Talk:David Cameron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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="metadata divbox divbox-blue" title="

" >

This article features a person involved in a current event.
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)

Yes, the one thing you can be sure of being up to date on wiki is the journalists own pages - they edit them themselves.

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)

Every time I have made good changes to this article, the Cameron groupies have reverted them. I was even banned under the "3RR" for two changes which subsequently have been made again by other others. Jamesedwardsmith 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

People are even deleting this comment when i put the correct tag on!Jamesedwardsmith 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye Picture

Shouldn't it read "Cameron becoming Blair" and not vice versa?

No. Blair came 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 sentence 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)

I'm at Oxford and I can promise you that the Bullingdon Club is still going strong and are up to their old antics. Aside from what I know from personal experience, of more use to wikipedians is the plentiful evidence of "destructive binges" one can garner from the online archives of Cherwell and The Oxford Student.

While it is correct to say nothing in particular can be said about Cameron's activities in the Bullingdon Club, it pushes the bounds of credibility that one could belong to a club which gets stinking drunk and smashes things and be the only one not doing so. In this sense, mention of the Bullingdon in general terms is fair.

However, Cameron's own line on the matter, that he hasn't lived his life trying to be Prime Minister and that indiscretions prior to the growth of his political ambitions should be treated differently to any that he might have committed afterwards.

In short, to say he had a wild time at uni is fair, but to avoid bias, it should be emphasised that this was in his pre-political days when he did not need to think of the example he was setting or consistency between his private life and publicly espoused views.

I hope that clears things up and I shall edit to this effect.

--Ajcee7 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the description of the Bullingdon club to say it is famous for "raucous feasts" - no, its famous because it is notoriously elitist and the members have on occasion smashed up pubs and restaurants - all this is backed up with citations, so lets give an accurate picture shall we? --82.35.72.132 23:48, 6 September 2006 (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)

There are some quotes from Cameron regarding Gay Issues which could be used if appropriate:

‘The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their ‘fringe’ agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools.’ Oxford Journal, 5 May 2000.

‘Labour has ripped the last recognition of marriage from the tax system by abolishing the married couples’ allowance and spend an inordinate amoutn[sic] of time trying to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools by repealing Section 28. Oxford Journal, 28 July 2000.

‘The most staggering sentence in the Blair memo is: ‘it is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family’. Why? Blair has moved heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools and has abolished the married couples’ allowance, taking away the last recognition of marriage in the tax system.’ Witney Gazette, 2 August 2000.

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)

It is indeed Conservative run, and Cameron has openly admitted this when he did his big "liberal Conservative" push.Child of Albion 17:59, 9 October 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)

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

It should be kept as it's encyclopedic information and was widely reported in many British newspapers, ancestory is important infomation on a person. It seems a bit political to want it removed. Jamesedwardsmith 11:25, 6 August 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)

Agreed shall i just delete it? Jamesedwardsmith 14:05, 7 August 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)

It was a failure, because the conservatives enjoyed success in the following election. It's not satire as it is biased towards making the Labour party more acceptable to voters. It's an advertising campaign that belongs only in its own article. Newsnight Watcher 10:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No irony in the fact that Labour won an election by adopting the Conservative's centre-right policies. It was about three years into a Labour government when original Labour policies outnumbered Major/Clarke era Tory policies (apart from the 20 year old Liberal (Democratic) party policy of BoE independence, economic policy took five years to change). 86.7.208.240 21:44, 4 October 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?
"

"no such thing as Society" misquote?

In what way is Margaret Thatcher misquoted when people say that she said "there is no such thing as Society"? I can accept that one might argue that her phrase was taken "out of context" (although I don't agree with that particular contention). If people said that she had said "Society is a figment of the imagination", that would be "misquoting" her - but I can't see how quoting her as saying "there is no such thing as Society" is a misquote - it seems like a direct quotation to me? Camillus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people...

Some people say... Some people said... Some people think... Some people do...

Who are these people? Why do these "some people" keep appearing in unsourced statements? Could it be that someone who personally dislikes David Cameron is lazily adding his own criticism of David Cameron to the article? Add a source whenever you do this, and make sure that the "some people" is replaced with a notable person's name. Write it like 'Jeremy Paxman said that David Cameron in his youth liked to eat cheese and he has a hidden pro-cheese agenda'. Make sure there's a rock solid source to back it up! Otherwise the article will look like it was written by New Labour spinners.Newsnight Watcher 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Time Trumpet

Does Cameron's feature in the first episode of BBC's Time Trumpet need a mention in the Satire section? OPaul 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.

