« The Economist: Cameron is a confident Commons performer, accomplished interviewee and disciplined strategist | Main | Watch out Ming. Watch out Dave. Cleggie's coming. »


This sounds like a terrific idea it should be fascinating.

This would do the trick:
Become an Associate Member of the EU - trade, trade and nothing other than trade.
Become an Associate Member of NAFTA.
Resume interest in the Commonwealth and encourage trade.
Establish a rigorous points system for all immigration.
Abolish Prescott's housing targets for SE England.
Stop funding Faith Schools.
Increase the Defence Vote to 4% of GDP.
Abolish all Local Education Authorities.
Simplify the tax system - move to a Flat Tax.
Re-name the Party the Conservative & Unionist Party.

It would be a start. And victory at the next election would be assured.

If you would like to develop one of those ideas John for the exercise please do!

I hope the ideas are bigger rather than smaller. It's a sense of direction wot wins general elections, and there's already far, far too much interference by government (most of all by this elective dictatorship) in the minutiae of private life, to malign effect. A good start would be to take a scythe through the statute books.

fantastic idea! CH leading the uses of the internet for political advantage yet again.

Here's one.

Give head teachers in state schools the same powers to exclude pupils enjoyed by heads in the private sector.

In private schools, like the one I attended, pupils and their families have to sign a contract, which (amongst other things) stipulates that there is no right of appeal should the head decide to exclude the pupil. Such contracts are not premitted in the state sector and Heads do not have the right to summarily exclude even those pupils guilty of violence or drugs offences.

Give head teachers and school governors the powers to make sure that schools are run for the benefit soley of those who "work hard and play by the rules."

Risks? Upsetting LEA's, lefty teachers ect ect.

Opportunities? Who thought teachers running schools would be a revolutionary idea? Perhaps something we need to change?

Questions? Is this even remotely possible?

Cost? Well, we'd need some kind of bin for those excluded. Hopefully someone will come up with some wizard idea for reintroducing national service, surely a fitting punishment?

This is a fantastic idea! Hands up for the flat tax, anyone?! I suspect that the ideas raised here can afford to be a little more radical than those that tend to circulate in CCHQ. A great way to get some fresh thought into policymaking!

Oh, and John Coles: aren't we already the Conservative and Unionist Party? Excuse my mistake if not...

Great idea. I will be submitting something.

And I concur with BorisforPM - these ideas should be radical. If any of them make it into real policies they can be balanced out and nuanced then, but lets keep to the principles at this stage.

Take those whom pay the 10p tax rate out of the system, and off state reliance. It just perplexes me why they have to pay tax, then get it back through handouts.

A Tax Amnesty for new British businesses less than 6months old.

The re-birth of the Commonwealth, free trade and real democracy promotion.

Setting in schools from age 11.

An age of new British industry, i.e bio fuel research etc.

Experieced Doctors and Nurses running the NHS instead of those appalling jobsworth Managers who delight in managing beds rather than the people in them. Targets rather than clinical need. Time targets rather than clinical assessment.

What about the privatisation of higher education and fully variable fees?

This would give the univeristies a greater degree of indepedence, it would encourage the larger ones to act more like businesses so there would more emphasis on research and enterprise. The capital gained from making them independent would allow the state to offer grants to the poorest and most able students. Universities would probably gain large funds and could also offer their own grants.With the gov no longer paying for tuition it could invest more into universities through research spending, invest more in lower stages and maybe find room for a tax cut.

Well I can imagine just about everyone would be opposed ... lecturers, some chancellors, the unions, students. Also it would be unlikely that it would beneficial to all universities.

aren't we already the Conservative and Unionist Party?
Not officially anymore, although some Associations still use if they are particularly traditional or think it might benefit them to be seen as unionists.

Deputy Editor

Have we told the Electoral Commission? - apparently there's a party called The Conservative and Unionist Party (alternative name Plaid Geidwadol Cymru) led by a David Cameron registered with them. I thought the point of registering was to stop people misrepresenting themselves with similiar names :-)


I have been to Policy Forum Meetings (CCO idea about 4 years ago) to discuss policy, and some of these had 3 or 4 people attending! In the internet age, Tim has hit on a GREAT IDEA.

My proposal?

It's on student grants / tuition fees / top-up fees.

