Sunday, April 26, 2009

Should Iain Dale be expelled from the Conservative Party?


Cranmer would first like to say that he likes and admires Mr Dale a very great deal; he wishes him no ill and means him no offence by what follows. It is simply that His Grace is a little puzzled by the somewhat variable and inconsistent application of the Conservative Party’s rules and regulations, and observes an apparent hypocrisy in Mr Dale's political morality which is worthy of scrutiny.

The professorial, politically-astute, philanthropic and mild-mannered Stuart Wheeler was ejected from the Conservative Party for donating a paltry £100,000 to UKIP (which just about covers four MPs’ second homes for one year). He did not defect; he simply expressed a little modest (to him) support for UKIP because he considers the UK's relations with the EU to be of paramount importance. And no doubt thousands of Conservatives shall be doing exactly the same on June 4th as they 'lend' their votes on a point of political principle.

Yet Iain Dale was among the first (if not the first) to call for the expulsion of Mr Wheeler despite his having previously donated £5 million to Conservative coffers, and despite his continuing to urge the electorate to vote Conservative at the next general election. Few would doubt that Mr Wheeler has done more cumulative good than harm to the Conservative cause. But he had to go, Mr Dale insisted, because he was a ‘menace’ and ‘needed a regular fix of publicity’ and ‘delights popping up on the Today programme’ to spread ‘his unique brand of political mischief’ (transgressions of which Mr Dale has doubtless not infrequently been accused by some of his own detractors).

Mr Dale explained: ‘You can't have people like (Stuart Wheeler) recommending people to vote for another party on 4 June, and then proceed to welcome him back on the 5th. If I now wrote a blogpost urging Tories to vote UKIP, do you have any doubt that I would be expelled? And I'd deserve to be.’

But an advertisement is worth a thousand blog posts: the effects and impact of the visual media are far greater than the written. It is, after all, how Mr Dale is able to earn money from his blog.

The Conservative Party membership card quotes from the Party’s constitution: "Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with membership of, or association with, any other registered political party."

If Stuart Wheeler's actions constitute ‘association with’ another registered political party, and thus a breach of the conditions of Party membership, then so must Mr Dale’s promotion of other registered political parties upon his blog.

Consider the screen-print above. Mr Dale is clearly using his blog - his private property in exactly the same fashion as Mr Wheeler's £100,000 - to urge his readers, which are legion, to vote for another party - a party which has the potential to do damage to the Conservative Party, and from which Cranmer has exhorted his readers and communicants to resile. Further, Cranmer has also recently seen advertisements for ‘Jury Team’ upon Mr Dale’s influential blog, and also recalls some months ago seeing advertisements which sold the wares or promoted the personalities of New Labour.

But Cranmer has no problem with the selling of books or the promoting of political biography: the issue here is one of political campaigning. Iain Dale's Diary reaches more ‘unique visitors’ in a single month than Stuart Wheeler has met in his entire lifetime. In terms of campaigning influence and the potential to affect an electoral outcome, it is a political colossus. Mr Wheeler was an obscure back-room operator whose donation to UKIP will have a negligible (if any) effect on people’s voting intentions.

Shedule 7, article 3.5 of the Conservative Party’s constitution states: ‘The Officers of the Association may move before the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgement, be inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of the Association or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Similarly, the Officers may move the refusal of membership of the Association for the same reasons. Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same reason.

Mr Dale can probably not censor or control these political advertisements, for they are either part-and-parcel of his contract with GoogleAds or are fed uncontrollably by the ubiquitous MessageSpace. But Mr Wheeler's donation to UKIP was on a point of political principle; Mr Dale has sold the political soul of his blog to (inter alia) Libertas simply to profit by a couple of hundred (?) pounds. He thereby promotes the Conservative Party’s political opponents for personal financial gain and is consequently manifestly (if indirectly) ‘in association with’ those whose objectives are ‘inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being’ of the Conservative Party.

Consider what fate might befall an ordinary Conservative Party member who erected a ‘Vote LibDem’ sign in his front garden, or sported a ‘Vote Labour’ sticker on his car, or a ‘Vote UKIP’ pin in his lapel. As Mr Dale suggests would be the case were he to write a blog post urging people to vote UKIP, such treachery would be 'inconsistent with the objects' of the Party and would not be tolerated. CCHQ or a local Association would have grounds for expulsion.

The Libertas advertisement is not merely urging people to vote Libertas (which would be bad enough); Mr Dale is permitting his private property to be used to urge his readers to join a rival political party, which is a rather more long-term commitment. Declan Ganley is manifestly in this for the long haul.

Iain Dale has effectively erected a flashing neon ‘Vote Libertas’ sign very prominently in his front garden, through which a quarter of a million voters pass every month. This may be interspersed with villas in Andalucia, and it may not matter so much during the course of an apolitical year, but we are in the middle of a very important campaign and elections to the European Parliament are a mere month away. These elections have the potential to reduce Labour to a humiliating fourth poll position, thereby euthanising New Labour or terminating Gordon Brown's premiership altogether. The Conservative Party needs every vote it can get.

Would Mr Dale be content to urge his readers to 'Vote Labour' on the run-up to a general election? Would he accept advertisements which said 'Gordon Brown for Prime Minister'? This, surely, would be anathema to him (and, indeed, anathematise him from the Conservative Party). Yet if it be, why are these Libertas advertisements acceptable now?

Donating £100,000 to UKIP is quite possibly worth a good deal less (politically) to that party than an advertisement on Iain Dale’s Diary is worth to Libertas. It is inconceivable that Stephan Shakespeare would agree to such advertisements on ConservativeHome.

Perhaps CCHQ or the local Executive in Tunbridge Wells might look into Mr Dale’s ‘association’ with this group.

Or perhaps Cranmer might humbly request that Mr Dale might explain why the sauce which cooked Stuart Wheeler’s goose is not good enough for the gander?

UPDATE:
Cranmer has received a missive from the renowned Guido Fawkes, who points out that Mr Dale has in the past carried advertisements for Ken Livingstone's mayoral campaign (while Mr Dale naturally supported Boris) and also for the Liberal Democrats. Mr Fawkes suggested that His Grace was unable to distinguish between an advertisement and an endorsement.

This is not so. The erection of a sign in one's front garden is a de facto endorsement. Would Mr Dale be content to host an advertisement from the democratic and legally-constituted BNP? Presumably not. But if not, why not? If this advertisement for Libertas is a straightforward exchange of goods, surely the BNP's money is as good as that of Libertas? Cranmer's objection is simply that he happens to believe that politics is (frequently quite literally) a matter of life and death in the temporal realm. A Conservative blog should therefore no more carry an advertisement for one's political opponents any more than one would expect The Catholic Herald, being concerned with issues of salvation in the spiritual realm, to carry an advertisement from 'bigoted Protestant extremists' whose erroneous soteriology leads unsuspecting souls to eternal damnation.

76 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

A disingenuous post for reasons which I am sure are clear to you.

Not your finest (post barbecue) hour

26 April 2009 at 10:14  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Incisive, as ever. Is it the 'high profile' symbolism of £100k? Having said that, Dale's blog couldn't be much more high profile. It's true, Dale is hosting ads which are campaigning for the enemy - and Libertas are a subtle one, if just as ineffectual as UKIP. Why is he doing this? Is it just to make money? If that's the case, he's more unprincipled than Wheeler.

26 April 2009 at 10:28  
Anonymous TBF said...

Cranmer's got a point here. I walk my socks off (literally) campaigning FOR the Conservative Party AGAINST interlopers like Liberatas and frustrating squatters like the Liberal Democrats.

That hard work IS undermined when other party members effectively deliver leaflets for those parties I'm actively campaigning against. Would he allow pornography to be be promoted on his blog? There must be some sort of filtering control.

26 April 2009 at 10:45  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 10:45  
Anonymous wonderfulforhisage said...

Your Grace.

May I suggest for your next post 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'

26 April 2009 at 10:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is why I come here every day. You are fair and consistent and not afraid to say what needs to be said. You've got a razor sharp brain and you use it to great effect. You really should get a mainstream column somewhere.

I don't leave many comments (and I'm one of your anoying anonymice) but a very big fan. I also like Ian Dale, but in all fairness this needs saying. You can't carry ads which say Vote Libertas one day and then tell your readers to vote Tory. Especially when you declare you're a closet UKIPPER!:

26 April 2009 at 10:54  
Anonymous Iain Dale's boyfriend said...

That blows your chances of ever appearing again on The Daley Dozen. Bitch.

