CentreRight

Taxes may have to rise £2,000 more than Labour admit

Following on from Andrew Lilico's excellent post below, I can't help feeling that he PBR is almost certainly too optimistic on how much public spending will have to rise during the recession.  In the last two downturns, public spending rose 5% of GDP (see the chart below).  Yet the Government seems to think it will only have to rise 2% this time.  This seems unlikely as the expectation is that this downturn will be every bit as bad as the 1980s and 1990s. The gap is some 3% of GDP.

Borrowing is so high, that there will almost certainly be no choice but to raise taxes. At 3% of GDP, this hidden extra tax bombshell can be expected to cost each household a further £2,000 a year for some three years.  That's in addition to all the extra tax that will be required to pay down Labour's borrowing splurge.

And guess what?  The stinker budget to do it will probably have to be delivered right after the next General Election.  What a surprise!

Labour's £20,500 debt bombshell

An early look at the PBR figures indicates that the extra borrowing over the six years from 2008-09 will amount to some £20,500 for every household in the country.  That's some debt bombshell!  And worse, it'll all have to be repaid.  So sooner or later, taxes will have to rise to pay it all back - that's the reality of Labour's scorched earth strategy.

The graph below sets out my initial costings for the extra borrowing for each year per household.  The financially squeamish should look away now . . . It's not pretty.

 

Proper Procedures?!?

Today we learn that a whistleblower warned Haringey Council's Social Services Department were failing miserably to protect children. They were told child abuse was not being tackled and:

"sexual abuse had been ongoing for months and the new management brought in post-Climbie had not acted"

No less than four, yes four, Government Ministers were warned. Yet they did not act. Haringey Council was warned. Yet they did not act. Haringey preferred to shoot the messenger - suspending the whistleblower and serving her with a gagging order to cover it all up.

What do they have to say for themselves? Proper procedures were followed. What kind of an excuse is that? Funny, isn't it, that once raised by David Cameron in Parliament Ministers are pretty quick to send in the inspectors, after spending 15 months doing nothing. Funny, isn't it, that Haringey only say sorry when under massive pressure from the public outcry, yet no-one gets the bullet for it.

For all us parents, the worst nightmare is the life of a child snuffed out ahead of time. There is no greater disgust than that reserved for a public authority that thinks box ticking, proper procedures and cover ups are more important than the lives of our children. The problem with Government - especially this Government - is that box ticking is too often considered more important than compassion, decency, responsibility and the right to life.

Voltaire once wrote of Britain:

"In this country it is a good thing to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

We might not be quite so stern in our view of responsibility these days, yet heads should roll in Haringey and in the Government. This is not a case of moral panic. We just have to ram home the message that responsibility, decency and compassion are timeless concepts far, far more important than the proper procedures of the box tickers.

Child poverty is rising

Child poverty is rising. Real action is needed to help our poorest kids. It's not just because we care and it's the right thing to do. It is also key to social mobility, enabling anyone to be anything - even to reach out and touch the stars. Andrew Lilico's post yesterday contains important ideas on how to reduce child poverty and is a must read.

Yesterday, the OECD published a report that I described as garbage.  It claimed the rich / poor divide has been shrinking since 2000 which is blatantly untrue.  It also claimed the Government has had great success in fighting child poverty.  This is also garbage as the chart below shows. 3.9m children are in poverty after housing costs (AHC) on the Government's measure and the trend is now upwards.  Child poverty has hardly fallen since 2000.

OECD report on "falling" rich poor gap is garbage

The OECD have published a report claiming that the gap between the rich and the poor is falling.  This report is garbage. Official Government figures show that the ratio of the top and bottom median fifths is in fact unchanged - and indeed higher than in 2000 after housing costs.  Middle earners have only seen a small increase in income. More to the point, the general growth in household weekly income since 2000 has been shockingly bad. No wonder everyone was feeling the pinch even before Gordon Brown plunged us all into recession!

The charts below speak for themselves . . .

 

Labour's economic mismanagement costs us all dear V - inequality and division

In the last decade, the division between the haves and have nots that New Labour promised to cure has not reduced. Official figures show that the gap between the rich and the poor was as great in 2006-07 as it was in 1996-97.

The richest fifth of the population still earns over 5 times as much as the poorest fifth. Official figures from the ONS show that some 5 million households have earnings of just £94 a week, while the richest fifth of households earn an average of £578 a week.

To add insult to injury, the least well off fifth of households pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than any other group. ONS research tells us that the least well off fifth pay an effective tax rate of 38.6%. The richest fifth have an effective tax rate of 34.8%.

Labour’s economic mismanagement cost us all dear IV - personal debt

The amount of personal debt is now equal to our entire GDP. That’s some £56,000 per household. At the end of 2007, total personal debt (mortgages, loans, cards etc.) stood at some £1,408 Bn. I would be interested to hear the views of Centre Right readers on this state of affairs - and what we might do about it.

Ten years ago, personal debt was only 60% of GDP. To put that in perspective, if personal debt had stayed at 60% of GDP, it would have been a much more affordable £34,000 per household. That level of debt would mean that fewer people would go broke or lose their homes in the event of a downturn.

This little series has so far looked at how Gordon Brown has plunged the public finances into chaos. So we are really badly prepared for a downturn as a nation. Yet this pales in comparison with his failure to regulate the banks or keep personal debt to responsible levels. Our personal finances are as broken as the public finances. As individuals, we are really badly prepared for a downturn. These figures are just horrendous. The graphs below tell their own story - Labour have done it again and we are all going to pay the price . . .

I am indebted to Andrew Lilico for his help in compiling these numbers.

 

> Previous entries in this 'Labour's economic mismanagement' series: (I) Debt, (II) Taxes and (III) The Fiscal Price.

Labour’s economic mismanagement cost us all dear III – the Price

My calculations indicate that the price for Labour’s mess may be a £3,000 increase in the aggregate tax burden per household each year in the event of a downturn. I would be interested to know whether Centre Right readers agree with my conclusions and how great increases in tax might be avoided.

The chart below shows that public spending under this Labour Government is around 38% of GDP. Looking at past downturns, we can guess how much public spending will have to go up if a downturn follows the current financial crisis. Generally, we can see it is around 5% of GDP. So with public spending now at around 38% of GDP, we may expect public spending to rise to around 43% of GDP. The last time that happened was when Margaret Thatcher had to stabilise the country after being elected in 1979. It all looks ominously like a case of Groundhog Day 1970s style.

Labour’s economic mismanagement costs us all dear II - Taxes

In my last post, I looked at Gordon Brown’s terrible legacy of debt. While the financial crisis is indeed global, it is clear that we are spectacularly badly positioned to weather the storm, as Gordon Brown has borrowed too much. The position with taxes is just as bad. Today the tax burden is 38% after tax credits are treated as the benefit payments they really are. Before the financial crisis struck, Labour’s plan was to increase this to around 39%. It may now have to go up rather more.

Why would taxes need to go up? In a downturn, the ideal is to cut taxes in order to stimulate growth. The 1990s downturn is a classic example. Taxes were cut quite dramatically as can been seen from the chart below. Yet in the early 1980s, taxes went up, not down. A key reason in both cases was the state of the public finances. In the 1990s downturn, the public finances were a lot stronger and hence there was something in the cupboard for bad times. In the early 1980s, the public finances were in disarray and the cupboard was bare.

Any downturn this time would see a backdrop similar to the early 1980s. With the public finances in a terrible state thanks to Gordon Brown’s economic mismanagement, the scope for stimulation by tax cut looks limited. Indeed it looks like taxes might have to go up - perhaps over 40% of GDP, which would be very painful. You can see why David Cameron and George Osborne are warning that a Conservative Government may have to raise taxes, as Thatcher did, because . . . Labour have done it again.

One last point to note. The dog that is not yet barking is cutting public spending . . . there may be little choice. Today’s YouGov poll suggests that the public understand this issue and are stating a preference for cutting spending over tax rises. I'd be really interested to know what Centre Right readers think.

Labour’s economic mismanagement costs us all dear - Public Debt

A bipartisan approach in a crisis is laudable. Yet after the immediate crisis is past, there must be an accounting for how we got here and who’s responsible. So I thought it might be worth a few posts to look at the how and who.

