - Gender politics. Age of consent. Sex education. And as Sean says @ 26, attitudes to crime and punishment.
24 - in schools roger!!
ben - I have never commented on DC’s wife and anyone who suggested a link between drug use and their child’s disability is pretty sick.
if it was cannabis, he would have said as there would be virtually no political fall out from such an admission. Not only is cannabis not politically damaging - it’s hardly the drug of choice of Oxbridge hooray henrys or media executives.
My theory (and I concede it is simply a theory) is that had he taken it once or twice he would be in a position to know ho he took it with and whether they were likely to grass him up. The fact that they haven’t denied it suggests they have no control over the story and they cannot be sure that some undesirable will come out of the woodwork with evidence that DC did take drugs. That could explain the denial - that’s my theory anyway.
30 - rubbish! I believe in capital punishment but I also have very socially liberal views when it comes to the states right to pry into bedrooms and people’s personal lives. I will oppose ID cards and the attempt to bang people up for 90 days without trial. I also accept Cameron’s line on looking at what works on drugs rather than tough talk that sounds good but doesnt work. I am far more socially liberal than socially conservative!
30 - Roger
To be fair Clinton would probably not have been elected as a governor in the South today.
He was solidly pro-abortion throughout his time in office, and the expansion of abortion rights during the first two years of his term, along with appointment of the uber-liberal Ruth Ginsburg to the Supreme Court (interestingly with nothing like the furore that accompanied the far more moderate conservative John Robert’s appointment this year)… all suggest he was a liberal both personally, politically and by even by European standards.
It’s often forgotten that while he campaigned as a moderate in 92, he largely blew his early momentum in the first two years of his presidency with a pretty liberal administration and only succeeded in salvaging his position with the Republican seizure of congress and his adoption of a much more moderate political approach.
24. I am generally opposed to corporal punishment, but after reading Roger’s posts I am tempted to think there might be exceptions.
34.”in schools roger!! ”
Do you want corporal punishment in schools?!
I’m not sure that gender politics do fit very well into the social liberal vs social conservative model. Advocating, say, the reversal of the burden of proof in rape cases, or (as one new Swedish party does) an extra tax on men, are plainly not socially liberal positions, but then they’re not socially conservative ones either.
I’m very sorry for confusing you mac with who ever it was who posted those rumours a while back.
Though I will maintain that Cameron is unlikely to have been a serial user of cocaine, and I think the whole story has really gotten out of hand… but that’s not to say your theory doesn’t make some sense.
39 - corporal punishment should never have been abolished by one vote in 1988 in schools. I would be supportive of it returning in certain circumstances.
35 Mac That theory doesn’t hold up really.
If he had taken drugs so often as you speculate there would be so many people to ‘grass him up’ that any denial would not be worthwhile.
More importantly DC has said that although, on principle, he will not talk about his life before politics ( and specifically not talk about drugs following the Labour Cabinet guidelines) it has been reported that he has also assured colleagues that refusal does not mean there is anything damaging that will come out.
So speculation may be fun but all the Nulab digging will get them is likely to be the usual undergraduate sins and exposing them will simply expose the Labour party to ridicule for digging so fruitlessly and being so fearful of Cameron as to strain the elephant to deliver the pea.
Nulab are already playing into his hands with the Treasury response and the Mirror’s cracked barking. If Brown digs for victory too much it might have the effect of simply drawing attention to the past and current peccadillos of cabinet members.
And there must be some fun to be had there.
O/T, but I was amused yesterday during the Davids’ debate to notice the penchant of the two men for misquoting Chinese leaders! At Question Time we had Davis misattributing a Mao quote to Ho Chi Minh, and yesterday Cameron quoted Deng Xiaoping as Mao.
To be honest I found it curious that either would quote Mao Zedong - I cannot imagine them offering aphorisms from Hitler or Stalin in their efforts to get elected!
Off topic……but don’t you think your user name is rather outdated Bluetowin? shouldn’t you change it to Blueshavelost?
[31] Ben - I don’t see any problems in same-sex couples adopting that don’t already arise where the adopted child is of a different ethnicity to the adopting couple. If the prospective adopters don’t understand the significance of Otherness they should be passed over.
[32] Rik - on the purpose of prison, I agree 100%. The problem is one of political education - there are few votes (apart from yours and mine, obviously :)) in spending public money on reforming prisoners. Maybe you’ll have better luck than I ever could in explaining to Sean Fear that forgiveness is a public good.
roger - I don’t accept that being “socially liberal” or “socially conservative” is something that has to be accepted tout court. Given that I recall you being in favour of the hunting ban, does this make you an authoritarian? Likewise, whilst I don’t share Rik’s views on capital punishment, I don’t necessarily feel that there has to be an “authoritarian” or “libertarian” view on the criminal justice system. One can be perfectly in favour of procedural safeguards such as no prosecution right to appeal, retention of the double jeopardy rule and non-disclosure of previous convictions and yet advocate stronger sanctions for the duly convicted - indeed, one can even make the case that the procedural safeguards legitimises stronger punishments because they ensure that the number of people wrongly convicted (and therefore wrongly punished) is kept to a minimum.
“I cannot imagine them offering aphorisms from Hitler or Stalin in their efforts to get elected!”
I heard this one from George Best yesterday which I suspect was an accident “I spent my money on booze, birds and fast cars…and the rest I squandered”
I don’t necessarily feel that there has to be an “authoritarian” or “libertarian” view on the criminal justice system.
Can you imagine any caftan wearing sandal shod muesli eating Guardian reading liberal pinko thinking corporal punishment and the odd hanging is “OK”?
25 to throw a spanner in the works…
Gay marriage - liberal - in favour of civil partnerships
Abortion - liberal - if anything increase the time limit
Capital punishment - tough - restore it
Attitude to drug use - liberal - legalise
Immigration - tough - bring in a points system and control our borders
Euthanasia - liberal - broadly in favour, although not an issue I have strong opinions on
You left out
Corporal Punishment - tough - bring it back
Prison - tough - longer sentences and less parole
ID cards - liberal - very much against on principle
Tony Martin law - tough - any person should have the right to protect their property from intruders without fear of prosecution
That makes me 5-5 liberal v tough.
I guess I’m liberal on issues that are personal and a private matter for individuals, and tough on those which are criminal or place the security and lives of our citizens at risk.
50 - Interesting… I’d go:
Gay Marriage - Liberal
Abortion - Tough
Capital Punishment - Liberal
Drug Use - Liberal to some extent (not suggesting legalise heroin)
Immigration - Liberal
Euthanasia - probably 50:50
Personally I’d put tough on abortion and liberal on Capital punishment as coming from the same fundamental viewpoint - the sanctity of life, be it that of a criminal (who should have the chance to reform), or of an unborn (who should have the chance of life)
42. Rik. and if parents won’t like teachers having corporal punishment on their children…..if I had been a parent, I would immediately denounce said teachers to the EU Human Rights Court.
50. I’m liberal on most of those issues, but is some of them I don’t have a strong opinion and I could be persuated to change mind (actually I don’t know what I would do regarding drugs policy).
Roger hasn’t taken his tablet yet today.
50. Very interesting test. I’m always considered myself socially liberal but I’ll comment on the same things.
Gay marriage - liberal - in favour of civil partnerships =agree
Abortion - liberal - if anything increase the time limit =agree
Capital punishment - tough - restore it = I’m 50-50
Attitude to drug use - liberal - legalise = again 50-50 it’s a war we’ll never win so I could be tempted by the legalise to control arguments. Then again I abhor the use of them.
Immigration - tough - bring in a points system and control our borders = agree
Euthanasia - liberal - broadly in favour, although not an issue I
have strong opinions on = agree on the grounds of you put animals down that are suffering. Why not humans.
You left out
Corporal Punishment - tough - bring it back = In agreement in principle but not sure how easy it would be to implement such a policy.
Prison - tough - longer sentences and less parole = certainly sentence reform and look into better forms of punishment whilst keeping those who are a violent danger to the public locked up.
ID cards - liberal - very much against on principle = 100% against.
Tony Martin law - tough - any person should have the right to protect their property from intruders without fear of prosecution = again in favour of the principle. With obvious caveats about not shooting the postman.
tony martin - tough - but not to the extent that it would actually protect a headcase like mr martin
An interesting debate! In response to the litmus tests offered I would say:
Gay marriage - very liberal. I even think the CofE should conduct and recognise them when the parishes are willing.
Abortion - middling liberal. Leave the law where it is.
Euthanasia - liberal, but a little queasy. Even under the current law juries often seem compassionate in such cases.
Capital punishment - very liberal. I would feel utter disgust if any tax I paid went towards the ghastly rigmarole of executions.
Drug use - middling liberal. Complete legalisation of cannabis, and taking the criminal law (and criminals) as far out of the hard drugs scene as possible. There are few things so bad for a person’s life that the criminal justice system can’t make it worse.
Immigration - basically liberal. Our economy is doing well and our culture is attractive, so Britain sucks in hard-working immigrants. Excellent. But a complete free-for-all is obviously not possible.
Corporal punishment - liberal. Really! violence isn’t a good way of instilling values, and think of the type of person attracted to the idea of administering this punishment, particularly in schools.
Prison - liberal. Send fewer non-violent offenders there. As liberal Tories say, it’s an expensive way of making bad people worse. Don’t cut parole or remission - it’s a way of enabling the prison authorities to make its authority stick. Invest in prison education tc. Not against building new prisons - there’s nothing liberal in having crumbling old jails.
ID cards - really, don’t give a stuff either way. Perhaps wary on grounds of cost.
Tony Martin law - liberal, against on the grounds that the current law strikes a reasonable balance.
I guess that makes me one of the most extreme liberals in this place…
For me, it would be:-
Gay marriage - opposed.
Abortion - opposed save in case of threat of death or injury to the mother.
Capital punishment - undecided. I’d probably back it if there were really clear cut evidence that it would cut the number of homicides, but I don’t think that degree of evidence exists.
Attitude to drug use - liberal - legalise
Immigration - tough - adopt the Danish approach to arranged marriages.
Euthanasia - Opposed, due to my experience of administering estates.
Corporal punishment - use it in exceptional circumstances.
Prison - tough - sentences are about right overall, but improving the police’s detection rate (which I see as a priority) would certainly increase the numbers in prison.
ID cards - don’t oppose on principle, but in practice I imagine they’d be costly and not do what was promised.
Tony Martin law - keep the law on self-defence as it is.
Gay marriage - more the merrier
Abortion - it’s your body
Euthanasia - as above
Capital punishment - only for the likes of Tony Martin
Drug use - legalise
Immigration - clampdown on Aussies
Corporal punishment - no
Prison - only for gypsy burglars
ID cards - totally
Tony Martin law - no
Litmus Test :
Gay Marriage : Compulsory for Bromley Conservative Councilors and the Pope.
Abortion : Retrospective for the progeny of the parents of Dr Paisley !
Euthenasia : Essential for the male host of Strictly Come Dancing.
Capital Punishment : Most desirable for Bar Chartists
Drug Use : Essential for Scottish Rugby Fans to cope with the upcoming All Blacks fixture at Murrayfield.
Immigration : Only for foreign followers of the House of Stuart and for Andrea to watch over events at Bromley Town Hall and a pilgrimage to Rutland.
Corporal Punishment : Abolished : The Tories have had a good caning at the last 3 elections and deserve time off for good behaviour. Although there are some Tory MP’s who enjoy a good spanking.
Prison : Essential for all Tory MP’s who pledged to more than one candidate in the leadership election …… so that leaves the Lib Dems as the Official Opposition !!
ID cards : Useless, especially as most politicians are two faced, which can’t be picked up even biometrically !
Gay marriage -fine by me. Then we can have gay adoption by those couples who are in homosexual marriages.
Abortion and Euthanasia -pretty much the same as trev, it is your body.
Capital Punishment -definitely not. And it’s not even a cheap option as the legal bills can run into millions and the prisoners are on “death row” for 20 years (as a convincing case has to be made before the ultimate act). Also the ability of the state to kill it’s citizens is the ultimate act of big state and big government.
Corporal Punishment -no. The people who wanted rid of corporal punishment (i.e. the cane) were teachers. The cane is an instrument meant for wounding. However teachers should have the ability to separate people fighting etc.
Immigration -fair enough, but less placing of them in run-down areas, where they CANNOT get jobs (this is what in my opinion causes a lot of the tension).
Prison -prison education, and lots of it. Drug rehab etc. I fail to see how sticking someone in prison 23 hours a day for a number of years in solitary confinement, with the drugs in there, and then let them go and say “Don’t commit any more crimes” and expect them to do that, no matter how harsh the prison sentences are.
Tony Martin law -I do approve people’s right to defend their own property, however he shot someone in the back as they were running away so he would not have been defended by this law, if my understanding is correct.
ID Cards -sensible idea (not on grounds of terrorism but on convenience) but rather costly to administer.
Drugs -legalise as much as possible, however restricted outlets for sale. An awful lot of crime cause by drug taking is from people having to find the money to fund their habit, meaning burglary and stealing.
Here goes:
Gay marriage - liberal. If we Conservatives believe that marriage is the most constructive and stable family environment, why should we prevent gay people from engaging in it?
Abortion - slightly conservative. I can see and respect the argument for lowering the limit to 22 or 20 weeks due to the improved ability to save premature babies.
Euthanasia - liberal. So long as the appropriate safeguards are in place, individuals should have the right to determine when they wish to end their own lives.
Capital Punishment - liberal. Keep it banned.
Drug Use - liberal. Criminalising addicts and users is probably the wrong way to go; target the pushers instead; downgrade ecstasy and decriminalise cannabis.
Immigration - liberal. A vibrant economy is a global economy. The country is not only better off from the influx of immigrant professionals but benefits from the cultural diversity that they bring.
Corporal Punishment - moderate. Not in schools, but parents should be allowed to use reasonably chastisement against their children.
Prison - moderate. Violent offenders need to kept in prisons and serve long terms; non-violent offenders should be treated more flexibly.
ID cards - liberal. Notwithstanding cost and inefficiency, I’m deeply uneasy about any compulsory system which criminalises people who seem to be doing nothing culpable bar failing to carry a piece of plastic.
Tony Martin law - conservative. Homeowners have a right to defend their property, and the current law makes them wary of tackling intruders. However, on the facts of the Tony Martin case itself, I’d probably still convict (since the intruders were already fleeing).
Sean Fear at 15: Intrigued by your belief that politicians are more promiscuous than their constituents - look, it’s not so bad, not *all* Tories are like Alan Clark! Or did you mean libertarian rather than libertine?
