« Standing up to big media | Main | YouGov gives Tories a 6% lead »


I'd personally like us to show more willingness to cooperate with the Libs, even if that means compromising on the price.

The skill will be outlining the Key areas we are not looking to negotiate on (i.e Europe) so that they don't get their hopes up too much to the point they'll go accepting nothing but total PR in return, even if we are privately willing to entertain some electoral reform.

Sorry to wander off topic, but...

New YouGov poll for the Telegraph:

Con 37%
Lab 31%
LD 17%
Oth 15%

Thanks Alastair, we're working on it!

The YouGov poll still shows a high level of BNP support at 6% - and others overall at 15%. Unlikely (as last week showed) that others would be any where near this level in an election.

On Baxter's site this comes out as Tory largest party but still short of majority so we might need the orange bookers to come across!

>>>>On Baxter's site this comes out as Tory largest party but still short of majority so we might need the orange bookers to come across!<<<<
If you add in the probable 11 gains by the Conservative Party simply as a result of English and Welsh Boundary Changes then probably it amounts to a knife edge between falling just short of a majority and a small overall majority, if Sinn Fein get 5 seats then it amounts Ulster Unionist and DUP backing on confidence motions and forming different coalitions of interest on specific issues surely would be enough and as Harold Wilson did in 1966 a follow up election to obtain a clear majority.

>>>>if Sinn Fein get 5 seats<<<<
Given that they don't takeup their seats so their number can be reduced from numbers neccessary to form effectively a majority.

There is a thread on the poll here!

"Everyone happy?"

Yup. Although the Lib Dem attitude to crime and immigration would also be a stumbling block!

What is Vaizey proposing that is so different from what happens now?We should cooperate where we agree as on ID cards and kick them when we don't ie over Crime,Europe,Local Government Finance,Tax etc.
Is there really any evidence that the Lib Dems are moving closer to our position on many areas of policy? Until that is much more obvious I don't see many benefits to us in fostering closer relationships with them.

Malcolm, right again. In particular, ad hoc co-operation should never lead to the Tories dropping their guard against the Lib Dems at local level.

Anyone know why vaizey didn't get a job? He does come across well on tv and articles etc - but I must admit he didn't have a very impressive career before politics....

'he didn't have a very impressive career before politics....'

According to his website he spent 2 years with the Tory Research Dept, trained and practised as a barrister and has been Director of a public relations company as well as involvement at a senior level with 2 leading charities. What's wrong with that ?

hmmmm - I'll put it this way and let's state it in impersonal terms so as to avoid coming anywhere near breaking CH rules. I think we should want our MPs to be people who have almost had more responsible jobs with (if they are in the private sector) a pay reduction to become an MP. And that implies making a success over a reasonable period of time of one career. It wouldn't be a good sign for someone in the private sector to be getting a pay rise if they became an MP.

A lot of political CVs can look more impressive than they actually are and, in this instance some actual knowledge aside, one has to watch out for impressive sounding posts and check what they really were.

What we need is more people with a real view of the world and real success and less political apparatchiks who have dabbled to keep themselves in various things while always being in and around politics. I bet the A list is stuffed with apparatchiks - another thing about the Cameron project that is concerning

'It wouldn't be a good sign for someone in the private sector to be getting a pay rise if they became an MP.'

Given the fact that pay rises in the public sector are outstripping those in the private sector, together with the generous salary increases that MPs have seen fit to award themselves, this may be a bit unrealistic especially for those who want to start their political career at an early age.

perhaps people shouldn't be starting political careers til they have demonstrated success somewhere else - whether as a head teacher, a prison governor or a businessman, and no I don't think being a political journalist counts. How many Cameroons fulfil this criteria???? I bet it's a pretty low percentage - especially if you stripped out impressive sounding political jobs such as "head of corporate affairs" (ie. lobbyist/pr man)

Frank, isn't the fact that our party is percieved to be made up of semi-retired bankers and barristers part of the problem rather than part of the cure?

did I mention bankers and barristers? And it's not - look at the latest intake. they are political apparatchiks and we are led by one. Can someone explain why a white middle class male who has worked in politics all their life is better than a similar person with proper business experience or even a banker and a barrister? I'm not suggesting the latter - but even if I was isn't someone who has proven themselves in a proper competitive environment a bit better that someone who has just hacked around politics

Fair comment that you didn't mention bankers or barristers, but given that between salary and allowances MPs are on well over £60k, if we limit ourselves to people who would need to take a pay cut we'd be recruiting from a very small pool indeed.

Besides why should being very good in a completely different field make one a good MP?

I do share your reservations about the new breed of professional politicians that seem to be rife in all of the main parties. We need people with experience of the real world outside politics, the law and PR.

Indeed one of the concerns about the A list is that we just end up with female Oxbridge-educated PR/lawyer types instead of male ones.

I'm not knocking your desire to see more 'real' people in politics, I'm all for that. Its just the notion that we should only be looking at people who earn £65k or more that I find somewhat ridiculous.

We need people who are articulate, bright and have a burning desire to improve their communities through the application of Conservative principles.

that's why i restricted the payrise point to people in the private sector - and what worries me about some current MPs is that they have neither experience nor a burning desire to apply conservative principles.

Not sure how EV fares on either of these tests; well I have my own views.........

"that's why i restricted the payrise point to people in the private sector"

Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. I don't know what circles you move in, but I don't know too many people earning more than an MP. The basic salary for an MP is just short of £60k, with housing allowances and all the rest of it the true total is nearer &90k.

Are you seriously suggesting we should make it a policy to exclude what must be about 95% of the population who earn less than this from being a Conservative MP?

You seem to want our MPs to be late-middle aged, middle class white men, as I imagine most of the people in this country who earn over £90k are in that group.

"perhaps people shouldn't be starting political careers til they have demonstrated success somewhere else - whether as a head teacher, a prison governor or a businessman"

That's what I said - my objection is to white middle class youngish men, especially ones who have had every opportunity, who have failed to succeed in any area of life.

Let's take the hypothetical example of a private school educated young man who has been to an excellent university and has tried his hands at a profession. Wouldn't you have wanted him to show some success outside of politics for all this opportunity, or do you prefer that someone like that just hangs around quasi-political jobs until a seat comes up? Equally, wouldn't you rather that someone with all of that privilege tried to make a go of it outside politics and get some experience of the real world rather than thinking they know how to run the country straight off.

That's going to the problem with the list - how many people are going to be on it who have never done anything else in their life?

Surely each applicant should be considered on their merit, rather than simply on a CV? Give a thorough interview and see who cuts the mustard. Let's not eliminate anyone just because they cannot demonstrate high level success elsewhere. There may be good reasons why that has not happened, such as being held back unfairly, or being a late developer.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker