General Press Comments

[Will Frost]

I've had a chance to read through the proposals in this "draft" budget presented in the FT article. Some of these ideas are good, some of them are not. Some of them I've actively supported, some of them I have not. At the end of the day, the only Shadow Budget that matters is the one being written by my Shadow Chancellor.

Over the past few months I've gotten some flack for my tendency to rush out in front of an issue, and to express my position sometimes... too quickly. That criticism isn't entirely without merit. If I support something, you'll know about it. Because, as my opponents have said time and time again... I'm more than eager to tell you all about it.

I have my share of flaws, I will be the first to admit that. An unwillingness to share my views in candid terms, however, isn't one of them. In the coming weeks and months, as I travel across the country speaking at local party association meetings and to Britons of all political affiliations, I look forward to continue to share my vision for our country. In the mean time, if you want to know more about what I stand for, I encourage you to ask me. Write me a letter, I'll respond. Ask me a question through our party's new website, and I'll be sure to get back to you there.

If I'm anything I'm a talker, and I would love the chance to get to talk with you. It's the best part of my job, and I'm looking forward to doing a lot more of it.

[Rebecca Flair]

That Mr Macmillan was Mr Croft's first pick for Shadow Chancellor is an open secret at Westminster, back when Mr Croft opposed the policies of the National Front rather than joining Cosette Beauvais-Becker in advocating them. The fact that he and his campaign never signed off on these proposals, from his man to be Shadow Chancellor, is damning, almost as damning as a Shadow Cabinet that is unable to agree a collective position on immigration policy. Do the Conservative Party have any policies? Or is it just a rush to jump from bandwagon to bandwagon with no thought before and no plan for after?

[Amelia Lockhart]

I am delighted that Mr Croft has won his vote of no confidence, but it shows exactly where his priorities lie: winning over the far right of his party, and not seeking to represent our country as a whole. While he was participating in petty partisan fights within his own divided party on refugees, the Government has been setting out an ambitious agenda to help 7 million adults get the help they need on basic literacy skills. This will help millions ensure they have the reading, writing and speaking skills required to fully participate in our economy and society. This is what Britain needs, not a Conservative Party who seeks to pick fights with desperate refugees and each other.

[Will Frost]

I want to thank the over 80% of Conservative MPs who have entrusted me with their support in this confidence vote. This isn't, of course, how I had hoped to start my leadership. But it's time we move forward as a party, and continue our work to provide the British people with the leadership they deserve. All of us Conservatives are united by one thing: the certainty that the people of this country deserve better than New Labour is able to offer them. I look forward to continuing our party's effort to advance the cause of freedom, aspiration, and the rule of law. Now, let's get back to work.

[Rebecca Flair]

If individuals in favour of the policies of the National Front are in favour of your leadership, I think that's a pretty damning indictment of your leadership.

[Rebecca Flair]

What the withdrawal of the whip from Mr Blake signifies is really rather shocking. The situation in the Conservative Party has become so toxic, so entrenched in the far right, and so resembling of National Front lite politics that the Conservative Party's own Chairman, a William Croft appointee no less, thought they were unworthy of holding power to the point that he would try and take out the leader. Mr Blake is many things but he is not an idiot and he is not a coward, he is a man of principle and he has recognised what many others in the party have failed to, the Conservative Party has fallen off the deep end and cannot be trusted with even a modicum of the power they so desperately crave.

[Astrid Goldman]

The Tories have demonstrated in the last few days that they have no serious interest in governing 21st Century Britain. Their internal fractious scuffles have made rather dull television but do highlight a trend; they have nothing new to offer and haven't listened to the messages the voters have sent them.

On education, they have no original thought; merely backing Labour's academies programme and hoping to bring back an old 1990s policy that was proven ineffective.

On immigration, they're turning further back to the 1950s and resisting globalisation and the realities of a modern, connected world.

On adult literacy, they showed their true colours when they joked about sending people on adult literacy courses, rather than taking the issue seriously and getting behind real change.

They're a party lost in time. While the rest of us are innovating public policy and driving Britain forward, they're squabbling over how far to turn the clock back. They haven't listened. Just as they didn’t in 1997, just as they didn't in 2001 and just as I doubt they will in 2006.

[Kayla Gray]

Today in my piece for the Mirror I talked about the need for a democracy review within the Labour Party, in order for us to get more in touch with our grassroots supporters and reconnect with our communities.

People have become disenfranchised by politics in the United Kingdom, and that was proved once again in the last election with the huge fall in turnout. Many working people felt that no one represented them, that there was no real difference between the major parties and that there was no point making sure their voice was heard. And they are mostly right, Westminster has become disconnected with the people of this country, and that’s something that needs to change.

The democracy review that I am proposing will begin the long process of getting people engaged, once again, in British politics. Our party requires fundamental change if it is to work for the working people of our country, and if it is to be truly representative of the people of this country.

We need greater diversity in the Parliamentary Party, we have made steps with more women and minority Members of Parliament, but there is a long road still to achieving equality within our party and society. It is vital that we have more women candidates standing and winning at the next general election, and it is vital that we continue to build upon the successes of the likes of Diane Abbott and Paul Boateng in their election to Parliament and continue to bring more ethnic and racial minorities into Parliament, so we can have a parliament that represents everyone in this country.

It is also very important that we do review the process of Leadership and Deputy Leadership elections. There is a great imbalance under the current electoral college system of elections, with just over 340 MPs having an equal say as thousands of party members up and down this country. This great imbalance must be resolved with a new system of election that ensures every Labour Party member, whether an MP in Westminster or a builder in Bury, has the same weight behind their vote.

Finally, we must review our candidate selection system. Our community groups are the foundations of our party, they do the hard work on the ground to ensure a Labour victory at the polls. But many candidates are largely unaccountable to their local community groups and are too busy playing the Westminster game. We must put members and communities first in the selection process, letting them have their say over selection and reselection of candidates before every election.

Labour is the greatest movement to social change in this country, but currently Labour is not fulfilling its role of representing the communities it is elected to serve and depends on to remain in government. I hope that the leadership of our party recognise this and instigate a Democracy Review within the party, and put Labour back in the hands of its grassroots.

(OOC: Edit was adding bold)

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

As is typical of New Labour, any discussion about requirements for immigrants is immediately dismissed as demonisation, making the UK an international pariah or harking back to the 1950s. They try to fear-monger by falsely claiming such language requirements would block refugees when there are crucial distinctions between refugees and migrants. They then try to rely on wild claims from a disgraced and disgruntled former Shadow Cabinet member or try to portray the views of one backbencher as representing an entire party.

Such tactics from Cabinet ministers make clear Labour is a party too concerned with ensuring political correctness at all costs over seriously addressing concerns with immigration and cohesion in society. Calling for immigrants to have a basic comprehension of English to live and work in our society is not demonisation or anything approaching it. It is common sense and a view shared by many people up and down this country who have legitimate concerns and want to see English standards improved. It’s time for the Government to get out of Whitehall and engage in a proper discussion on immigration with the people of this country rather than constantly trying to stop debate at any opportunity by playing to the political correctness crowd.

[Ege]

Sir Jack is flat out resorting to lies. The Refugee Convention has nothing to do with the EDM but I am not surprised, that is how Labour is works, they lie. The EDM explicitly states immigrants and not refugees, which means have nothing to do with the Refugee Convention but Labour is so desperate to misrepresent this policy, one I believe will be popular, and they have to resort to lies to ensure it won't become one. That is pathetic and sad.