Personally I’m amazed that MPs have the time to have affairs…
62. Alan Clark was one in a million though. A wife and two daughters. He must have had some stamina
I take Matthew Parris’s word for it, Nick.
62, Look, if that puritannical and sanctimonious old sod, and seemingly permanent resident of the Chamber, the Beast of Bolsover, can get his legislative end away, then absolutely nothing would surprise me about the mating habits of the lesser-spotted Westminster Muppett…
re 62. Certainly those who come on PB.C have no time at all. Just think - if we had been about in john Major’s time…!!
Here are mine
Gay marriage - Undecided To me the government has an interest in supporting parenting. Don’t see why the government should be providing benefits to persons gay or straight just because they can form an intimate relationship.
Abortion - opposed - unborn should have rights, especially disabled
Euthanasia - likewise. Fear that pressure will be put on older people to not be a burden. Not a true choice.
Capital punishment - Opposed.
Drug use - Decriminalize
Immigration - We should be delighted to have entrepereneurial people wanting to come to Britain. I still get angry over the treatment of the Hong Kong people after the reunification. Corporal punishment - leave it to parents/ teachers discretions as long as not abusive.
ID cards - totally opposed - civil liberties issue
Tony Martin law - opposed, but wouldn’t have made him a martyr either.
Which I think makes me the opposite of Andy
Gay marriage - liberal – absolutely in favour
Abortion – liberal, definitely no cutting of time limit.
Capital punishment - liberal – over my dead body………
Attitude to drug use – liberal
Immigration – liberal, I’m uneasy with the concept of borders but appreciate the practical need however.
Euthanasia - liberal – don’t see anything wrong if that’s what the person wants.
Corporal Punishment – liberal – again – over my dead body…………
Prison – liberal – greater efforts needed regarding rehabilitation.
ID cards - liberal – over my dead body and the dead bodies of all those that I take with me……….
Tony Martin law – as far as I can see the liberal response is to allow the individual the right to defend their property, what form of liberalism elevates the rights of a criminal? Not any that I subscribe to.
Looks pretty liberal to me!
Here are mine - probably they’re not exactly what you’d expect from a staunch Conservative voter such as myself…
Gay Marriage - strongly in favour - it’s an equality issue
Abortion - no strong opinions either way
Euthanasia - strongly opposed
Capital Punishment - strongly opposed, capital punishment is totally immoral! No ifs, no buts, it’s simply barabaric.
Drug Use - strongly opposed to drug abuse, but I don’t see it as a matter for the state. I suppose on this issue I’m conservative in attitude but liberal in the way I’d approach the issue at a practical level.
Immigration - Strongly in favour. I don’t believe in immigration controls of any kind.
Corporal Punishment - Strongly opposed - it’s a form of child abuse.
ID cards - Strongly opposed.
Tony Martin law - Undecided, but the case is a very poor example (whichever side of the argument you take).
Gay marriage - no particular objection - but I don’t really like the law making a special case of marriage at all. I can see the need for a legally recognised next of kin - but whether this be partner, spouse, brother, nephew, friend or none of the above is fairly irrelevant. As for gay adoption - unconventional, but surely better than no parents at all?
Adoption - not sure - I can see both sides and I’m glad it’s not my decision.
Euthanasia - ditto,
Capital punishment - I’m opposed - but if Harold Shipman or Ian Brady wants to take his own life, he shouldn’t be prevented - he’s never going to get out, and in some respect it’s the more humane option. But they shouldn’t be pressured into it, and this raises a question of to what extent should this be assisted.
Drug use - decriminalise
Immigration - we should be aiming for net population growth of zero. If this means a lower rate of economic growth than might otherwise be the case, fair enough - it’s a price I’m willing to pay to stop our already overcrowded country getting more so. I like Britain and don’t want to see it concreted over. Our feeble birth rate allows leeway for some immigrants to come, but at the moment the population is growing too quickly.
Corporal punishment - no, but teachers need more support than exists presently, where any physical contact is presumed to be assault.
The fact that Tony Martin was a bit of a nutter doesn’t mean he’s necessarily in the wrong. Sometimes unpleasant people are in the right, or at least less in the wrong. (Besides, Brendon Fearon seems considerably more unpleasant than Tony Martin).
What about multiculturalism? Instinctively I’m a fan of the French model - everyone should be the same in the eyes of the law - but I’m happy that ethnic minorities can actually get somewhere in public life in Britain, which doesn’t seem to be the case in France. To what extent that’s a product of society and to what extent public policies I’m not sure. And faith schools are a ludicrous idea, but, irritatingly for my argument, actually seem to provide a better education.
Oh, and ID cards and 90 day detention limits - definitely, definitely opposed.
Gay marriage- Very Liberal. I can also see the merits in allowing gay couples to adopt, Lewis is right IMO when he says the CofE should officiate at the ceremonies if it moves in a more liberal direction (as seems likely).
Abortion- Personally pro-life, however it is very much an individual decision. I could support the termination of seriously disabled fetuses up until 9 months, though in general I can see the merit in reducing the time limit to 18 weeks for all healthy fetuses.