26 April 2009 at 11:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So......Stuart Wheeler was a friend of yours, was he, Your Grace?

26 April 2009 at 11:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your grace,

A piss poor post.

26 April 2009 at 11:29  
Anonymous IanVisits said...

There is a generally accepted principle in publishing that the content creators should not get involved with the ad selling side.

The "Chinese wall" which divides the two sides of any news or content publisher is vital to ensure that advertisers are unable to influence the editorials.

While I sort of see Cramer's argument, I actually think that any attempt by Iain Dale, the content creator to involve himself directly in which adverts are running on the website could compromise his impartiality on the issue.

You'll always get oddities where an advert appears next to an apparently contrary editorial, but that is a confirmation of the independence of the content creators from the ad sales people.

Require him to get involved in the ad sales side, and there would then always be a slight suspicion - no matter how unfounded - that Iain Dale edits his posts in a way designed to maximise advertising revenue.

26 April 2009 at 11:34  
Anonymous The Bitch said...

I feel a deluge of Estrogen cuming on.

26 April 2009 at 11:47  
Blogger Tony Sharp said...

Your Grace,

Is it the feast day of the patron Saint of satire or something?

God bless,

Mr Tony

26 April 2009 at 11:55  
Anonymous oiznop said...

I can't see why people are criticsing His Grace over this. Dale's blog clearly encourages people to join another political party. It's doing this just weeks away from an election. How can a 'Conservative' blog do that?

TBF - I doubt he'd accept ads for the BNP so there must be a filtering system or some sort of facility for him to express preferences.

26 April 2009 at 12:03  
Blogger Cranmer said...

"May I suggest for your next post 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Mr Wonderfulforhisage,

It depends on the size of the angel.

Mr Oiznop,

His Grace concurs with all that you say. Bless you.


To all you Anonymice,

His Grace has a policy of not responding to you, not merely because you manifestly lack the creativity of spirit to acquire a name, but also because anonymice tend to simply abuse (pace 10.54), while His Grace's blog is a blog of reason.

Mr Iain Dale's boyfriend,

His Grace thinks you are not he, but it is not likely that this (reasoned) scrutiny would incline Mr Dale to any such reaction: the man is politically far bigger than that, and certainly far more generous in spirit.

26 April 2009 at 12:14  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Well, I think your post is excellent Your Grace and I await Mr Dale's explanation as to what he's up to!

26 April 2009 at 12:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace - I humbly apologise for the necessity of being an anomymice, however I've been unable to work out how to gain a name. I'm sure it's very easy, but it presently eludes me, and is one of the casualties of being the wrong side of 50 when faced with a pc.

However, I feel I must write and leap to your defence, here. Some other of my anonymice brethren has been highly sourfaced about this post, for reasons which are unclear to me, but maybe they know more than I.

On the face things, though, you have a very clear point indeed, and I salute you.

My own political leaning are towards UKIP, which may be one reason why I think you've got a point, however before I am thrown to the wolves by your other communicants, I have to confess, with considerable regret, that I will never, ever, vote Tory again after being sold out by Grocer Heath on joining the eu under patently false pretences.

Such is life. Please continue your good works of exposing such manifest unevenness in the application of "rules"

PS I was just wondering....do all Reading schoolkids still have to eat Halal meat? Does anyone know whether your exposure resulted in a rethink?

26 April 2009 at 12:32  
Blogger John M Ward said...

I suspect this isn't an entirely serious post, at least not in regard to its apparent message.

Iain Dale is of course flawed as are the rest of us; but it has been Wheeler who has been inconsistent and has generated a difficult situation.

As with the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario as depicted in the opening minutes of the second Star Trek Movie, there is perhaps no right or wrong way to deal with this. It is more a matter of character than black or white in and of itself.

Although I hate "political realities" (as they can often be an excuse for bad behaviour) I am very much aware that fracturing support — and thus votes — can indeed let the "bad guys" in to positions of power that few if any would want.

Thus I'd prefer these people such as Wheeler to stick to the broader issue instead of tinkering with extraneous matters such as the (currently imploding) UKIP. That would be intelligent, and would make far more sense.

What Dale might have indicated is a trivial matter; and I have a feeling that Your Grace — though undoubtedly making a point using the devise of this article — might like to tackle the underlying issue next time. I think that could produce interesting (and, hopefully, more useful) outcomes than this comparatively weak effort.

