Talk:David Cameron

Unbiased report on Class A drugs use needed

I think its time this issue is clarified.

Unbiased report on current opinion polls added

By Dwaterson

Archived talk

• Archive of discussion - 16 October 2005 to 7 November 2006

This entry is far to biased

How many people have vandalised this entry since March 8th 2007? (AndrewAnorak 08:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Towards a Featured Article?

This article is a former failed FA nomination, but much has been improved since then, and the subject clearly has the potential to be FA. I was considering requesting peer review, but before then there are a few obvious things outstanding that need to be resolved.

1. All unreferenced claims need to be either referenced or removed. (There are a number currently tagged as unsourced, but also a number not tagged but clearly requiring citation.)
2. Some sections of "Political views and policies" need to be expanded (where possible). In particular, the European Union section is only one sentence, and Front Bench Appointments is incomplete.
3. External links need cleaning up.

Then do people agree that it would be suitable to go forward with peer review? DWaterson 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should do. It is probably now the most in-depth article on any politician that isn't/hasn't been a national leader - certainly the most referenced! Even if it doesn't attain status it will help us know where the article needs improvement. Child of Albion 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Language of class war

This is what the link I restored stated on November 21st:

"Labour revived the language of class warfare yesterday as the party’s chairman initiated a ferocious attack on David Cameron based on his privileged background. Hazel Blears cast doubt on the Tory leader’s credentials by asking why he felt the need to surround himself with so many Old Etonians, and attacked him as out of touch with ordinary people". Viewfinder 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's a quotation from The Times newspaper article ([1]), not a statement being made by (unnamed) persons at ConservativeHome.com. The fact that they're reporting the story verbatim doesn't automatically imply they agree with the precise wording... I don't, therefore, think that the source supports the assertion. DWaterson 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UKIP POV-pushing

I have on several occasions recently reverted additions by User:169.71.50.36, who appears to be the owner of UKIPhome.co.uk. Whilst I don't dispute that the views of UKIP may be relevant to the article (if they were to have had some verifiable significant impact, say through third-party newspaper reporting), but on each occasion it was merely blatant POV-pushing. Specious claims about unverified "leaked memos" and links to blogs set up specifically for the purpose of campaigning are not appropriate for Wikipedia unless they are notable and verifiable. DWaterson 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I was looking at the edits of 81.146.15.197 [2] and wondering if this is trivia or much the same especially with the POV caption for the youtibe link Alci12 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. UKIP Home posted FACTs and you know it. Is this what the Tory party are all about? Lying, covering it up and then trying to deny it. Pathetic.

The above posted by 81.146.15.197 rather proving my suspicion I think Alci12 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentance about the leaked memo (which was an internal briefing paper on the Queens Spech debate) and it's supposed revelation about the tweak in policy re the proposed Climate Change Bill. I removed it partly because the supporting reference was to a an irrelevant news story and partly because it is basically wrong. The Conservatives have changed their use of language from 'binding' to 'annual' but there is nothing sinister about it. What they (and the Lib Dems) want is annual targets to keep Carbon emissions at the top of the political agenda. David Milliband argues is that annual targets won't work becuase factors like the weather can throw things off course and be misleading. What he wants is targets over five years - which crucially would take it outside the length of a normal parliament.

So (i suspect) in response to this the Conservatives are now giving more flexibility for the body who would set the targets in their proposal and are also putting more emphasis on the annual targets being stepping stones to the five yearly ones that sometimes may not be met. The point being it would need to be explained annually. Given the changes the word 'binding' appears to have been dropped because it makes you look abit unrealistic. It doesn't however imply a watering down of the policy. This isn't a story which is why the MSM are ignoring the effort of Mr UKIP home (who has a history of fighting lost causes) to make it one. 86.27.111.145 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your take on the issue seems very logical. However, it is acceptable to use a source which confirms the relevant information, even if the source is primarily about another topic. Whatever reason the Conservatives have for dropping the "binding" term, it should be listed in the article. However, we should refrain from passing any judgement on the issue. I am going to restore the information as it was originally. The Enlightened 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am doing some cleanup edits to this article and I can see no mention of a leaked document in this reference Cameron climate policy 'too soft', What have I missed? Abtract 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'"He has also called for binding annual targets for cuts in emissions, although a memo leaked last week to the Labour party suggests this idea could be dropped."' Fifth paragraph from bottom. The Enlightened 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say ... thanks :) Abtract 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the article