Euthanasia- Liberal, though with reservations. Any new and liberal laws to do with this issue would need to be tightly enforced to avoid any repeat of Harold Shipman type murders.
Capital Punishment- Conservative. I support the execution of killers of children, police officers and murderers of a cold blooded or premeditated disposition, however only those with conclusive DNA evidence against them should recieve the death sentence.
Drug Use- Liberal. Legalise cannabis (and tax it)!, downgrade ecstasy to class B and introduce more shooting galleries (strictly controlled) for users of heroin.
Corporal Punishment- Tentatively in favour, consent of the parent is crucial in my view.
Prison- moderate. Criminals with no chance of rehabilitation should serve life terms (life meaning life) as should those committing more than 5 violent crimes; and I see no reason why more prisons should not be built if the prison population increases. However more funding is clearly needed for a variety of educational programmes for those serious about rejoining society and the hiring of more prison staff to avoid long shut in periods.
Immigration- Liberal- I support a limited quota for economic migrants (10,000) and an unlimited number of places for those fleeing oppression or those who can directly contribute towards our economy.
ID cards- Dead against. I have read many reports (too many perhaps, as it’s an issue which interests me) on this issue and nothing convinces me that ID cards would reduce the risks of terrorism, it should also be opposed on libertarian grounds.
Tony Martin law- Very conservative. I support the use of any and all force against an intruder even if it results in their death- it’s just tough luck for the burglar.
Apologies for the rushed nature and poor grammar of my last post!
64. Sean Fear, Matthew Parris’ opinion on these matters doesn’t really count. He always talks about sex and affairs….he has probably more knowledge about them than about politics!
74. And you know what they say - those who talk about it most do it least…
42 - corporal punishment should never have been abolished by one vote in 1988 in schools. I would be supportive of it returning in certain circumstances.
Rik - a Tory candidate who knows how to take a fine mammoth beating!
of course Cameron will pitch the Tories more ‘Liberal’. He’s after the ’switchers’ isn’t he? Who else have the Hang’em and Flog’em brigade got to vote for (assuming Blair has gone by then otherwise he may well have morphed even more to the right!)
PS. I see the Party Quebecois (quite a Tory lot really) have just elected a new 39-yr-old coke-snorting outgay leader. No his name is not Alain Dunkin!
75. He cruised on Clapham Common.
77.”have just elected a new 39-yr-old coke-snorting outgay leader. No his name is not Alain Dunkin! ”
The mini-macho from Rutland has claimed not to have taked any drugs in his life. It was in his conference speech (the part about being a conventional chap).
50 - Interesting (and very succinct way) of setting out your views, Andy.
Mine are as follows:
Gay Marriage - Though I have difficulty applying the term ‘marriage’ to it, I am in favour of civil partnerships and same sex partners having full spousal rights as far as the law and property go, provided that religious organisations are protected against having to bless/solemnise unions they do not condone for doctrinal/theological reasons. WRT gay adoption - I’ll be honest and say that I don’t know. I believe that the healthiest environment in which to raise a child is the traditional mother - father family setting, but I think that it is likely that loving household made up of two partners of the same sex is probably a more nurturing environment for a child than an orphanage or whatever. This is rather tangential, but I also believe that what two consenting adults do to/with each other in the privacy of their own homes is their business and the state should keep it’s nose out of personal relationships so long as no-one is being hurt.
Abortion - Strongly opposed on moral grounds. Should only be permitted in cases where the life of the mother is put at risk by carrying the child to term.
Capital Punishment - Opposed on the same moral grounds as abortion. You cannot distinguish between the sanctity of one human life and another. Either all human life is sacred or it’s not, full stop.
Attitude toward drug use - Mixed feelings on this. People should be allowed minor youthful indiscretions without fear of it coming back to haunt them in later life. Agree with Cameron when he says that drug classifications need to make sense in order for them to be credible. Open to persuasion with regard to the legalisation argument, with some reservations. Trafficking should be dealt with harshly.
Immigration - We need only to look to France to see the instability that mass immigration without assimilation can cause in society, even in a modern, Western context. I am in favour of a points system, strictly enforced and naturally our borders must be controlled. Also feel our asylum policy needs a hard look.
Euthanasia - Completely opposed on the same moral grounds as Abortion/Capital punishment. I am also concerned that the ‘right to die’ could very quickly become ‘the duty to die’ in some cases. I feel it is a slippery slope that we should just stay away from.
Corporal Punishment - Agree that it has it’s merits for discipline and should be brought back in exceptional cases.
Prison - Build more, tougher sentences, parole should be harder to obtain.
ID Cards - Opposed on ideological/civil libertarian grounds.
Tony Martin Law - Supportive - I believe that people should have the right to defend themselves, their family and their property without fear of prosecution.
O/T - Latest email from the Cameron Campaign says that Mark Harper MP (Forest of Dean) and a former Fox backer has endorsed David Cameron.