26 April 2009 at 12:32  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 13:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Conservative party member, I shall be voting for either the UKIP or the BNP, whichever is offering a candidate at the so-called European Union elections in June.
When the Conservative party policy is total withdrawal from the EU, then I shall revert to voting for them at the EU elections. Till then, I'll vote for anyone who will ensure that we once more become independent and have self-determination as a nation.

john in cheshire

26 April 2009 at 14:02  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 14:24  
Blogger indigomyth said...

McKenzie said,
//Like I said, I know what Christian ethics are because they have been my life story up until now. //

But the ethics you call "Christian" would be virtually unrecognisable to those from 200, 300 years ago. Indeed, for the majority of Christian history, your "Christian" ethics would have been considered aChristian. The easiest example is that of the death penalty. Even if you approve of the death penalty, you would surely not in cases of heresy and "witchcraft"? Yet these have been prominent ethical traditions in Christian history; do you so easily cast them aside, and claim your ethical system is the only "Christian" one?

I would go further, and say that our modern society is not based upon Christian ethics, so much as the ethics of secularism and humanism. We are not a Christian nation? How could we be? Most people only have a hazy Christian conviction, most people support abortion, most people support civil partnership. These are not Christian ethics, and I would say that a Christian that holds non-Christian views, is no Christian at all.

And what of those in Britain that do not share your common culture points, which sounds suspiciously like Cranmer's exhortations for the "common Good". What do you do with them? All those that are pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research etc? What of them?

Indeed, why make Christianity the binding ideology? Surely any other one would do, as long as it is shared commonly among the citizens? On that basis, I could call for the destruction of True Christianity TM, because it is anathema to the common good. It certainly seems to cause conflict. Perhaps we could all be bound by a hatred of Christianity? Would that not create a united people?

26 April 2009 at 14:44  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 14:57  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//This in its self could be seen as a form of hate by the inherent haters, but this is one imperfection I can live with.//

I echo this sentiment. Though I disagree with it being "Christian" for the reasons I gave in brief previously.

Personally, I think a greater degree of patriotism would be a good way of fostering community identity. I think this is why the Scandinavian countries, who have very high rates of atheism, and liberalism, are so healthy, in terms of things like low violence and high education standards. A commitment to the national identity, whatever that may be, would be useful, though we must try to avoid the pitfall of jingoism. I do not think that the Gordian knot of communal belief has to be religious.

I think education also plays a major role in this. Look at most middle class, well off areas, and you will not see a very high degree of violence and crime, committed by those who live there.

Indeed, I would be prepared to say that my ideal societal model is one along Norway or Swedish lines. They seem to do very well without religion. Of course, this assumes that the typical Anglo-Saxon psyche is responsive to similar sorts of stimulus as the Scandinavian psyche.
Regards,
indigomyth

26 April 2009 at 15:08  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I am more inclined to think Ian Dale sees him self as free spirit in touch with the publics liberal moods, ti could also be that he is being streamed somthings that he is unaware that his viewers of seeing , such is the power of PHORM.

the owner of PHORM declared he could see the whole internet , quite scary if you ask me , but labour does love its media meglomaniacs to dupe the public even further !!

however i am not missing your point , perhaps he sees a problem in the anti political rise of parties such as the BNP or UKIP for his own liberal conservatism.

is he betraying conservative thinking?? i dont think so as he is a moderniser in many respects, but i am reminded that balanced reporting is different to promotion and perhaps that is what your grace has picked up upon.

freedom of speech does not always mean you can tow a party line , however i wonder if it would mean being too stalin in rebuking him , he would propbebly not mind it as he is a thick skinned man , and he has worked quite hard to get some ideas of politics out .

26 April 2009 at 15:09  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 15:11  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 15:18  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 15:25  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//It would have to be explained in the simplest terms possible that it cannot be construed Christian to slaughter babies in the womb//

I do not believe it is a Christian principle. Yet it would seem that this opinion, that abortion is absolutely wrong, is a very minority opinion among the general population. So it makes more sense to make the "dominant culture" to which people subscribe, pro-abortion, rather than anti-abortion. Which is where this problem about defining this nation as "Christian" comes in?

What is a "nation", and its attendant culture? Is it what the majority of people believe in the present day? I would be inclined to say so; how can culture exist supra-humanly, when it is a construct of the human mind? So, if most people believe abortion is acceptable, than the culture is one of abortion being acceptable. This is not to say abortion is right or wrong, but merely that it is the culture of the nation.