Change it to David Cameron - Future Prime Minster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.56.215 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Very funny... Plebmonk 03:56, 23 December 2006

(UTC)

Naming of the article (unopinionated version)

More accurately the article should be entitled: "David Cameron - With policies to follow his bike in the old pollutive car driven by all the familiar Conservative politicians behind him. The Tories Have Not Changed." I think this would represent a neutral position on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.255.28 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Or ""David Cameron - With policies to follow his bike in the old pollutive car driven by all the familiar Conservative politicians behind him. The Tories Have Not Changed - Future Prime Minister"? Perhaps?

Hmm satirical comments are meant to be funny, however I can see these two are not. Hmmm and the Labour party hasn't changed a bit eh, or am I guessing you are one of those people who know f*ck all about politics apart from what the grauniad tells you?

The only change Labour will be making - especially under Gordon Brown is the transition from government to opposition.

Drug use revelationms (2007)

This issue is threatening to become an edit war. My own view is that the incident at Eton - the claims about later use at Oxford seems less well sourced at present - should be in its chronological position as it appears to have been a significant incident at the school during Cameron's time there. Actually, in the circumstances, David Cameron's earlier non-denial/non-admission do not show him in a bad light at all, though this is almost certainly a minority opinion.

The drug issue is something which has already come up on numerous occasions; frankly the article is going to read better thorough passing references back to the details in the "early life" section than if it is dropped into the article in the context of the 2007 revelations. Someone outside the UK, coming to the article, via the web, in six months time and unaware of this rather parochial incident, would wonder why it had not featured in the earlier in the article's chronology. Philip Cross 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included.

Yes, chronological order would be most sensible. DWaterson 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Howabout the fact that he supported the illegal, murderous invasion of Iraq? The fact he is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands is a far bigger moral dilemma than whether or not he smoked some drug once or twice a few decades ago...

Um, the article already states that he voted in favour of the Iraq war... DWaterson 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it when i first saw it here but right now it clearly should be included. Well done David, he'll be getting my vote for sure, SqueakBox 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that claiming Iraq is more important than drugs is POV and thus not rerlevant to the article. Iraq has nothing to do with this cannabis issue, SqueakBox 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eton College

Is there really any need to say that Eton is "an English public school"? I would have thought it was well known globally. Benbristol, 10:49, 2nd March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly, though I'd imagine many British (let alone non-British) people couldn't even point to Eton on a map, let alone know there's a famous school there. It doesn't really do any harm leaving it in, and it helps to globalise the article IMO. DWaterson 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

David Cameron's spin speech attacking Gordon Brown 2007

has anyone seen this speech on the news? i want to know if it has already been added to the artical. David Cameron main speech was this "you are not the answer to spin, you are the spin." he was saying this to Gordon Brown--Lerdthenerd 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can it be viewed?

it was on the news a couple of weeks ago, on bbc one news.--Lerdthenerd 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of his speech to the Spring Forum on 18 March? If so, look here for the text. Sam Blacketer 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you sam, yeah that was the speach i was looking for, can i add it to the main article?--Lerdthenerd 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Toff at the top

At first I included a direct link to the recent docu "Toff at the top". I changed it to merely "comment/news" without the direct link to Google Video, in the foot-notes. I think regardless where you stand politically, it was a high-profile primetime TV event which led to large debate both after and before it was broadcast in a wide spectrum of media. Considering the other entries to the external links etc, there is no reason why this should not be included. Whataboutbob 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the site linked to is a copyright violation. If it is available at "4 On Demand" from Channel 4, then link to that, but otherwise links to Youtube and Google video are deprecated. Of course if you want to describe the general thesis of the programme within the text, that would be welcomed so long as it is written in such a way as not to endorse it. Sam Blacketer 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim Rathbone

There is a small edit dispute (not many dead) over whether to include in the lead section a reference to the fact that David Cameron worked for Tim Rathbone, Conservative MP for Lewes, in 1985 before going up to Oxford. I've left a mention in for now but would welcome the views of other editors on it. Note this is only an issue about whether it should go in the lead, and not about whether it should be within the article.

