« LibDem candidate flies to Cameron's "positive, constructive and optimistic" nest | Main | Low key affair in the Commons »

Comments

Oh dear - the siren voice of temptation. The shaking hand reaches once more for the bottle of right-wing populism...

Isn't talking about Stability (largely because the public is still scared since Black Wednesday) and pledging to put tax cuts on a low priority, in a tax burdened economy, just a little populist?

What about climate change, an issue with huge public support, isn't that populist? or recruiting people like Bob Geldof to sound off about world poverty?

There's a few of those 5 which I don't agree with (and thus agree with Cameron's stance) but I don't think we should Ignore the lessons learned abroad by other leaders. Tax cuts are a core conservative value and while taxes are so high it seems a perfect time to start to sell them to the british public again.

The furore over wire-tapping in the States is because it is ILLEGAL.

Blair is putting together a police state by stealth based upon insecurity and fear.

I would rather face the danger of a bomb than be snooped upon.

While its true some prudent conservative policies in other countries probably wouldn't be as effective in the UK, this graphic is nevertheless a welcome post for showing just how out of step Cameron is with other conservatives.

Cameron refused to cut taxes, and supports "Kyoto environmentalism" which is an oxymoron, since Kyoto does nothing but hamper the growth of the economies of countries that bother keeping to their targets. And I can't even remember him talking about foreign policy.

Cameron is not just out of step with 3 middle aged men heading different governments in far off countries, he is out of step with critical elements of conservative thinking itself.

I am not as familiar with Canadian politics as I should be but friends in Canada tell that Harpers victory is very much a case of the Liberal party losing it (because of corruption) than an idealogical surge towards Conservatism.Time will tell I suppose.
I am suprised that Harper's virulently anti Kyoto,I'd always thought the enviromentally concious Canadians would be more in favour of that than Bush's 'technology' based solutions which as we all know is just an excuse to do absolutely nothing.

Just to re-cap: The CanCons gained just 36% of the vote; they have nowhere near a majority and no credible coalition partner; they beat a demonstrably corrupt governing party by just six points; even if one takes out the separist Bloc Quebecois, the combined Anglophone centre-left (i.e. the Liberals and the New Democrats)still have more MPs; this is not a great victory; the Liberals have been left in strong enough a position to recover (Ignatieff for leader?); and the new Conservative administration has a limited life expectancy. I really hope that David Cameron will do better than this at the next election. And perhaps because he does support do-something-environmentalism and seeks to defend our civil liberties he will.

By the way, if John Howard opposes Kyoto environmentalism then why has Australia unilaterally adopted the carbon cutting target it would have had if was a signatory? Funny how this is never mentioned by the Kyoto-sceptics.

It's still a pretty good result Peter as the Conservative Party in Canada was at one stage down to two MPs!Like you,I hope Cameron can do better than this.
I think it will be some time before we are able to draw any conclusions as to whether David Cameron can learn anything from Harpers policy positions or not.
One benefit of Canadian politics in general 'though is that it has taken Michael Ignatieff off our TV screens.A bit like Neil Kinnock he would never use one word where a hundred or a thousand would do!

Points 4 & 5 are areas I definitely do not want to see Cameron emulate at all. And while I see the logic of point 3, I think Kyoto is a useful starting point for leading a general push for a more environmentally-aware Britain. Frankly, the only one of these I would like Cameron to be stronger on is tax cuts and I don't have any problem believing that a Conservative administration would lower taxes overall, if much less radically than other Tories might. Fair enough. At least, unlike Bush, I wouldn't have to hold my nose at the ballot box. Or, more likely, abstain from voting.

Whilst I understand the point the Editor is making, in one significant way he is being totally disingenuous. Bush is no tax cutter - but a proliferate public spender. He has spent more on education, welfare, defence, a huge amount on white elephants and pork barrel projects - with future generations having to pay the bill through the largest public borrowing program the US has ever seen. (Wait till US interest rates go up - then the US will truly see the economic path Bush has laid for them).

Whilst he has portrayed the actual image of a tax cutter, the burden on the US middle class has actually gone up since 2001 (see CBO report of Sep 04). Infact, the US "Tax Freedom Day" is rising once again.