Just to get back to David Cameron and Labour- It will be just as hard for Cameron to attack Labour successfully as it has been for his predecessors, if Labour stays on the centre ground. If Labour does stay on the centre ground, nudging rightwards each year, Cameron will be forced off to the right, just as Hague, IDS and Howard were, and that’s where Labour can attack him.
Let’s have a go:
Gay marriage: For (liberal). However, any tax breaks or benefits only to go to parents (note - gay adoption is fine by me).
Abortion: Slightly conservative. Reduce limit slightly (18 weeks). Do not ever ban it - that causes more problems.
Euthanasia: Liberal tendencies but conservative worries - worried that people will be pressured into it or that the decision will be taken too trivially.
Capital punishment: Open to argument. Will support status quo, but believe that “life should mean life” for most murderers.
Drug use: Decriminalis cannabis - and tax it.
Immigration: Points system for economic migrants. Refugees should be allowed to work within a couple of weeks of arrival.
Corporal Punishment: Discretion of teachers/parents (as long as it is not abused).
Prison: I’m with Rik W. Don’t crowd them in - if that means building more prisons, fine. Increase rehabilitation/education. White collar crimes - hit them in the pocket where it’ll really hurt.
ID cards - Completely against, in principle and especially in practise of this particular Bill.
90-day internment on suspicion: Completely against.
Tony Martin Law: I think that the current law is adequate. Shooting them in the back as they run away is not really justifiable.
At the risk of giving Too Much Information, I was a heroin addict for fifteen years, so I have some insider opinion on the drugs issue.
Firstly, prison is totally useless for drug addicts, unless you bang addics up forever (like in Singapore). There’s more drugs, and harder drugs, inside prison than there is outside; addicts come out even more hooked and desperate than they went in.
Rehab is, as someone said, no soft option. It’s mentally very tough, but it sometimes works - unlike prison. Cameron is right to stress it.
Liberalisation I’m divided about. It seems the only logical answer, what we have now is the same as Prohibition in the States and its equally disastrous. We’re not winning the war on drugs, and we never will like this. But if we totally liberalise drug laws, and necessarily make drugs more widely available, then those who are trying to come off hard drugs will find it even harder. If heroin was as widely available as booze is, I’d be dead now, not clean. A tricky one!
Finally, re the Labour party and Cameron’s history. I think NuLab are surely treading very carefully here. What are the chances of the next generation of Labout leaders being squeaky clean, with no experience of drugs? Given the UK’s youth culture, especially in university, probably about zero I’d say. If Labour hammer DC on his alleged drugs history, then they are opening themselves up to the same attack in the future. I suspect there will be a gentelmen’s agreement within the parties not to touch this issue…
83 - Sean. I think it was Sophia who spoke about rehabilitation previously and just how tough it is for a person in terms of the contact with the outside world that they have to forego, etc. I find this argument highly persuasive. If it means we are able to salvage a few souls vs the risk of making things worse for them in prison where they may well be exposed to much harder stuff, then I think that is the way to go rather than banging them provided they are non-violent and not involved in other criminal activity, of course.
Your point with regard to the next generation of Labour leaders is interesting as well. If Labour do a drugs based line of attack against DC if he becomes leader then they very well could be opening a can of worms on themselves down the road. I think you’ve got it right.
No surprise that Alastair Matlock @79 well encapsulates my own thoughts on all these social/moral issues. Except I don’t think I would vote to outlaw abortion (notwithstanding my private oppositin)though would support a lowering of the time limit in view of medical advances.
And I must confess to being a little unsure about the need for a specific ‘Tony Martin’ type law - we do need to preserve the ‘proportionality of response’ principle in some form.
Are people confusing liberalism with libertarianism?
50. here’s mine:
gay marriage: in favour
abortion: favour
euthanasia: favour
capital punishment: against
corpal punishment: against
Attitude toward drug use: I don’t know.
Immigration: pretty liberal.
Prison: rehabilitation/education for non-violent offenders, harder with violent offenders.
ID cards: don’t know. Open to be persuaded.
Tony Martin Law: I don’t know the story well.
Question to the ones who replied to be favourable to gay marriage: do you mean Civil Partnerships or actual marriages (or do you think they’re the same thing?)?
Gay marriage: In favour.
Abortion: In favour of current law.
Euthanasia: In favour of giving people the right to choose.
Capital punishment: Against in all circumstances.
Drug use: Decriminalise all drugs. Proscribe heroin on the NHS.
Immigration: In favour of points system for economic migrants.
Corporal Punishment: Against in all circumstances.
Prison: In favour of longer sentences for all crimes against the person. Compulsory work and education schemes for all inmates in mainstream prison.
ID cards - Against.
90-day internment on suspicion: In favour.
Tony Martin Law: He should be in prison and so should anyone else who shoots someone in the back to kill them.
Gay Marriage: no problem.
Abortion: pro-choice.
Euthanasia: in strictly regulated circumstances.
Capital punishment: completely opposed.
Corporal punishment: against.