Taking a generation as being 20 years, then abortion has been part of our culture for at least 2 generations. It seems reasonable to say that abortion is a cultural phenomenon, and therefore is part of our culture. The motivation for the legalising of abortion was home grown; it was the result of the people of this nation, not immigrants or refugees bringing another culture. It was this nations own culture, changing. To say that when nation X has culture A, that then changes to culture B, through little exterior input, that culture B is a legitimate culture of nation X. It seems very very odd to me to declare a home grown movement "alien" to our nations culture. The simple fact is that abortion is part of our culture, because culture B has (largely) replaced culture A.

What you want to do is re-engineer society to go back to culture A. However, that would require an outside influence, or artificial tampering from a centralised government. It would not be a natural development, a spontaneous change, as the legalisation of abortion was.

So, why not take the opposite tack, and say that abortion is a fundamental right of woman, and that to be anti-abortion is to be against the culture of this nation. Anyone that disagrees can go away and reconsider their membership application. You would rally people around an anti-abortion cause, I around a pro-abortion cause. As we are only discussing the unity of a society, it is irrelevant which cause is advocated, as long as it promotes solidarity. And I do not think anyone can deny that the pro-abortion crowd have solidarity with each other. Imagine if that was harnessed through society! It would certainly be united.

26 April 2009 at 15:29  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//I would have thought that even the most fundamental of basic patriotic moron would understand that Britain has a very strong Christian heritage.//

Which Britain, and which Christianity? And, more to the point, why should what has come before dictate what is done now? I am all for conserving traditions, but not for living them. Also, you do understand that many consider membership with the BNP incompatible with Christian ethics?

//Who do you vote for? Because you seem to be suggesting that there cannot be any common framework of agreed cultural ethics, and as a BNP supporter you are confirming everything that I believe about the hopelessness of the main stream parties.//

I plan on voting for the Liberal Democrats at the next election.

It is true that there can never be an agreed set of cultural ethics, which is why some form of imposition is always required. But, if you really want to have a shared set of cultural ethics, why don't you make the first step? You can sacrifice everything you believe to conform to what I believe, and then we will have unity and solidarity.

Even appeal to tradition is not going to help, because that requires that one accept the "theology of tradition". In short, the worship of tradition and custom. I reject notions of the superiority or right of tradition to be respected, therefore appeal to tradition has no weight for me. Appeal to tradition is an equivalent of "finders keepers" or "I was here first", or any other such inane and puerile sentiments.

26 April 2009 at 15:40  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 15:43  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 15:46  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//You are correct by stating that much of our modern culture has been imposed upon the majority by a minority. //

I never said any such thing. In fact, I was saying the exact opposite, that the majority of society are pro-abortion and are imposing their pro-abortion beliefs on the minority of pro-lifers. And that the legalising of abortion came about as a result of an organic, cultural shift. It has become our culture. Do try and read what I write before you so hastily criticise.

Indeed, now YOU are in the minority, so if you got your way it would be the minority forcing their convictions on the majority.

Why should the mainstream Christian religions be respected? For what reason? Merely because they have existed in the past?

Also, you assume the majority of people wish to return to a time when Christianity was afforded a special respected place. What evidence have you of that? I don't think Christianity deserves respect, so I deny the criteria for your social unity.

I like a lot of modern culture, and most of it is un-Christian. That was why I asked you "which Britain?" you were talking about. The Britain you seem to celebrate, I think deserved destruction. The new Britain of today is worth far more celebration. Therefore why should I agree to your notion of Christian pre-eminence? This modern society is not the product of Christianity; it is post-Christian. Therefore no respect is due it. Why should I respect Christianity?

I am also amused by your statement,
//This in its self could be seen as a form of hate by the inherent haters, but this is one imperfection I can live with//
in light of your revelation of being a BNP sympathiser. It seems the country has become united in hatred of you and your party; Christian, atheist, Muslim, most seem to despise the BNP. It seems that you have become the very thing you sought to be; a unifier of the people. The Inherent haters have become hated, and from that hatred social cohesion has formed. Up and down the country, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians are begging people to not vote for the BNP. Church leaders of all colours, creeds, liberal and conservative have raised their voices against the BNP. I am truly humbled by what you and your kind have achieved; I could never have so easily knit so many together in common cause against so few. Amazing.