Let’s start with public sector debt. After the Northern Rock mess, it climbed to 43% of GDP. After the bank rescue plan it will be around 50% of GDP. By comparison, in the 1990s recession, public debt peaked at 43%. In the early 1980s downturn it peaked at 46%. In fact, the last time the public finances were in quite such a desperate state was 1977-78 at 49%. So yes, "New" Labour have taken us back to the 1970s - the decade of shame we’d all hoped to forget.

And its worse still than it seems at first sight. We are near the beginning of a possible downturn, not at the end. Take the case of the 1990s downturn. Before the downturn, public debt bottomed at 26% in 1990-91. Before the current economic problems began last year, public debt was some 37%. It’s higher still if you include all the PFI and other accounting fiddles.

We are therefore starting from a bad position. It would not be altogether surprising if public sector debt rises to 55% or higher of GDP if things get worse. The last time it was that high, the IMF was called in. Pray God that we don’t have that sort of humiliation again. Such a debt mountain will clearly take many years to pay off, leaving aside the wider economic risks. It would also be the worst ever inherited by an incoming Government after the election. That will be Gordon Brown’s legacy to us all. Labour have done it again.

Palin and the Tory class of 2010

In a monochrome World, a politician with colour is a fine thing to behold.  So it's hard not to be bowled over by Governor Palin. A woman of principle who fights corruption, has passionate beliefs, is admired by those she serves and a political lioness to boot.  It's not hard to see why the Republican base is completely besotted by her and why so many have an unshakable belief in what she could achieve.

So what about the home team?  We have more female Parliamentary candidates in winnable seats than ever before.  What will their impact be?  Having met many, I am convinced it will be more dramatic than anyone currently appreciates.  These are not Blair babes, nor can they be described as the embittered hags of yesteryear whose company it is hard to tolerate for more than 30 minutes.

My experience is that these are people with serious ideas who already make serious contributions and have a passion to change the country.  And they are thought leaders in diverse fields that include social justice, financial services, European matters, education, regeneration, healthcare as well as family policy and social rejuvenation.  I expect a number will turn out to be lionesses with an energy equal to Palin. The difference is that there are quite a lot of them and I wonder if their collective impact on our national life could come as something of a shock.

For this reason, I was uncomfortable about many of the comments on Torydiary the other day. It seemed at times to lean to the more basic and old fashioned concepts of what women have to offer - and to my mind missed the point of their true "Palin potential".  So, get ready, the Tory class of 2010 could be very interesting indeed...

The only thing we have to fear is the Chancellor

Alastair Darling should be fired without delay. One of the golden maxims of public life is that you never, ever talk down the economy.  If there is one cardinal sin of public life that is it.  If you do it in Opposition you get roundly attacked and usually it is fatal - remember the "downturn made in Downing street"? To do it in Government is utterly unforgivable.

Why is this? Because the economic success of a nation is all about confidence.  If people are scared, they will not take any risks with their money.  They will stop buying things.  They will not take the risk of establishing or expanding a business.  They will not buy a house. A downturn then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. For these reasons, the provision and maintenance of the confidence to a people and a country is one of the ultimate tests of leadership and fitness for office.  To fail to provide it is to be in office and not in power.  Darling has failed that test.  So he must go.  It is as simple as that.

This brings me to what I so admire about our nation.  Faced with a Government that just can't hack it and has succumbed to fear, the response of the country has been to blow a collective raspberry.  My sense is that it's almost as though people are collectively saying "No, we are better than that.  We will not give into the fear of the Chancellor. We will carry on and though times are indeed tough, we will get through it and we know we will come out the other side."

That sense reminds me of what I think is one of the best of most important political speeches ever given - the first inaugural address of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Faced with a real economic collapse, the new President soothed the fears of a nation and provided hope and confidence for the future.

"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Words like these are the words that should have come from the Chancellor's mouth. It's a funny old World when the country seems to believe in itself more than the Government.

Three cheers for the Competition Commission

The news today that the Competition Commission wants to see BAA forced to sell three airports is fantastic.  Best of all is the suggestion that (I assume) Stansted and Gatwick must be sold. BAA is a lazy, slug like beast, oozing with primordial incompetence (in my opinion).  For them improvements are always tomorrow and tomorrow.  We need not have a problem with that except that they have damaged our country's reputation by making such a hash of Heathrow and often mess up our holiday and business travel plans.