Drug use: I don’t think you can separate consumption from production and distribution. Decriminalisation should seek to cut out the gangsters and terrorists who control much of the trade. For must drugs this would require international or at least bilateral agreements.
Immigration: fairly liberal (as the son of econmic migrants, and having spent a good part of my working life abroad), but I think there are economic and social cohesion issues that need to be addressed.
Prison: a last resort for most non-violent offenders. Stronger penalties for violent offenders.
ID cards: Not persuaded.
Tony Martin Law: the present law is adequate.
Same as Bally Eric but [b]against[/b] 90 day law.
Well, what the hell:
Gay Marriage: No, keep marriage for heterosexual relationships; allow civil partnerships
Abortion: keep current law, maybe shorten with medical evidence of survival after 20 weeks
Euthanasia: it happens anyway, every day, I suppose it’s to best legalise it, in rigorously narrow and limited circumstances
Capital punishment: would love to say Yes - some people deserve to die; but chances of miscarriage ultimately dictate No. Shoot Saddam, though.
Corporal punishment: against
Drug use: legalise and prescribe via NHA, use money saved from crime-prevention to invest in rehabilitation to addicts
Immigration: points system, strictly applied. Withdraw from Geneva convention. Instant appeal and deportation for bogus asylum seekers. Bring in tough, Danish style laws to discourage further Muslim immigration until those here are integrated better (no faith schools!)
Prison: longer sentences for violent offenders, more education for prisoners, fewer custodial sentences for non violent offenders
ID cards: definitely Not
Tony Martin: should have had suspended sentence; perhaps bring in law more favourable to home owners defending property
90 day law: No, 28 already excessive
Might as well join in here ,
Gay Marriage - Pro
Abortion - Personally against but would not want to change the law and risk bringing back the backstreet abortionist
Euthanasia - For in certain circumstances which safeguard the ill person
Capital punishment - Against
Corporal Punishment - Even More Anti
Drug use - Downgrade Ecstasy and decriminalise Cannabis but much tougher stance against the hard drugs
Immigration - Liberal
Prisons - Longer sentences for serious crimes or habitual offenders but more help for first time offenders
ID Cards - Very Anti
Tony Martin Law - Increased freedom to defend self , family and property but not to the extent of taking someone’s life
50 - my go!
Gay Marriage - Not bothered either way
Abortion - Strongly opposed unless health of mother is an issue, or child conceived through rape
Euthanasia - mildly in favour provided person is of sound mind
Capital punishment - Against
Corporal Punishment - Against
Drug use - Prison for dealers, rehabilitation for users
Immigration - applicants held in secure accommodation, refused applicants instantly deported, points system to be used and the speaking of English to be a major consideration
Prisons - life without possibility of parole for murder, longer sentences for violent crime, and time served to reflect actual sentences
ID Cards - Strongly opposed
Tony Martin Law - can’t get too worked up about intruders on private property being beaten up or shot I’m afraid
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/22/do2201.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/11/22/ixop.html
Great piece!
Hope it’s not too late to contribute to this interesting poll. To keep it short I basically agree with Andy at 93 except:-
Prisons: I think should be really used for people who are a threat to others or their property - there has to be a physical element. Not in favour of long sentences for people who are clearly no threat to others ie financial misdeeds - fines, community service.
Immigration: Difficult. Do n’t mind people who are going to work and support themselves coming in provided there is a control on numbers. I think the real problem which has been coming to the fore with recent events is community cohesion - multiculturalism.
ID cards - intrusive, expensive, ineffective - could n’t be more opposed.
Gay Marriage - There exists a good case for civil partnerships but I don’t believe that gays should have the monopoly on these.
Abortion – Having once been camped out for several days in an paediatric intensive care unit I am persuaded that the current limit needs to be shortened.
Euthanasia – A very slippery slope. I agree with AHM that this could lead to a ‘duty to die’
Capital punishment - I changed my view on this as I grew up. I am nowadays completely opposed to the notion of a State being empowered to kill its own citizens.
Corporal punishment - I was subjected to this at school on several occasions but cannot say that I was psychologically scarred in any way. I do not however believe that schools should have such powers. I feel that parents should have the right to hit their children under certain circumstances, although I have never laid a finger on my own children.
Drug use – I have inhaled but not for many years. Back then I wanted to see dope legalised but I have rather moved away from that position. I have suffered one hell of lot of crime from heroin addicts over the years and would like to see heroin prescribed because I believe this would reduce such crime. I also feel this would get addicts nearer to rehab.
Immigration – Something has to change. I can never understand why the government seems so anxious to stifle debate on this subject.
Prison – I can see a lot of merit in a system of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ coupled with much improved educational facilities within prisons that will give inmates the chance to improve their lot in life.
ID cards – Completely and absolutely opposed. Eventually these are bound to carry our DNA at which point the State will know more about our bodies that we know ourselves. I can’t see the NHS bothering to fix somebody’s hip or heart when that person’s DNA suggests he’s likely to pop his clogs with some genetic disorder in the near future.
Tony Martin – I am persuaded that the current law could be tightened in the householder’s favour.