Done OPaul 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this obscurity make it to the page; yet his highly publicized interview on the Jonathon Ross show was deemed not to be encyclopedic enough? Jamesedwardsmith 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where was the interview with Ross deemed not encyclopedic? If it isn't here that just means no one posted it, it does not mean it isn't worth posting. If you think something need to be added, go ahead and add it. OPaul 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When I add it, it is deleted - presumably by neo-con cameron supporters. If i readd it i get threatened with wikipedia suspension.

Cocaine use at university

I'm not sure as to whether the drug he is supposed to have taken at university was ever said to be cocaine. Clarify?

Given that Cameron did confirm (on Channel 4 news) that he had never taken cocaine whilst an MP' ([5], for example), there was a clear implication that that was the particular drug he was alleged to have taken prior to becoming an MP. The newspapers certainly reported it in that context, and I'm not aware that any other drug was ever suggested. DWaterson 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Webcameron

Has anyone seen this yet? I had a quick scan through the article, and didn't find any mention of it. Perhaps it should be, somewhere? --Dreaded Walrus 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

LongLiveFolkMusic

I like your user name but not so sure about your edits to this article recently. Removing the references to the length of the budget speech, the nature of the Bullingdon Club and the number of Etonians in cabinet is really not on. All those sourced facts are directly relevant here and have been commented on in the mainstream media numerous times. On the other hand, the selected details of the content of his budget speech - which in fact are just a way of getting some anti-Gordon Brown info into this article - aren't relevant in a biography because they aren't biographical comments. You tried to link the two and I want to point out they are very different. Please don't just revert again. You made a lot of edits which could be seen as very biased all at once without discussion. --SandyDancer 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel Farage's descent

I have noticed that one particular user keeps on inserting irrelevant information about the UKIP's leader's "Jewish" descent. Now it is notable that although his last name is Jewish, there is no indication that he has a significant about of Jewish genes in him. After all, it is thought by many that Hitler might have had a Jewish ancestor or two. I've known plenty of people who are racist against blacks, hispanics and Asians, but like Jews. Just because Ukip elected a Jewish leader doesn't make them racist against Italians, Greeks, Turks etc. 144.32.196.4 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree, but my advice is don't feed the troll by making the obvious arguments against the lunacy of including the wording about Farage being Jewish. The person will get bored and go away at some point (if s/he hasn't already). In the meantime, keep reverting it. --SandyDancer 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This seemed to come from original research on Farage's page where someone discovered that Farage was a surname used by Sephardi Jews. Farage is also an English surname. I can't see anywhere on google where Farage has said he is Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. Arniep 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of A-List

Have added what I would consider a "stub" section re: this. I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned before. --SandyDancer 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert of my addition about elitism comparison with Thatcher

I am disappointed about this, I added verifible fact, not POV, in an attempt to correct media falsehood about elitism claims. Also, "allegations elitism" does not make sense. I propose to put this back unless any valid objections are made. Viewfinder 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For a start - there is no question of media falsehood. So lets just dispense with that.

I have corrected the title - now "Allegations of Elitism" - sorry about that.

Now on to why the section is there: allegations have been made in the press (sources provided) and on TV about elitism on Cameron's part in terms of his appointments. This needed to be mentioned and I added a sourced section so that it was.

Your statement that you made you edits to "attempt to correct media falsehood about elitism claims" lays your POV out clearly. You disagree with the allegations - fine - but with respect your opinion isn't relevant here, and it is not up to you to make arguments about what the media has said here.

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a forum for debate. You may well disagree with the allegations, but to be clear here - they are presented as just that - ALLEGATIONS. If someone had put something in the article saying "David Cameron is elitist because...", then the correct response would have been to delete that. But no-one did put something up like that.

Now on to your addition to the section. It is neither appropriate necessary to put up your own personal refutation of this allegation - that is just an expression of your view on the allegation and it is not encylopedic. The fact that Viewfinder disagrees with the allegations and has come up with a fact which in his view proves the allegations against Cameron are untrue is not worthy of inclusion.

If, on the other hand, there had been public discussion of the alleged Cameron elitism, and the counterargument had been made in public by Cameron or someone else prominent that Thatcher had X Etonians in her cabinet too, that would make it worthy of inclusion as it would be reporting something that happened - a facet of the controversy, the omission of which would perhaps lead to the article not presenting a neutral point of view.

As it is, you are just adding your own counter argument and that isn't the right thing to do, whether you back it up with fact or not. Otherwise one could pick all sorts of allegations and criticms in biographies on Wikipedia that one doesn't agree with, and post a counter-argument. --SandyDancer 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "media falsehood" was too strong but I did not include it in the article. That Thatcher had 6 Etonians in her first cabinet, and that overall, its members' backgrounds were more elitist than Cameron's current shadow cabinet, is verifiable fact, not merely my personal opinion. I thought that was OK, and in the light of the media allegations it seemed appropriate to balance the section by including it. It could be argued that including the allegations in the first place, even if cited, was POV. But OK, I will not edit the section again unless or until I can cite Cameron himself or a sufficiently prominent spokesperson. As far as I know neither he nor his party have made a direct response to the allegations. Viewfinder 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find something which is truly relevant which needs to go in the paragraph, fine. But your mounting a counter-argument by quoting a fact which isn't directly relevant isn't right.