Three cheers also for Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers MP who helped make the weather by calling for the effective break up of BAA.  She stands vindicated today - making a ballsy case with great success. Now the third runway must be stopped and, I hope, a closer look taken at extra capacity in places like East Kent's Manston airport.

Policy Exchange and what to do about the North

Many will be horrified about PX's report on the Northern cities.  I certainly am - the top line strikes me as defeatist and depressing.  Yet I think they may have done the country a favour in (re)sparking a debate about the North South divide.  This divide is frankly one of the worst features of our country.  I've often heard it said that the North has the quality of life, the South the quantity of life.  In other words, the South has great wealth, but less time, community and increasingly less beauty as it subsides gently in a sea of concrete and congestion.  The North has less material wealth, yet there seems a greater sense of community, more time for people and some of the most heartbreakingly beautiful countryside our nation has to offer.

Somehow it seems that every new home in the South pulls the rug further from under the North and makes the South a worse place to live. The PX report seems to say we should accept this is the way it's going to be.  I am sure to be attacked as naive, yet I've long wondered - how can we rebalance to unite the country so that all have the best of both worlds? Can we build a truly united nation?  This is not about tarting up places with regeneration.  This is about a great national effort to strengthen the Northern (private sector) economy - a whole skills revolution, the establishment of a renewed labour pool in the North, incentivisation for new businesses to establish in the North rather than the South. Just reading this, you can see how hard it would be to do. To nail my own colours to the mast, I feel deeply that a house divided against itself cannot stand, that we should rise to the challenge, that we should not and cannot accept the ways things are going, that we must act.

So my question - do we undertake a great national effort (at which we may fail) or do we give in and accept the trend as Policy Exchange appear to suggest?

Georgia / Russia - whose at fault is it anyway?

Are the Russians to blame for the Georgian war?  There is a lot of predictable comment that Georgia is a poor little country, rather like "Brave little Belgium" in times past that is the victim of the hungry bear.  I don't like wars - the price always seems so high, so much tragedy for so little.  Yet foreign relations and national interest is fascinating.  So I thought I might set out a few (probably very controversial) points for further consideration.

First, is Russia wrong to want to protect its back yard?  The US goes mad when the Russians mess around in Cuba and Central America.  We would if others messed about in Ireland or Scotland - even brave little Cornwall, so much discussed in my last thread!  So is it a surprise for the Russians to feel the US and EU pressing in on a number of fronts? I can't help feeling it's all quite predictable, even understandable.

Second, is the Georgian government basically too stupid to deserve to run a country?  I struggle to get over the catastrophic incompetence of the Georgians kicking off a hot war and handing the Russians excuses for action under international law.  There is no way they can objectively win, so why did they do it?  Usually, you get a big ally tied up and then start something like this.  Yet the priority of the US and EU is to stop Iran and stabilise the Iraq adventure.  Both require Russian help.  It's hard to see who will help Georgia.

Overall I fault the Georgians for a foreign policy from the madhouse.  Am I wrong?

Kosovo - be careful what you wish for

Remember that smugness across European capitals, as Kosovo was wrenched from Serbia?  I remember thinking at the time, that whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the wind had probably been sown and it would all end in tears.  So now looks to be the case. While we are all meant to be choking on Chinese pollution, we are distracted by the whirlwind being reaped in Georgia. 

People said it would happen and now it looks like it has.  What's my point?  Ethical foreign policy is for dummies. In matters of nationhood and self determination, the world should be slow to pick apart existing nations without carefully thinking through the likely outcomes.  A hot war in Georgia was always seen as a likely outcome and now its started.  Is the self determination of Kosovo worth the blood price that may now be paid? I for one am not convinced and worry that this is just the sort of bog up we can expect to see more of with the EU dabbling in foreign policy.

Brown: No mandate, no right to rule & a crystal ball

Last night caps a dreadful time for Gordon Brown.  It was a complete and utter disaster.  Polling indicates Brown is one of the lowest regarded Prime Ministers of recent times.  There seems no ray of sunshine on the horizon for him.  So what do Centre Right readers think will happen next?  Will Brown stagger on to 2010 or might Labour be better off going to the country next year? People said losing Glasgow East would be the end of Brown - do you see this or predict he will hang on to the bitter end?