26 April 2009 at 16:03  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Tell me what it is exactly that you believe in and I will consider it. there will be a few major exceptions, one being queer.//

Then there is no need to continue. One of the major positions of the culture I ascribe to is the equality of gay people, and their relationships.

26 April 2009 at 16:06  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 16:13  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 16:19  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 16:30  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//I am going to hazard a guess that you are also a Muslim?//

Indeed! I am also eight feet tall, have eyes that shoot death rays, have a head of snakes that can turn people to stone, and when I exhale it smells like freshly cut grass. I can also fly unaided at Mach 2, and have tap-danced on the moon.

In fact, no I am not a Muslim. I am an atheist. Islam is ridiculous. As is Christianity and Judaism.

So, would you agree that most people seem to be repulsed by the BNP, and would that not make an excellent criteria for unifying society?

On a side note, it is both disappointing and reassuring to know what sort of people read Cranmer, and agree with him. I am a little surprised though that more of the True Christians TM on here do not criticise you for your party affiliations. It seems my previous conclusions about conservative Christians were correct! How unfortunate.

26 April 2009 at 16:39  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Mckenzie,

Would you pipe down a little, please?

The topic of this thread is not private dialogue with Mr Indigomyth.

Bless you.

26 April 2009 at 16:39  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Indigomyth,

You appear to be unaware of the nature of the beast that is the world-wide web.

It is for public consumption without let or hindrance. His Grace has absolutely no control of 'the sort of people (who) read Cranmer'. All prostitutes and tax-collectors are welcome. And even you.

26 April 2009 at 16:43  
Blogger indigomyth said...

McKenzie said,
//You have hatred oozing out of you//

to which I simply act as a perfect mirror, and reflect the words

//This in its self could be seen as a form of hate by the inherent haters, but this is one imperfection I can live with//

26 April 2009 at 16:43  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Cranmer said,
//You appear to be unaware of the nature of the beast that is the world-wide web.

It is for public consumption without let or hindrance. His Grace has absolutely no control of 'the sort of people (who) read Cranmer'. All prostitutes and tax-collectors are welcome. And even you.//

I apologise. I did however add the qualifier "agree with him". The fact that your beliefs are palatable to the sort of people that would join the BNP does not add lustre to your position. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you should censor his comments; that was not my intent.

I did also say that it was surprising that no Christians seem willing or desirous to criticise or comment on McKenzie political affiliations, given the seeming incompatibility of Christian belief with the BNP's political ideology.
Regards,
indigomyth

26 April 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous not a machine said...

oh err

indigomyth is an unbound radical beholden to no one , and is champion slayer of all that is holding this nation from the true liberation that we will find when we dispense with our history ??

am i right ??

then you must hate , radical view points that differ from yours and have more boxes for biggots than than walmart make sanwiches.

your new new may not be as new as you think nor as unbounded from political vice .

history is not a shackel its a lesson

26 April 2009 at 16:55  
Blogger indigomyth said...

not a machine said,
//indigomyth is an unbound radical beholden to no one , and is champion slayer of all that is holding this nation from the true liberation that we will find when we dispense with our history ??

am i right ??//

I do not consider myself overly radical. Some things of the past I like, and think are good. Others I believe are not. Some of our history should be celebrated, some should be lamented.

It is true that I hate certain viewpoints that differ significantly from my own. Racism being one that I hate.

//history is not a shackel its a lesson//

Indeed, but the lesson can be taken as what to do, or what not to do. It also cannot answer questions that have never previously been posed. History can only teach us as far as we understand the cultures and civilisations in which that history occurred. Extrapolating current rules and regulations from the past assumes that the past had them correct, only for the fact that they existed in the past.

I do not believe political idealism is new, nor that it is free of vice. But then all politics is based on idealism of one form or another.

26 April 2009 at 17:04  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Indigomyth,

You might find that Satan himself agrees with Jesus in some areas, and would be quite at home with issues such as omnipotent spiritual authority. It may interest you to know (lest you have forgotten or never known) that the BNP also endorsed Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. Some of them even vote UKIP.

If you are seeking to foment mischief or are somehow suggesting that His Grace has BNP sympathies, you are quite undiscerning of His Grace's Christian beliefs: there is now neither Jew nor Greek, black nor white, Asian nor Caucasian.