Bush has a very poor idea of economics - hate to say it, but in this field Clinton was more supply side the him!

So if we are going to talk about what made Bush a winner, lets be smart and stick to the facts not the fiction.

... hate to say it, but in this field Clinton was more supply side the him!

Not by choice. Clinton faced a Republican congress that blocked his spending plans.

How many times do you people need to lose elections before you recognise that the voters aren't voting Labour and Liberal because they think we are insufficiently right wing?

I agree Gareth, but the fine balancing act is to modernise whilst still being true to core conservative values.

For me that includes small government, low taxes to stimulate the economy, effective action on law and order and opportunity to escape from poverty through your own efforts.

I would like to see more of positive, modern but conservative statements along the lines of "as a Conservative, low taxation is core aim to fund increased public expenditure through increased overall revenues" etc to show that the aim is to increase government take through growing the economy not squeezing ever more out of the existing band of taxpayers.

How many times do you people need to lose elections before you recognise that the voters aren't voting Labour and Liberal because they think we are insufficiently right wing?

Objection! The gentleman is leading the witness.

Actually, I don't think anyone suggested that people didn't vote for us because we were insufficiently right wing. If anything they didn't vote for us because we weren't good enough.

Becoming "good enough" doesn't mean nipping off to the left. It could mean demonstrating how your policies and values connect with the aspirations of the elctorate.

"I would like to see more of positive, modern but conservative statements along the lines of "as a Conservative, low taxation is core aim to fund increased public expenditure through increased overall revenues" etc to show that the aim is to increase government take through growing the economy not squeezing ever more out of the existing band of taxpayers."

That is big government Conservatism. Government spending is too high due to waste and bureaucracy and the creation of a police and warfare state.

The problem, Chad, is that a lot of "modernisers" don't believe any of these things. They have little or no affinity for the ethos of the centre-right. They want office, pure and simple. If the means to that end is to turn the Conservative Party into a proxy for New Labour, well a pol has to do what a pol has to do.....

By the way, Gareth, were you the losing Tory candidate to Kate Hoey earlier this year in Vauxhall?

The losing candidate in that constituency wasn't even called Gareth!?

He means 2001.

I simply asked a question. Thank you for "answering" it.

Michael:
I agree totally, and it is very frustrating.

I want a conservative government because I believe in its core values, not a Conservative Party victory no matter what the cost in terms of ditching values.

I am 100% convinced that a conservatism can be modern and relevant.

Selson Man:
"That is big government Conservatism"

Why? Don't confuse spending more as simply retaining the current inefficiency and adding to it.

You can be more efficient, and spend more.

For example, if Labour deliver a Ford Focus for 100k so are spending a lot but inefficiently, you can spend 105k and deliver a Bentley and thus be spending more, but also providing value for money.

Plus by increasing spending through increased investment in a lower tax environment, you can deliver the increaed spending by taking less from the individual.

Promising to deliver the same for less will just be thrown back as "cutting spending" and we do need to shed this particular image, imho. Surely we should aim to go even further, by increasing both efficiency and spending whilst taking less from taxpayers individually?

Chad, please give examples of efficient, higher spending governments. More spending leads to more waste, as this Blair government shows. Your thinking is a danger to prosperity.

Every government would love to deliver better value for money. It's one thing to say and another thing to achieve.

I think minor efficiency savings could be made by 'trusting people' (as Dave puts it) and giving Public services greater autonomy but not on the scale of Ford Focus -> Bentley.

At some point a government, a future government whether Conservative, Conservative-Liberal, or otherwise may need to be strong enough to make the case for freezes is public sector spending.

And Michael McGowan, sorry if my 'answer' caused upset, I was merely trying to be helpful.

Selsdon, you are right that government spending is too high due to waste and bureaucracy and the creation of a police and warfare state.

However, when we talk of reducing public spending, commentators will always put that in the context of the NHS. We have to be very clear that, while government spending generally needs to reduce, in some departments it has to increase.

As a cross in the "a tax cutter" box suggests - we still haven't quite grasped that David Cameron hasn't actually ruled them out. The situation isn't one of