I can't help feeling the whole tale has an air of tragedy.  An inheritance long awaited that turns to dust. The carousel of politics turns and turns again - there, by the grace of God, go we all.  How long will it be before people start making comparisons with Bonar Law, the "forgotten Prime Minister"?

QUANGO packing

Another day, another partisan appointment.  This time it's Sir Bill Callaghan who is appointed chair(man) of the Legal Services Commission.  A denizen of quanorama city, Callaghan was previously chair(man) of the Health & Safety Commission, which he joined after a long career with our old friends at the TUC.  Callaghan replaces Sir Michael Bichard, a career civil servant who led the inquiry into the Soham murders.

The Government press release tells us the appointment was made on the basis of merit.  Hmmm. For them, the key merit is likely to be someone who will not give the Government a hard time over the disaster that is legal aid, be suitably servile and a complete nightmare following a change of Government (vide the London Assembly following Boris' victory). Callaghan is just one of a long string of not terribly independent people inhabiting quangoland. 

Our implementation team will need to be competent, effective and high grade to deal with this challenge.  What do Centre Right readers think about all this quango packing and the aims and approach of a Conservative Government in tackling it?

An alternative to more Heathrow misery?

Matthew Sinclair questions the campaign against a third runway at Heathrow.  He says, rightly, that the proper question is whether there is a feasible alternative.  This is a vital issue not only to quality of life in London and Westwards (the flights literally disturb the Queen's peace), but to the future strength of the economy. The idea of the £13 Bn airport in the Thames estuary seems a bit dotty to many - and it would be such a big project there are concerns it will end up with cost over-runs and generally be a mess.

So let's have a debate.  Here's an idea I've been mulling. We move some of the excess business flight capacity from Heathrow to Gatwick.  We then move an equal amount of the holiday charter flights Gatwick does to Manston in East Kent.  "Manston?" I hear people say, going puce and choking on their cornflakes, "what a loony idea!" Maybe not.  With the fast link out of St Pancras to Ashford and re-signalling from Ashford to Manston it could be possible to get there in 45 minutes at a cost of around £500m. Manston has a runway long enough to take the concord. It's underused and, done sensitively, could be a welcome boost to the East Kent economy.

There.  I've stuck my neck out.  What do Centre Right readers think and what other alternatives might be possible and practical without breaking the bank?

Labour's cash for laws scandal

Trades unions will give Labour the cash it desparately needs - but only if they pass the laws the unions want.  So reports today's Times.  What laws could this cash buy?  The unions' shopping list includes:  secondary strikes, scrapping the requirment for postal strike ballots, mandatory equal pay audits, job protection following private equity takeovers and big hikes in National Insurance for higher earners (the policy that killed Labour's hopes in 1992).

In recent months, there have been allegations concerning MPs and MEPs trousering public money they are not entitled to.  While revolting, those allegations are minor compared with the sale of peerages and knighthoods for hundreds of thousands of pounds.  And in turn the sale of honours is minor compared with the purchase of ministerial decisions and the very law of the land.  There is now a public mood for a deep clean of the darker corners in our political system.  David Cameron has an incredible opportunity to really clean up British politics.  I hope he takes it. 

Tsvangirai pulls out - good for him

Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC's decision today to pull out of the presidential election is incredibly sensible.  The election was clearly going to be rigged to high heaven and he could not possibly have won.  All he could have done was allow the evil, bloodsoaked Mugabe to claim an illegitimate victory - sufficient to be accepted by the rest of Africa.  This way, Mugabe will have no recognisable mandate.  This is a first - previously Mugabe has always been able to claim some form of legitimacy or snuggle up to his opponents in order to strangle them (like Nkomo).

Yet where now?  It's clear that South Africa is still supine under the failing leadership of Mbeki.  They suggest a powersharing.  After Nkomo's fate, that is obviously a joke.  In the next year it is likely South Africa will get stronger leadership (on this issue at least) from Zuma, assuming Mbeki does not manage to put Zuma away later this Summer.  Mugabe will certainly be weakened in Africa and be an embarrassment to them all.  Yet he will probably remain in power until South Africa has a leader able to lead.