Now, back to the topic of the thread.

26 April 2009 at 17:10  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Cranmer,

//If you are seeking to ferment mischief or are somehow suggesting that His Grace has BNP sympathies, you are quite undiscerning of His Grace's Christian beliefs://

It was not my intent to foment mischief, or at least no more than someone with views contrary to the predominant populations usually seeks to create mischief, by the mere action of airing those views and arguing them in the public sphere.

//It may interest you to know (lest you have forgotten or never known) that the BNP also endorsed Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. Some of them even vote UKIP.//

Indeed, and it is to the shame of Mr Johnson and UKIP that they attract such voters.

I shall try and keep on topic in future.

26 April 2009 at 17:12  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 17:17  
Blogger Plato said...

I don't think I've seen such a large conversation between two people on teh interweb - and that includes Mr Dale deleting Mr Ireland.

I was most excited at the prospect of 44 comments, shame it was mostly handbags.

IMHO, if Mr Dale carries MessageSpace advertising then so what?

This reminds me of Mr Draper's attempt to shut down LabourHome unless Alex Hilton confessed to his sins of being involved in it and recanting.

I hardly think that getting a few quid for carrying random adverts for foie gras or Libertas is the same as explicitly giving 100k to UKIP.

As for the BNP angle - yup they are a legitimate party but they have an enormous amount of baggage which makes their exclusion a special case.

*pfft*

26 April 2009 at 17:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The simple test is to try and place an ad for UKIP or the BNP on Iain's site.

If he rejects them, then he is, of course, admitting that he has chosen to allow a rival political party, Libertas to advertise on his site and is effectively promoting a rival party.

If the BNP or UKIP ads appear, then clearly Iain is not endorsing them, having no control over the ads that appear.

26 April 2009 at 17:24  
Blogger Dr.D said...

This all sounds like a very good reason to vote BNP. These folk are much more interested in playing personality games than they are in preserving the UK. Try voting for someone who believes in the UK for a change!#

26 April 2009 at 17:25  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dr D,

The BNP is political damnation and leads inexorably to political oblivion.

26 April 2009 at 17:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for the Anon post - no account. Just been re-directed here from the link at ConHome.

Cranmer, you should get a job on the political frontline. Your talents are wasted blogging. This sort of analysis should be central to the Conservative Party's election machine. David Cameron should hire you - you wouldn't be the first blogger to be discovered.

26 April 2009 at 17:54  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2009 at 17:57  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Your grace,

On the subject of the homosexual lobby's infestation of a once great moral party, do you have any comment on the overcooked and somewhat disorientated Alan Duncan's literal embracing of the god hating Harriet Harman and his public incitement to murder those who morally oppose "gay marriage"?

Pray tell, how on earth can Christians of good conscience vote for the Conservative party these days when such satanic individuals as Duncan and Bercow are still tolerated?

26 April 2009 at 18:05  
Anonymous Tom FD said...

Maybe Libertas should chuck itself out of Libertas for sponsoring a Tory.

26 April 2009 at 18:16  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Hugh Oxford,

His Grace is not familiar with the story. If you would care to email him details, he shall consider.

Now, back (again) to the topic of the thread...

26 April 2009 at 18:18  
OpenID jamestheless said...

A point of information, Your Grace.

Does Iain Dale have any control over which adverts are displayed on his blog, or they are selected by an algorithm which tries to guess the reader's interests from the text (and often fails spectacularly)?

I suspect the latter. When he blogged about a youthful visit to Russia, a very prominent advertisement for a Russian dating agency was displayed. Rather embarrassing when trying to do a spot of discreet "surfing" in an open-plan office.

26 April 2009 at 18:36  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Your Grace,

You only need to watch the last episode of HIGNFY.

I believe the incident even made it into "The Sun" newspaper.

He claims, of course, that it was a mere joke.* But the manner of its ejaculation suggests that ne'er a truer word was said in jest, and one can only wonder at the inner machinations of the man's mind.

I'll leave you, and others to judge.

* Just imagine if he had "joked" about killing homosexuals.

26 April 2009 at 18:39  
Blogger Jess The Dog said...

I suspect that Mr Dale has little control over the particular adverts and it may be a case of "any adverts or no adverts". If this makes the blog viable, then fair play. It would be better than a pay-per-view blog!

26 April 2009 at 18:40  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Cranmer, you said,

The BNP is political damnation and leads inexorably to political oblivion.

I think this would not be so if the people of the UK would look at who actually stands for them, as opposed to who has the politically correct label attached. Why should any party that speaks up for the British people be considered political damnation? This does not make sense, especially in the light of the clear evidence that the other parties have sold out the UK?

Simply calling them evil explains nothing. That is nothing but name calling.

26 April 2009 at 18:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

I concur with Hugh Oxford: the execrable Alan Duncan joked on TV that he would murder 'Miss California' (a 'silly bitch')because she said she disagreed with 'same sex' marriage.

I think oyu should tun a story on this - it's on Guido Fawkes.

26 April 2009 at 19:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean 'run' a story.

26 April 2009 at 19:31  
Blogger IanW said...

His Damnation the Arch-Heretic wrote:

A Conservative blog should therefore no more carry an advertisement for one's political opponents any more than one would expect The Catholic Herald ... to carry an advertisement from 'bigoted Protestant extremists'Err ... if you were talking about Conservative Home I'd go with your argument, but Iain Dale's Diary is no more a Conservative blog than the Daily Telegraph is a Conservative rag. Tsk, tsk. Such category confusion.

26 April 2009 at 21:43  
Blogger Thatsnews said...

Are we to believe that a man of Stuart Wheeler's undoubted intelligence never bothered to read the other side of his party membership card?

And if he did, did he think: "Well, I have donated so much money to the party funds previously, I am sure I can make up special rules for me, as I go along"?

26 April 2009 at 23:12  
Anonymous Cut to the Basics said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 April 2009 at 02:02  
Anonymous The EU Soviet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 April 2009 at 02:37  
Blogger Cranmer said...

His Grace has made it clear that he shall not permit his blog to be prostituted for random links to other political sites. Please desist.

27 April 2009 at 07:21  
Blogger Scipio said...

Your grace raises a valid point. It seems however that the difference between erecting a placard in your garden and having a banner on your blog is that you get paid for having a banner!

Perhaps I should rent out my front garden to the highest bidder come the general election?

27 April 2009 at 17:34  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 April 2009 at 17:49  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

Make up your own mind.
From the horses mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXwdAc3DGz0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G868gCk7zok

27 April 2009 at 18:37  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

Please define 'front garden' in relationship to blogs and/or other media.

27 April 2009 at 18:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Cranmer in chains, or otherwise not moderating his own blog? I hope His Grace is well - and that his political opponents have not prevailed against him. Surely we all understand that the veritas/eu thing attached to this strand is an example of what Cranmer objects to.

27 April 2009 at 20:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

I am a little late to this thread but surely your analogy is a little flawed. It seems more like someone else erecting one of those ghastly yellow "Winning Here" diamonds in Mr Dale's garden, which he is unable to remove. Far removed from Mr Wheeler's egoism.

27 April 2009 at 23:46  
Blogger Savonarola said...

I am not logical by nature and not worth fisking. My observations:

Mr Wheeler's £100k to UKIP is a small shot across Con Party bows to remind them not to fudge on Europe. Mr Wheeler has earned the right to try to influence Con Party politics in whatever way he can.

Mr Dale is a bit of a tart in more ways than one. He is a bit of a luvvie. He has to earn a living I suppose. What annoys me is his constant cosying up to Campbell in his efforts to shift a few of that evil man's book. Campbell is trying to reinvent himself by rewriting his cv. We should never forget his corrupting influence.

Campbell is trying to invert 'The evil that men do, lives on after them, the good is oft interred with their bones' Shak J Caesar

28 April 2009 at 09:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Ian Dale already knows how I feel about the expulsion of Wheeler from the Conservative Party. I have no time for Ian Dale whatsoever.

Douglas Carswell, on the other hand, is just the type of MP I would happily vote for. A no nonsense, common sense politician. Oh for a few more like him.

28 April 2009 at 15:05  
Blogger kiki said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

29 April 2009 at 15:12  
Blogger Tim W said...

Perhaps Wheeler's money will go towards buying UKIP adverts on Dale's blog?

In any case, maybe the Tories will be glad to see other parties' money going on the Diary - if the post next to it (and the general content of the site) undermine the advert, they shouldn't complain too much at the group wasting their money.

29 April 2009 at 18:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older