So what’s going to be the political impact of this?
February 11th, 2007
Is the smoking dope admission going hurt or aid the Tories?
These are some of the early front pages. What’s the impact going to be?
The most positive feature for Cameron is that after weeks and weeks of hardly getting any coverage the Tories are back on the front pages. He has never denied taking drugs so the “hypocrite” charge will be hard to stick.
Looking at the way Barack Obama dealt with his youthful indiscretions there really is a case for getting these things out into the open at an early stage. Things like this are bound to come out..
An interesting counter-factual might be “would he have won the Tory leadership so convincingly if this had been known in October 2005″. Who knows? It might provide a further weapon for the party’s headbanging wing to beat him with.
From a personal perspective the drug issue that most concerns me is the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage’s active campaign FOR passive smoking. My lung capacity has been reduced after suffering two blood clots and I am ultra sensitive about the cigarette smoke that Simon Heffer’s friend, Farage, wants to inflict on me.
One of the great achievements of the Labour government will have been to make Britain largely smoke-free.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike, Interesting. I don’t actualy think he will lose votes over this, but I think he may gain some, if nothing else by being in the news.
Of course there are some distinctly illiberal forcesin the land which wish to tell private land owners what that can and can’t do in their own premises, which is to be regretted as it appears you are amoungst them.
In short it may not be Conservative policy to allow smoking in pubs, itg is a jibbering fool who thinks it is OK to have someone working in a factory with a very poor air quality, due to poorly maintained machines, but will ban smoking in the work place because they are a pratt who does not see the key issue (air quality) but there I suspect we will have to agree to differ.
No one cares about your personal experience. This website is at its best when it sticks to betting and doesn’t stray into boring views on smoking.
The coverage may provide a welcome publicity boost for the party after the relative paucity of the past few weeks, but in terms of content I think it is an utter non-story as it is what everyone had expected since the leadership contest anyway. It did no political harm then and I fail to see why it should now.
Re 2, *cough* whos personal views on smoking were you referring to? Mine or Mike Smithson’s in the lead article? (It’s his blog, he is entitled to say what he likesm but I am entitled to respond to what he has written.)
2.This site is at its best when Mike and other regulars contribute their views on a range of issues which delight, annoy or concern them. The fact that Mike has a health problem which could be effected by passive smoking means he has every right to be exercised about a party actively encouraging a minority to continue to do so!
I am a smoker but for years have tried to avoid smoking around my family at home or others in public, result I did not have to change my behaviour when the smoking ban came into force in Scotland.
The question about Cameron is what else is there to emerge? There has long been speculation about cocaine. Will that be confirmed or denied, or will there be more “it was all a long time ago” non-denials?
As with cash-for-honours, as with Watergate, it’s the cover-up that brings them down.
5 - The Independent Headline is “Yes I took drugs says Cameron” but the article ends “A spokesman for Mr Cameron last night declined to comment on the Eton cannabis incident, but did not deny it had occurred.” - Cameron’s line should be just that, continuing his leadership non admission of having had a normal school/university experience. A bit of publicity, story peters out and matter dealt with poltically.
The Observer story that Tony Blair rang Lord Levy before the latter’s third interview/second arrest despite the Police request for secrecy following Blair’s second interview might have more repercussions in the medium term htan what Cameron did as a schoolboy.
6.JohnL, you make quite a jump from an allegation in a biography about an incident 25 years ago when Cameron was 15 to a very serious allegation about class A drugs more recently. To then go on and try and tie that in with “As with cash-for-honours, as with Watergate, it’s the cover-up that brings them down” is hilarious and very desperate.
8 - Indeed it is, particularly in view of the allegations swirling around the leadership of his own party and their abuse of patronage. Anything to divert attention, I suppose….
O/T, but this little story in the Telegraph regarding UKIP finances is rather interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/nukip11.xml
9.Alastair, a very revealing comment by Lord Pearson in the last paragraph.
This is a non-story.
People do make mistakes - and, more importantly, mistakes can make people. The point is to learn from those mistakes - Cameron clearly has done. We’re all products of our past experiences, good and bad.
Come the next election I’ll be voting Conservative because the 40-something man Cameron. I really couldn’t care less what a child of 15 was up to two and a half decades ago when I was a school boy myself.
10 - Indeed. Just further evidence that UKIP is not political party at all in the true sense of the word. It is nothing more than an organised personal vendetta against the Conservative Party on the part of a bunch of purist nutters who resent the fact that we won’t dance to their tune.