And just to be clear - I simply do not agree with your statement that "It could be argued that including the allegations in the first place, even if cited, was POV". I think that is a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia NPOV policy.

The fact that we think neither Cameron or his team have made any response to these allegations, by the way, in many ways gives them (the allegations) less weight - if they had done so, this allegation becomes an controversy. --SandyDancer 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can always find media allegations in support of or detrimental to someone you like or dislike respectively. I am sure that the Tories will respond to the allegations of elitism as and when they deem the time to be right. Viewfinder 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, but the allegation of elitism has been made fairly consistently, not least in the sources linked to but it was also the main topic of discussion on Andrew Neil's Politics Today programme recently. Its clearly worthy of inclusion. The section is not overly long, is sourced, and is written in a neutral fashion. You are implying its inclusion is in some way representative of bias, but I don't see what you are getting at. --SandyDancer 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete the section, I merely tried to make it more balanced; sorry, but adding a statement of fact to "it has been alleged that" followed by negative allegations seemed OK to me. Viewfinder 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for a political debate. The "Alleged Elitism" section is not criticism of Cameron - it is REPORTING criticism that has been levelled at him in the media. The article would be imbalanced if, for example, it gave undue attention to these allegations, by either going into too much detail, or placing them inappropriately or too prominently in the article. As it is, the allegation is briefly reported in a netural, sourced fashion in the appropriate ringfenced "criticism" section. The pursuit of "balance" does not require rebuttal on Cameron's behalf by you or anyone else. --SandyDancer 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Photograph/negativity

Who's changed the main photograph? It's awful, isn't there a better one? This article needs more protection and seems to be excessively negative. --Dovea 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is excessively negative? If anything, this article has in the past been criticised for reading like it was written by Cameron's most ardent fan. I think it is now very balanced and fair. If you take issue with anything in particular, you should say, however. As for the photo, the older photo was not in the public domain so could not stay. Another, slightly ropey, photo was substituted, and has now been substituted again by something much better. --SandyDancer 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm wrong to say it's excessively negative (perhaps it's all the vandalism I've seen made to articles like this) but I personally still don't like the photo - there appears to be a slight blur above one of his eyes. I'm sure there's a better photo which could be added. --Dovea 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a piece of campaign literature for David Cameron. Feel free to come up with another photo however. --SandyDancer 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Name

Who's Who gives William as his second name. "Wouseldorf Cameron" gives no Google hits so I think it would be fair to question the good faith of the edits to Wouseldorf. Viewfinder 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really fair to question the good faith of the edits at all. We are meant to assume good faith on Wikipedia.

Clearly this second name that was inserted needs to be reverted to William, because Wouseldrof" is unverified and William is, but no assumptions should be made about the editor or his motives. --SandyDancer 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunting the Wousel (dorf)

No newspapers have ever mentioned it. No mentions at all in The Times Digital Archive for 'Wouseldorf'. Suspect a hoax, myself. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine again...

Sorry all but it just occurred to me that the current para on the whole cocaine thing that dominated the earlier stages of his leadership campaign have, in all honesty, been glossed over. I appreciate this has been discussed before, but the "Allegations of cocaine use at university" was misrepresentative - the allegations were never just about his time at Oxford, as the sources already there in the article clearly show. Indeed more of the allegations and the whispering was about the fact he'd been in PR, where allegedly cocaine use is rife (couldn't comment personally, but that was the source of some of the speculation). I think it is good that this section appears in the "leadership campaign" section, as that's where it belongs - the allegations haven't really been aired much since. But the subsection as it was misrepresented what was a ver big deal at the time. --SandyDancer 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

These [6], by the way, are all the changes I made today. Lots of individual edits but this is the totality. --SandyDancer 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actions and initiatives

This section is a bit slim. Although Cameron is criticised for a perceived "policy-lite" approach, surely there is more we can put in here? --SandyDancer 09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed. His actual actions should be part of the biography higher up and policies can go under his views section. 144.32.196.4 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional issues

When this section was originally added this read "Cameron is a Unionist and he supports devolution" but has since been changed to "Cameron is a Unionist although he supports devolution". Does anyone else feel that this change implies that devolution is inherently un-unionist? One can still support a single sovereign unified state and also want a change in the way the government of that state is organised, they are not necessarily contradictory or incompatible. Indeed, some would argue that devolution has strengthened the union. Benson85 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel anything of the sort. Saying Cameron is a Unionist and he supports devolution, before going on to talk about devolution, suggests that unionism means supporting devolution. The "although" doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive beliefs, just that they are not usually associated with each other. Personally, my views are the same as Cameron's on the matter, but I still see that one does not naturally flow from the other (although, like you said, the case can be made). Child of Albion 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