Arguments supporting inclusion

I see essentially three:

• This was Cameron's first employment in politics and shows that, even at the age of 18, he was interested in it as a career.
• Rathbone was Cameron's godfather and a relation; this shows that Cameron had family connections to the Conservative establishment (even if Rathbone was somewhat estranged from it).
• Cameron worked on researching treatment for drug addiction, which seems to have informed his later stance once he became an MP himself.

Arguments opposing inclusion

Again there are three.

• The job lasted only three months. It may not have been paid.
• Tim Rathbone was unlikely to have been a political influence on Cameron because Cameron's stances were entirely at odds with Rathbone - a wet who opposed GLC abolition and supported European federalism. Rathbone was eventually expelled from the Conservative Party.
• I have looked for, but cannot find, anything by Cameron which sets out how he views his time with Tim Rathbone.

Do other editors feel it appropriate to include the mention? Sam Blacketer 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

It belongs in the article as part of the description of his early career, but doesn't belong in the lead section unless something happened there that was especially notable. See WP:Lead section. For comparison, John Roberts's one-year clerkship with William Rehnquist isn't in the lead section of his article, though that sounds considerably more notable than this three-month job. -- THF 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with THF. Not in the lead section, but elsewhere. DWaterson 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"probably the best college"

Why do we need this included in the article? Is there some Oxford old-boy out there, vehemently adding this in once it is removed? It's not relevant, it's elitist. The article mentions he went to Oxford, that's all that is necessary. If someone wants to view how prestigious Oxford is, they can go to the relevant Wiki article. 89.213.49.47 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure you really understand the edit you have just made. The text you removed does not comment on David Cameron's Oxford education, but on his schooling at Eton College. Eton College is the most prestigious public school in England, and it is relevant to mention this perception because it is often highlighted by people wishing to draw attention to David Cameron's social background. Sam Blacketer 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the error. However, I think it was obvious I meant Eton. I still think this is pretty elitist and baseless for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. We now have the issue of ascertaining a SOURCE for being 'probably the best college in England'. Good luck with that one. In the mean time, I've removed that sentence once again. 89.213.49.9 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "the best", the "most prestigious". And outside the Headmaster of Harrow, I doubt there will be many who disagree. Eton is the archetype of the prestigious public school. Sam Blacketer 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources referring to Eton as 'most prestigious'

• Pilotguides.com: "Eton is the most prestigious school in the country for boys aged thirteen to eighteen ..."
• Hutchison's Encyclopaedia: "Most prestigious of English public schools (that is, private schools) for boys ... "
• The Independent (British daily newspaper): "Eton has turned out distinguished law-makers, record-breaking sportsmen and prime ministers for centuries, as well as grooming future kings. But Britain's most prestigious public school ..."
• 21st Century Learning Initiative: "places which history now refers to as Public Schools. .. Eton was the most prestigious of these schools, ..."

There are undoubtedly stacks more. Sam Blacketer 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the latest edit substitutes "a prestigious" for "the most prestigious". I'm happy with that; the fundamental aspect is that Eton is not your bog-standard independent school but a cut above. Sam Blacketer 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like Cameron himself. A man of the people? Without doubt. 89.213.13.202 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

For quite a long time, the opening paragraph of this article was simply:

David William Donald Cameron (born 9 October, 1966) is a British politician, Leader of the Conservative Party, and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. He has been Member of Parliament for the Oxfordshire constituency of Witney since 2001.

It seems to have grown quite considerably in the last month or so, and, IMO, it's now become rather too long and contains too much detail that would be better moved to other places in the article. It has also become somewhat hagiographic. Any suggestions on a rewrite? Personally, I would trim it back severely to something similar to the previous version. DWaterson 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's largely down to me that it's grown. Partly I was reading Wikipedia:Lead section which gives a guidance length of "three or four paragraphs" for an article as long as this one now is. However I think it is too long and if you look above there was a debate over some of the matter included in the lead. I think there isn't a need for details of people like Vernon Bogdanor who would not be recognised by many people. If you look at other political figures, many of them have much longer and more rambling lead sections. Sam Blacketer 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)