11.Steven I suspect a lot of other people will react in the way you have to the story and this article by John Rentoul sums up this non story.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/john_rentoul/article2258808.ece
12. Totally agree. I think this will backfire spectacularly for them on all sides.
Remember the stay-at-home “Old Labour” who can’t stomach Tony Blair?
Well, perhaps now’s the time to think about the “Old Tories” who will be mortified by this news… As I’ve said before (as a non-Tory) I think the choice of Cameron will prove nothing short of disastrous for the Conservatives….
With good reason, Lincoln never said: “You can fool some of the people all the time - and those are the ones you want to concentrate on…..”
13 - Very good article you linked to there, ChrisD. Well worth reading.
14.Ask AHM I hope that he won’t mind me referring to him as an “old tory”. Your argument would have more weight if this whole issue had not been done to death during the leadership election. It did not prevent 2/3rds of the party membership voting for him.
I think that you hope that Cameron will end up being an excellent choice of leader for the conservatives from the prospective of Labour or the Libdems.
14 - And you’re fooling none of the people any of the time.
4. There is a kloo in the timing of the 2 messages.
16 - Quite. Rod is not only a ‘non-Tory’ but an avowed anti-Tory who has said in the past on this site that although he supports the Lib Dems, he would vote Labour without hesitation in order to keep the Conservatives out. Fine, but that does suggest that one should take his views on the Tory Party and its leader with a pinch of salt.
19. WRONG, as Samuel Butler said: “I don’t mind lies, but I hate inaccuracy…”
I am not an anti-Tory. How could I be, having voted for them (once), in their hour of greatest need (1997; yes I did say 1997)?
I am anti-bullsh1t, whether it be Tory, Labour, or LibDem, and Cameron, to me, is a gold-medallist in bullsh1t…, who, god-willing, will never get even close to No.10 Downing Street…
This isn’t a non story, and thats the problem with british politics…. the guy was 15 who bloody cares, so he smoked some pot 25 years ago, seriosuley no biggy. The problem is for me that he should (I know its more the presses fault than his) come out and say everything, i thought people wanted an honest politician. If he did this from the start I think everyone would have been impressed. Its a shame our awful media would crucify him for his past. As long as he wasnt breaking the law when he was an m.p, which i’m sure he wasn’t it really shouldnt make a difference.
The only was this story has any importance is whether the members of his won party use this as a stick to beat him with. Hopefully they won’t as we need to get away from the idea that politicians shouldnt be able to be honest about their past.
I really can’t see this having any effect; people aren’t going to suddenly not vote Tory because Cameron smoked cannabis when he was a kid. Nor will it affect his standing in the party.
The Independent seems to be very misleading, though: I’ve not seen any admission from Cameron yet. Looks like bad journalism on their part there.
21, red flag - It’s a story in that it’ll be in the press for a pointlessly long time, but do you actually think it will affect him in any way?
22. I’d wait for the next few polls, if I was U. As I suggested late last year, I would not be surprised if the Tories fell back to 33% or so - where they were at the last GE, and where they were prior to the Prescott affair and cash-for-coronets….
OK, then: prediction. When Brown (or whoever) succeeds to the premiership, the Tories WILL be back at 33% +/-1% in the polls….
Cameron’s office: “the events referred to **TOOK PLACE** over 25 years ago. We are not confirming or denying them…”
Pleeease!!! Do they seriously think the rest of the country is stoned as well?
25 - I agree with Cameron’s office - whatever happened 25 years ago is utterly irrelevant today. I did things 25 years ago that I would not dream of doing today - I even shook hands with a winning Conservative MP………….
Personally, I think all Cannabis users are losers.
Labour are strict on Tobacco but lenient with Cannabis. They are if nothing else, Hypocrites.
Will it affect the Conservatives? Britain is sinking so low, would anyone notice.
This story is a waste of paper - I thought we were all green these days?
On the one hand it is such a non-story that it would do Cameron no harm just to admit it, but at the same time I emphathize with the view that giving any encouragement to the more base instincts of the press just encourages them, and will produce even more automatons walking through the voting lobbies.
BTW, there is a YouGov poll buried in the Sunday Times. It is not very interesting (changes on last YouGov poll in the Sunday Telegraph).
Con: 37 (-1)
Lab: 32 (+1)
LD: 18 (nc)
There are also some fairly predictable figures on things like whether Blair should resign now (55%), or if Scooter Levy is charged (53%)
I agree that this will have no downside for Cameron at all and might even give him the short term boost publicity tends to give.