There's been some back and forth on which photo should appear at the top of the page. Seems to me that the image previously used, which admittedly was more flattering to Cameron (though this page's function isn't to flatter the subject), contravened Wikipedia guidelines and has been replaced. Those who don't like it should go out and find another. However - I don't see why the photo of the younger Cameron with Norman Lamont has also been removed. Can someone explain? --SandyDancer 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

...and now the Private Eye one has gone too. )-: --SandyDancer 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Images flattering to the subject are not important. But images which aren't tiny zoom-ins of the original source are. It's better not to have an image at all. I notice Menzies Campbell still has his fair use photo up there, so perhaps it is best if we get a free use one of him. I'm sure I could find one of the back of his head if its free-use trumps fair-use ignoring of all other factors. Free use photos should only be used if they are "equivalent" to the fair use ones. This clearly isn't equivalent. It would be better not to have any photo at all. Child of Albion 16:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want a better quality photo you are free to email David Cameron's office and ask them for one which they will license under a unrestricted license such as Creative Commons or GFDL which allows images to be used commercially and to be modified without permission. The Lamont photo was claimed to be a screenshot but was actually a press photo which cannot be used under fair use. The Private Eye cover was an unnecessary copyrighted image which could easily be described in words. Arniep 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather disagree over the Private Eye cover. As we know, a picture tells a thousand words, and, quite obviously, images of magazine covers are unreproducable in copyright free form. Trying to describe an image is like trying to describe an elephant - you can do it, but you end up with some odd results. Wikipedia specifically has fair use tagging to identify those images where fair use is the best there is; if the Private Eye cover cannot qualify as fair use, then we'd better get deleting quickly, as there's a lot of other images out there with far poorer claim. DWaterson 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All it is is two standard pictures of people of whom we both a free image with a caption saying something about the world's first face transplant. There, I described it! Arniep 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But still, the impression is lost, and anyone reading the article would read that description and wish to see the actual picture. There is a certain humour to the "before" and "after" facial expressions too. I really think this anti-fair use fetish has got way out of hand. Wikipedia policy *allows* fair use, but it *prefers* free use if an "equivalent" photo is available. Child of Albion 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that editors are discussing ways to get high quality freely licensed media. In the meantime, please do not replace free content with unfree content. Jkelly 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Exploitation of Wikipedia

It has been claimed that this Wikipedia entry is a gross exploitation of this website and it seems clear to some that David Cameron is using Wikipedia as a campaign tool. This has been criticised by websites on the internet blogsphere.

[7]

That blog appears to have been set up specifically for this purpose ... --SandyDancer 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think random blogs are acceptable sources of criticism to include on wikipedia... This blog is especially amusing because most of the edits including Cameron's views have been done by me! Last time I checked, documenting a politician's views is a good thing for wikipedia to do - thats the first thing I want to find out when I look up a politician. I fail to see how it is "bias" either, it looks good if you agree with the guy or bad if you disagree! Incidentally, I also included things like the fact Cameron has actually been fox-hunting (probably not an image he wants to convey), and his claim that he was the "heir to Blair" - an increasingly damaging claim. Child of Albion 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations"

Regarding the drug controversy section, do we have any evidence that there was a direct allegation by anyone that he used drugs? I know he was repeatedly asked and didn't answer, giving the impression that he had, but to use the term "allegation" we surely need a cited source of someone saying "He took cocaine" Child of Albion 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The talk of him having used cocaine did not stem from him denying he had taken them - after all, in order to deny the rumours, he was first asked about them and therefore by definition those rumours existed independently of his denials. I think it is tricky semantics to argue that "allegations" is the wrong word, personally. The allegations he had been a drug user dominated a certain phase of the leadership campaign, though didn't do him lasting damage it seems. The controversy needs to be mentioned. Its omission would be startling and give ammunition to the users who are claiming this article is heavily biased in Cameron's favour (which I don't agree with). --SandyDancer 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree it needs to be mentioned. I was actually thinking about extending it a little. I was just wondering about the wording used - I think maybe "controversy" would be better. As far as I'm aware the rumours DID take off after the denials. It all stemmed from an appearance on some show with a young audience and he was casually asked if he took drugs at university after cannabis was discussed. He said "I had a normal student experience" and then the journalists went digging. Cue more questions about cannabis, and then questions about harder drugs. I think it is important that he was never outright accused and that the controversy was somewhat of his own making for the way he answered questions, rather than an attack by other MPs/journalists/papers/etc Child of Albion 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Cameron/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is probably better than B-class -- why not submit it for Good Article? Coemgenus 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)