90-day law - 28 days feels about right but it will be interesting to see how widely and inappropriately the law is eventually used.
Gay Marriage - In favour.
Abortion – Time limits should be led by the science, earlier abortions should be made much easier and hassle free.
Euthanasia – In favour given safeguards.
Capital punishment - Against, although in extreme cases I do waver.
Corporal punishment - Against.
Drug use – Favour libralistation for most ’soft drugs’, can’t see a case for some harder drugs, particularly crack cocaine, so continue criminal justice approach.
Immigration – Can only happen with the consent of the host community, so some tough measures are needed to build confidence in the system and prevent social unrest.
Prison – Doesn’t really work but again justice needs to be seen to be done as well as done.
ID cards – In favour, sensible and widely used device.
Tony Martin – Present law about right.
90-day law - Thought the Government had a decent case.
This has been an interesting thread, and bears out Innocent Abroad’s comments on philosophical pragmatism. Most people here, I think, look at these issues on a case by case basis.
And from the Wandsworth jury:
Gay Marriage - To each his own. Genuine commitment is good, irrespective of gender
Abortion - Tough call - do not accept abortion on demand per se but do feel that a woman has to make the final choice. Probably feel current limit about right.
Euthanasia - in favour - provided person is of sound mind. Certainly feel assisted euthanasia for people in great pain who give legal consent should not be a criminal offence. But there must be safeguards and guarantee that those enabling suicide do not financially gain.
Capital punishment - Firmly against - one wrongly convicted judicial death is one too many and we’ve seen how many wrong decisions there have been
Corporal Punishment - Against. There is no need to use physical force against children.
Drug use - can see the libertarian argument to allow free-for-all but feel it is simply wrong. Perhaps some degree of governmental control of supply for certain drugs. Tax on gear!
Immigration - This has always been a nation built on immigration. No reason why that should stop. But in-comers have to respect the rights and customs of this country too. And those who come in and wish to overthrow the state should have no rights of abode at all. Do need would-be Brits to learn English
Prisons - Harsher sentences for serious offences and parole after two thirds of sentence minimum. Life means life for multiple murder and terrorism offences
ID Cards - Never really seen the problem. I always carry my driving licence and credit cards and they’re an ID system of sorts, especially now driving licences have photos.
Tony Martin Law - Beat intruders with sticks, cricket bats etc - that is defending your home. Take out a shooter and pop them in the back when they bare running away - that is a crime. But make sure the burglar gets banged up for 10 years if they are caught
90 day detention - I’d have gone for the 60 day compromise. Unfortunately we are at war with these lunatics
Hi guys. As I am a lazy freelancer, and have too much spare time, I have taken the chance to compile all these results: so as to give a flavour of opinion of Political Betting commenters as a whole.
Incidentally, these should be read with caution - in some cases it’s hard to tell whether people are ‘tough’ or ‘liberal’ as they have nuanced their answers. Where people are self-evidently 50-50, I have disregarded their replies (apologies). I may also have missed some people altogether, due to inept scrolling.
Anyway, here are the results (rustle of envelope opening):
On gay marriage, PB commenters are strongly liberal, only two people seemed definitely opposed, a whacking 16 said Yes to homosexual marriages.
On abortion we are much more divided - I got a 10-10 split between those who want some kind of tightening of the law, and those who want a liberalisation, or seem very keen to defend present law.
On capital punishment PB’ers are MASSIVELY against (or massively soft!): a 20-5 split in favour of the wet liberals and abolitionists.
On drug use we are even MORE liberal, no one, as far as I can tell, actively wants a crackdown, in terms of tougher laws across the board. The vast majority favour some kind of liberalisation/decriminalisation.
On immigration, however, we are mildly tough. The majority (12-8) favour a tightening of our immigration laws.
On euthanasia we are mildly liberal - but we are anguished about it, judging by most replies.
Corporal punishment sees us equally divided - though I sense a confusion as to whether we are talking about parents or teachers doing this. Most are against teacherly CP, I’d guess, but in favour of parental rights to smack (that is just a guess).
On prison we are mildly liberal. Generally we favour non custodial treatment of non violent offenders.. I think.
ID cards? Massively opposed, surprise surprise. A 17-4 split.
As regards the Tony Martin law, we seem oddly tough. Most seem to favour (by 12-5) a toughening of the laws, favouring householders. Maybe that’s because we are mainly middle class householders.
So there you are. We’re a bunch of softies in the main, except when it comes to immigrants and burglars!
A final point, more controversial. The answers I’ve compiled above would seem to indicate that, on social issues at least, PB commenters are closer to the world-view of a wet libertarian patriotic Tory than a tough authoritarian pro-immigration NuLabourite. In other words, we are more David Cameron than Tony Blair!
I did say that was a controversial way of looking at it. Food for thought though…
100 - so there we have it! PB.C posters are broadly happy if burglars are shot at the scene, but strongly opposed if executed afterwards.
Nothing like robust and thorough principalled thinking to ground ones views!