For Eton though it’s a different matter. 15 years ago this was a criminal offense which would have given the taker a criminal record. Whether Eton were right or had the right to sweep a criminal offense under the carpet I don’t know. What I do know is that many of the stuffy parents who would send their unfortunate children to such a place will mind very much that students were taking drugs while in the schools care.
“Of course there are some distinctly illiberal forcesin the land which wish to tell private land owners what that can and can’t do in their own premises, which is to be regretted as it appears you are amoungst them”.
Were you stoned or drunk when you posted this Benedict?
There are two things that seem interesting about this story:
1. Is this a Charles Kennedy situation where the media have sat on the story because of sympathy towards the subject? If Cameron was punished at school for smoking cannabis that would have been known to everyone there - Eton is a large school - so I can’t believe that journalists haven’t known about this for years.
2. If so why has it come out now? It’s probably the best time for Cameron - mildly preferable to it being a story during the next GE. It would be nice to know exactly who was behind getting this into the papers at this point - is it to distract from something else?
This is a complete non-story. So what? Quite a lot of the Tory front bench have already admitted to doing dope.
If it turns out that he has done harder drugs, then provided it was long enough ago, it is also a non-story. However, if it was post his entry to the Commons, and post him having children it would be a story. But, nothing like that has emerged.
This may boost Cameron’s standing.
31 “Is this a Charles Kennedy situation”
No! CK was a drunk. He was incapable much of the time. He was often in no fit state to run a bath, let alone a political party. It was a real story, and although much of the media knew “he liked a drink”, the scale of the problem was not widely known. This Cameron story is irrelevant.
31. No it’s not a Charles Kennedy situation. Kennedy was drunk in charge of a political party and on more than one important occasion - budget debate, general election press conference - clearly incapable of performing his duties as a result. Cameron is accused of doing something illegal as a schoolboy.
I said on the previous string that I regret this kind of journalism that could put good people off going into politics. Politicians are people and people make mistakes. Before they were in the public gaze they probably made many more mistakes or indiscretions. I see this as no reason for barring someone from public life, and the argument that we should know everything about them in case there’s some ‘hypocritical’ behaviour would stand up better if those doing the judging submitted themselves to the same process.
As for John L’s point about a cover-up, well there hasn’t been one. No denial is no cover-up.
I can think of many ways this story could turn against Cameron.If he’s popular it wont if he loses his popularity the press might choose to compare his treatment with that of Ian Botham who also smoked some dope 25 years ago.
35. You still don’t get it do you? Or if you do you’re deliberately missing the point. Botham was an international cricketer at the time, representing his country and using a mind altering drug that could affect performance; Cameron was a schoolboy.
In your effort to wish downfall upon Cameron and the Tories you do have a habit of predicting whatever you want to happen - and then when it doesn’t, you look silly. A bit of advice: try to remove yourself from your own prejudices and see things as others will see them. Just one example: watch for how many Labour ministers pick up on this story and run with it. They (a) have histories at school and university too, and (b) understand how much impact this story will have on the general voting population.
This seems to have brought out the gutter in several newspapers? Why are they so desperate to knock Cameron now? Orders from the Dour Control Tower?
The Sunday Times has as much fiction as the Independent, although rather than making up quotes the ST is trying to link Cameron to those that sold the spliffs in Eton:
“The pupils who originally obtained the drugs are said to have bought them either in nearby Slough or from a dealer in Notting Hill, the area where the Conservative leader now lives.”
Now how desperate is that? This seems to be more a story about the press and journalistic standards than anything else.
Those trying to do a bit of political pyramid selling on this ’story’ might remember that the little old lady Tory is probably someone’s Grandma who smoked dope in the 60’s and has a granddaughter who tried Ecstasy in a disco not long ago. Attack Cameron on this and you attack 90% of the voting population in some way or other.
The BBC ends it piece with this very pertinent warning:
“Drugscope…. chief executive, Martin Barnes, said cannabis was not harmless but blaming a generation who used the drug at some time “serves no useful purpose”.
“People ready to throw stones on this issue should be aware of the glass houses of their friends, relatives or colleagues,” he said.”
At the risk of turning the thread into a drugs debate, drug users are losers and should not be trusted in positions of responsibility.
The difference between “drugs” and alcohol is the ability to affect perception in the long term.
If someone’s perception is affected, they should not hold positions of repsonsibility - including driving a car.
