The Tory vote-losing technique.

For thirteen years, anyone saying anything the government doesn't like has been shouted down. Try uttering the word 'immigration' and you'd be called a racist before you get to the third syllable. Try complaining about the controls and snooping and a sly voice will ask what you're hiding. What are you afraid of, why would anyone object to the cameras and inspections if they have nothing dodgy going on?

Labour have created this and it's made us paranoid. Now we look at attempts to silence someone and wonder why it's happening - because we've all experienced the same thing. Why do they want to shut up the BNP? The people watching are thinking 'They call the BNP racist, but they call me racist every day just for mentioning that there are too many people in my town, so is it true or is it just more shouting-down?' It's hard for people to tell because every slight dissent is clamped down so hard that now, it seems that the dissenting voice must be right.

Turns out it was true about the 'racist' chant all along. Crazy levels of immigration was deliberate after all, as was the deployment of the 'racist-Nazi-bigot' mantra. So now we have to wonder whether the other shouted-down people were right all along. Climate change atheists? Were they right? It's starting to look very much like it. The government have taken great pains to hide some things. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear has been their favourite line. But it turns out they have much to hide and in the simple logic of the common man, they must therefore have much to fear.

This has fostered a mindset that now looks at the one shouted down and defaults to 'they are right'.

Why does this matter to the Tories? It's a Labour game. The Tories won't silence dissenting voices with threats and intimidation. Will they?

In a recent Tory candidate selection process, none of the candidates were white heterosexual men. The shortlist was imposed from Central Office. One of those on the list was Iain Dale, whose political qualifications for the job are indisputable. He has the experience to be an MP and he'd be good at it. His sexual preferences are irrelevant to the job - or should be. As should the gender, skin colour or any other non-relevant aspects concerning the other candidates.

It is perfectly possible that all those candidates were selected because they were the best of the initial group. It is perfectly possible that no heterosexual white male made it onto the shortlist because none of those who applied were as good as the ones selected. Perception, however, is a powerful thing and especially so in the absence of explanation.

One of the councillors complained that all the candidates were primarily there as box-tickers.

Beverley Connolly, a Tory councillor in Tandridge, Surrey, said: "I'm sure they are all eminently able candidates, but some of these people have been parachuted in from out of the area. We have a black candidate, a gay candidate.

"I'm not remotely homophobic. It's not a reflection on their abilities or personalities but you have to ask if people are there just to tick boxes. It's not about what's best for the party in East Surrey, it's about what the party wants."

That's her perception, based on the list of candidates presented by Central Office. Is it an unreasonable perception, given that the entire country has been subjected to staffing quotas for the last thirteen years? Isn't it very likely to be the perception of much of that constituency? Is it likely, or unlikely, that Tory voters are looking at this and thinking exactly the same as Councillor Connolly?

So how will the Tory top layer react? The sensible reaction would be to lay open the selection process and show that all candidates were selected on merit, and that the composition of that list was based on no other consideration than their ability to do the job. If that were the case, then show the constituents the proof and the whole problem goes away at once.

However -

The Conservative leader was under pressure to take action against a Tory councillor in Surrey for making derogatory comments about his preferred "A-List" candidates.

Shout her down. Call her racist, sexist, homophobe. Do the same thing every time there are no white straight men on the list and a dissenting voice is raised. Offer no justification or explanation, just shout her down.

We're quite accustomed to that by now and don't you worry, Mr. Cameron, we are no longer taken in by the Labour shout-them-down game. We know how that game is played. We know what the shouting-down means.

And your voters will vote accordingly. Most likely for UKIP.

Perception, Mr. Cameron, is far more powerful than you realise. You can dispel it with reasoned and non-weaselly explanation or you can reinforce it with another roar of 'Shut up!'

Your choice.