The papers on Cameron.

After yesterday's exposure of David Cameron's youthful shenanigans,the opinion writers are generally kind towards the Tory Leader.

I particually like the piece in the Times by William Rees Mogg who begins his piece by saying

There might, I think, be something wrong with any teenager who went through his sixteenth year without committing some forbidden or foolish act. I remember at that age, when I was at Charterhouse, sitting in the stalls of the Farmcombe Cinema, smoking a large but cheap cigar, watching Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. I was committing two school offences; I was smoking and I was out of bounds. My motivation was to demonstrate to myself that I was not the scholarly wimp I half suspected myself of being. I needed to find a rule to break, if only to demonstrate my independence.

Rees Mogg argues that Cameron has more serious problems to contend with and that is the opinion polls which accordin to the writer show that whilst good they are well short of breaking through the 40% barrier hich will change the makeup of Parliament after the next election.

According to Bruce Anderson in the Independent,it is not the public that he has to fear but the traditionalists in the party.

Even so, the whole business will add to one of Mr Cameron's image problems. He set out to change the Tory party. He took it into unfamiliar areas, in order to persuade sceptical voters that the impression which they had formed of the Tory party, and which had led them to vote against it, was misleading. But that, too, was not a cost-free exercise. In the process, some hard-line Tory supporters felt that the party which they had loved and voted for was changing into something unrecognisable.

Sam Leith in the Telegraph says

It's no big deal if Cameron smoked dope

we'll owe his future position to the leniency of a voting public who could not give a hoot if politicians used to smoke dope – and who, indeed, show every sign of being comfortable with the possibility that he might have snorted coke.
This is a good thing, and it is astonishing how fast it has happened. Drugs have lost their toxicity as a political issue, and my guess is that the change has happened in little over a decade – the result, more than anything, of a great demographic wave.

The Mail though takes a different view, reminding us that

Five years ago, he was one of the committee of MPs calling for a dramatic relaxation of Britain's drug laws.
They wanted to downgrade lethal Ecstasy and set up 'shooting galleries' where addicts could use illegally purchased heroin, without fear of arrest. And they backed Labour's crass plan to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug.
'I hope our report will encourage fresh thinking,' said Mr Cameron then. But it is now widely accepted that the softening of the cannabis law was a disaster

And concluding

Mr Cameron may have some interesting ideas on a harm reduction strategy, which would steer addicts towards medical treatment. But why doesn't he stress the need for tough legal sanctions too?
The tragedy is that so many junkies are destroying their lives and blighting whole communities through crime. We badly need unambiguous leadership on drugs. Is that what David Cameron is providing?

The Mirror says

REAL ISSUE IS HONESTY arguing that his evasion of drug questions in a weakness

IN politics trust is hard to win and easy to lose.
David Cameron's dodging of legitimate questions over drugs leave him looking distinctly evasive.
The Tory leader has a duty to explain what substances he took, and when, if he desires the public to have faith in him.
Should he decide to be open, many voters might give a "so what?" shrug of the shoulders and forget it.
Stay silent and they will suspect Cameron has something to hide, a guiltier secret than a teenage puff on cannabis.