Imagine how you would feel if it happened here

It's Spring 2010, the eve of Britain's general election.  Gordon Brown, a socialist tyrant, was expected to lose power. Except there's a problem. David Cameron is living in Paris with his family. Boris Johnson's family has just been kidnapped. Caroline Spelman is on trial over her expenses - except the charge is treason and she's expected to be found guilty under laws originally passed to combat terrorism. A week ago every house in Weybridge's St George's Hill was burned down by hoards of angry former miners who have somehow got hold of weapons. Commentators said most seemed a bit young ever to have worked down the pits. In Germany, hundreds of British exiles were killed in last month's Hamburg riots. Yet Angela Merkel still defends her efforts to engage Brown on a softly softly basis, while France is starting to demand firmer action against the tyrant. Daily violence continues to be reported against Conservative Party activists, many of whom have been beaten to death.  Today a Chinese arms ship docked at Tilbury... No one now expects Brown to lose.

It couldn't happen here, could it? Publishers would laugh at the manuscript and chuck it in the bin. The whole idea is so obviously ludicrous. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in Zimbabwe. Every day. The equivalent of all the events above has been happening in Zimbabwe. The World stands by and expresses concern. The greatest penalty seems to be two tuts and a sigh. It's not acceptable. Most at fault are the African states that indulge the tyrant - particularly South Africa. Other countries are invaded or peacekeepers are sent in by the UN. Why not here? Why is South Africa allowed to get away with pandering to the evil that struts openly next door? It may not be our country, but it is the responsibility of us all. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

Children in grinding poverty hit hardest

The Government's child poverty targets describe a wide group of children as "in poverty".  The result is that the richest of the poor are the focus, while children in deepest poverty get left behind.  In the first Labour term, progress was made.  Yet today's DwP poverty report shows that in the last five years, the war against child poverty is increasinly being lost.  On the Government's "60% median" measure, after housing costs, child poverty has gone from 4m in 2001/02 to 3.9m in 2006/07.  On a measure focussed more strongly on the deeply poor (the "50% median") it was 2.6m in 2001/02, fell to 2.3m in 2004/05, yet is now back up to 2.6m. I suspect that the severe poverty measure of the "40% median", could make even more grim reading.

These figures are, of course, before the surge in prices over the last year, the 10p rate abolition and all the other things the Government has done to harm the most disadvantaged in society.  So things could get even worse.  For any Government these figures would be bad - for a Government that came to power promising to halve child poverty these figures are shocking. 

Poor Respect

This week I've been helping two residents in Dover & Deal, the constituency where I'm the Conservative Parliamentary candidate.  One has suffered the tax credit system for five years.  They've messed up her finances with overpayments and reclaims so much, they've made her go bankrupt. Earlier this week she told me she had £5 till the end of the week and didn't know how she'd feed her two young children.  The file is horrific.  The other is owed thousands and thousands in maintenance from her former husband and is meant to be paid ongoing as well.  Can she collect a bean?  No. As the CSA is involved, only they can collect it and they are in such chaos they've spent the last year passing the file back and forth. She is wondering how she will feed her daughter. It makes my blood boil to see people treated in such a way.

The saying goes that the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small.  The more so under Labour.  Their mill wheels are grinding the poorest into the dust.  For me it underlines how bad Government is at managing complex payment systems and the need for simplicity.  For the least well off more so than for anyone else, certainty, simplicity, ease of understanding and actually getting hold of money that is due to be paid over is essential.  There is no capital base or rainy day fund to fall back on for people who live hand to mouth.  A big task for the Conservatives will be a style of Government where you know where you stand and you can understand.  I for one hope that will include a deep cleansing of the tax credit system and a reform of the CSA wider than the one shortly to come into force. The poorest in our communities deserve nothing less and should be treated with compassion and respect.

Good literature + clear message = big victory

The level of the swing in Crewe & Nantwich was much larger than expected.  Why was it that the Conservative team got a bandwagon rolling in a way more usually associated with the Lib Dems?

What struck me was that this is the first time we have used really clear easy to read literature and put across a really simple message.  It's worth looking at http://www.geocities.com/by_elections/ to get an idea of what we used to do and what we do now.  After the mess in the Bromley by election, real improvements started to be made in Ealing - but it wasn't quite there as can be seen looking at all the literature. In Crewe everything was spot on and it was the perfect campaign.  Eric Pickles and the whole Conservative team co-ordinating the by election campaign deserve the strongest congratulations for their brilliant achievement.