A pilot on drugs is a danger as is a surgeon on drugs. A train driver is a danger, etc. etc. etc.
I have no problem with someone destroying themself, but they should be prevented from harming others - including patients, passengers and their own children.
The issue was Cocaine, not Cannabis.
RE 30, Roger, I had a couple of beers, but neither. I object to the smoking ban in “public” places because it is an infringment on the liberty of the owner to decide and what is more does nothing for air quality which means that any other noxious air bourne pollutant can be around, just not cigarrete smoke.
40 - “does nothing for air quality”.
Cough.
It should be a non story, but I suspect that another reminder of the connection to Eton and drugs is a turn off to a section of the public. So this may reduce DC’s ability to reach out to the non Tory voters, or at least give the floating voter a reason not to turn to the Tories. I don’t in all fairness think that it should but who said all is fair in ………..
Clive
There are two aspects to this story that really really matter.
1) When questioned at scholl, he did not try to dissemble. Yes I did, he said.He has corretcly said no comment ever after, but in fact it probably makes him more electable rather than less.
2) He also did not clype, peach, sneek or grass his co-conspirators. Therefore a man of loyalty and honour. Could Bliar say the same? I think not
40 - Smoking in truly public places however, should be banned, seeing as the non-smoker is controlled by the smoker without recourse to anything other than a punch up. In a pub the choice is the owners, in the open air, as there is no chooser, the harm principle gives the non-smoker the moral authority. (and I hope the legal authority).
I have great concerns about smoking in the home around children and, on balance, would like to see children challenge their parents in court over this. The other difficulty is that smoke, like noise, acknowledges no boundaries. As such, there will be non-smokers who, to retain personal control over their own health, need to take those who smoke in adjoining flats etc to court as well. If you can cripple the smoker financially via the courts then the problem will lessen considerably.
Does no-one else suspect that the biggest fear for Cameron’s office is that if they tell the truth, they may have to come out and admit that in fact he DIDN’T smoke cannabis? Given that most people instinctively are of the opinion he probably DID smoke it, and he has carefully nurtured this impression through his non-comments, and people accept it, this “sexiness” is in danger of being punctured as a rather pathetic attempt to look “cool” if it proves to be wrong. Therefore they have to keep schtum.
PersonaMona: “Personally, I think all Cannabis users are losers.” and “drug users are losers and should not be trusted in positions of responsibility.”
Go away you pathetic bigot and sad troll.
Yes, bigotry is a common problem in the UK. To discriminate against people on the basis of their favourite herb is a bizarre and irrational thing to do; but then, most bigots are bizarre and irrational.
You obviously know nothing about the nature or effects of illegal drugs, and how they compare with legal medical drugs. I doubt you even know that many illegal “street” drugs actually ARE legal medical drugs in other situations, and indeed it is not unusual for people to be prescribed various opiates or amphetmines for conditions. Did you know that Ritalin is an amphetamine? No, I didnt think so… You sound like an impertinent young boy regurgitating what you heard your ignorant parents saying at a dinner-party.
roger: The vast majority of cannabis smoking cases are not reported to the police, and rightly so since it would be a massive waste of police resources to do so. They are best dealt with by local discipline - except if you are Jack Straw, in which case you report your own son to the police.
This is a bit of a non-story, for two reasons. One is that so have most people under 35 tried an illegal drug of some sort. The other is that this is less of an issue than the cocaine allegations, which did him no harm back then. There may be an effect among the older vote, but I suspect this will win him more votes in the under 35 age group than it loses him in the older age group. People want politicians to be like them, and to young people this shows that Cameron is like them.
Remember, in terms of its effect on others in society, taking a drug in private is way less of an issue than, say, speeding - which directly risks the deaths of other innocents. Yet we never say politicians should be barred if they are caught doing 37 in a 30 zone. This is the illogical schizophrenia of the drugs debate at its worst.
I have to say that I agree with Roger (29). This surely reprsents a considerable problem for Eton and, indeed, all the private “public” schools. How much responsibility do they assume for the wellbeing of and upbringing of their pupils? It certaily seems that they do not live up to their image.
However, I would also like to take issue with Mike. It cannot be right to talk about the Tory Party’s “headbanging wing” when these are people in the mainstream Tory tradition, Mike. Headbangers they may be: but they are by no means a mere wing of the party.
“From a personal perspective the drug issue that most concerns me is the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage’s active campaign FOR passive smoking. My lung capacity has been reduced after suffering two blood clots and I am ultra sensitive about the cigarette smoke that Simon Heffer’s friend, Farage, wants to inflict on me.”
Considering a row we once had over on CONtinuityIDS/Fox4LeaderHome about your pro-decriminalisation views on illegal drugs, Editor, I am somewhat surprised about your stance on restricting the use of a legal drug.
I don’t think this is news at all. Cameron as good as admitted taking drugs by refusing to deny it. The only thing I learnt was that Cameron was actually caught at Eton and not expelled, which suggests that they either thought he would be good for their A-level and Oxbridge results, or were more concerned than usual about adverse publicity. Also it’s mildly amusing that at Eton they say you’re ‘gated’ instead of ‘grounded’. The politics is that this is just a reminder of how privileged he is.
Amen on the smoking ban Mike. I’m really looking forward to smoke-free pubs.
48: What’s inconsistent in thinking people should be able to do what they want to their own body in private, but should not be able to inflict their behaviour and pollution onto others in public? It’s perfectly logically consistent with the principle of self-sovereignty.
What is also perfectly logically consistent (although morally perverse) is the tobacco industry looking out for its own profits by arguing for the freedom for its customers to harm passers-by, while at the same time arguing for the criminalisation of other competitor products to continue eternally. The economic rationale for the tobacco industry to campaign against cannabis (as they do) and the alcohol industry to campaign against ecstasy (as they do) is obvious.
Someone paraphrased Lincoln over this: “You can fool…”
There is another Lincoln quote worth repeating: “I cannot tell a lie…”
It does a politician no harm to be known for telling the truth, especially if his opponents are trying to charactise him as another Dark Prince of Spin like MAndy.
Dubya Bush won because many Americans felt he was the guy they’d rather have a beer with. In a similar vein, I suspect that quite a few Britons would like a pal who owned up when the s**t the fan, and who didn’t grass on his friends. People admire someone who’s willing to take his “licks”.
Re 44, UKP{aul, how does a smoker in one flat affect another? Also why public spaces like say a field or a footpath?
Cameron should resign immediately.
How can he make sure drug laws or any laws are enforced if he won’t even admit if he broke the law himself.
52 - You must never have lived in flats, smoke seeps through into other flats via all sorts of ways, ventilation systems etc. I suffer with my eyes because of smoke and, when I lived in a flat knew within seconds if someone had started smoking.
If the field is owned by someone then it’s their responsibility and, if they allow it, then okay, same with any private land. On the subject of public land I was waiting for a taxi recently in a queue and a few young men (not the sort that anyone would tackle safely) started smoking, I had to leave the queue as I was coughing uncontrollably (I had a bit of a chest infection which didn’t help) and my eyes were streaming. I don’t think I should have had to do that; in a public space nobody has the right to inflict distress on another, whether it’s on purpose or (as is usually the case) through ignorance, the men hadn’t even registered my distress by the way.
Another example of this, and where the responsibility and sanction should lie, is noise. Noise travels across boundaries and can cause distress in a similar way.
Having said that, if someone wants to shoot up next door or have an orgy then that’s fine with me (presuming they do’t do the other things I mentioned!).
ukpaul: consider how many people die each year from respiratory problems caused by car exhausts. Should we ban cars? And if not, why not?
Their replacement with something healthier certainly wouldn’t go amiss. There is something to say, however, for the argument that the road/pavement is a place where exhaust fumes are known to occur and *that is a result of its primary purpose*, a pavement does not have a primary activity as smoking, however, and unlike cars smokers can go elsewhere.
Given that smokers have a choice, they should be penalised for making that choice inconsiderately.
MBoy, Go away you pathetic bigot and sad troll.
Yes, stupidity is a common problem in the UK. To discriminate against people on the basis of altered perception is an important cornerstone of a rational society - indeed most drug users are irrational because they are incapable of making proper judgment.
A drug using policeman is unreliable as is a drug using witness.
A drug using train driver is unreliable because his perception of a red light may also be unreliable.
As for Drug using parents…it doesnt take much googling…
Dead toddler had drunk methadone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4775754.stm
Ellie the pitbull, marajuana & heroin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/07/npit107.xml
confessed to giving the child an overdose of medication and putting his body in a trash bag and dumping it in a Dumpster.
I could continue…
Drug users are losers who harm others.
Enough Said.
PersonaMona - Bigot.
Enough Said.
58. MBoy, your perception is not to be trusted. Likewise your views.