Instead of encouraging loads of students to university who would be better suited to other courses/vocational professions, or financing loads of useless degrees (aka 'media studies'), and having hundreds if not thousands of students drop out of their courses early, at huge cost to the taxpaper, why not give incentives to the students to both work hard and finish their degrees? It is wrong that someone who is responsible, works hard, and gets a first or a 2:1 should have to pay the same back as someone who drinks every night, socialises irresponsible and fails or gets a poor degree.

I suggest keeping tuition fees, but making repayment proportionate to the result achieved. Anyone failing out of laziness should have to pay the lot back. Those who get good degrees should repay less. So, it's a good Tory philosophy of encouraging personal responsibility. The harder you work, the smaller your debt. Yes, I know those who get good degrees will normally end up earning more, but the point of the policy is to disincentivise (if that's a word) the dossers or those who would make really great plumbers but crap media commentators, and at the same time reward industry and success.

(emailed to Tim).

It's asking too much to expect people to cost their ideas. To do that they may need information which is in the public domain but not readily accessible, plus the skill to do the financial calculations. Perhaps the Institute for Fiscal Studies would be willing to run a sliderule over some of the more attractive proposals.

This site seems to be becoming the last refuge of the Old Tories a la pre-1997. Associate status of NAFTA, Conservative & Unionist Party? Excuse but does any of this resonate with what the electorate wants? Nope. A small minority who are obsessed with the EU may think it's wonderful but for the rest of us, the Euro Bores remain a turn off. Why don't you consider something that could actually make a difference - personalised carbon trading accounts, tax relief for single people (who don't cost taxpayers as much as families) or a grant of £1000 for every home to install renewable sources of energy and then VAT on non-renewable energy sources to pay for it? Come on you lot, it's 2006. Get with the programme...

I diagree with Michael Murray above, I am part of the electorate and I think it is a fantastic idea, and I am sure further grants for renewable sources will be forthcoming - as it has been put down here it will probably be taken up by this government as soon as they get bac to work!!!

I would like to see a commitment to CUT DOWN on the amount of form-filling and paperwork which this government has increased during their time (probably to produce the statistics that Blair loves to boast about).

I would not know how to 'cost' an exercise such as this especially as ideally it should be across the board in every department. It might cost more money initially, but even in the short term it should save an enormous amount of money AND TIME, and be ecologically friendly!!

Michael Murray: "Why don't you consider something that could actually make a difference - personalised carbon trading accounts, tax relief for single people (who don't cost taxpayers as much as families) or a grant of £1000 for every home to install renewable sources of energy and then VAT on non-renewable energy sources to pay for it?"

I hope you'll at least one of those ideas into the pot for consideration, Michael. Please work one up into the format I have described above and I will post it...

Conservative and Unionist Party
How about simply 4 Nation Unionist (This would reaffirm the position of the 6 Counties in the Union and also assert the importance of the seperate identities of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster united under God).

Every other election in Ulster uses some form of PR (and in the case of European Elections has done since 1979), why not replace the First Past the Post System for Ulster with a Regional List System that would prevent Sinn Fein from making any further advances - personally I would rather see Sinn Fein banned but all 3 main parties leaderships have consistently opposed this move.

In addition replacing Housing and Council Tax Benefit and Personal Healthcare and Education subsidies with Low Interest Loans repayable along the same lines as Student Loans.

Abolishing all sports subsidies from the State, ending the National Lottery and beginning a campaign to end the insiduos evil influence of gambling.

Legalising on a licensed basis and taxing most currently illegal drugs and having a joint age of 17 for the minimum age for purchase of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs.

Allowing the age of heterosexual consent to be for males within one year of their age for those under 12, not more than one year less than their age for 12-20 year olds and only with those aged 20+ for those aged 21 or over.

And for females, those under 13 would only be permitted to have relationships with males not more than one year more or less than their age, those aged 13-20 with any male aged less than one year older than them and not less than 12, and for those aged 21 or over any males aged 12+.

The Homosexual age of consent should be raised to 21.

This would take into account the risks both to health and education of young girls being impregnated by older men taking advantage of them while also being more realistic in that it's going to go on to some extent and so it would be better to focus on restricting it to people of at least a similar age and that pcriminalising under 16's because they are underage is not the answer, it is the older predators who need to be removed from society and preferably executed.

In addition the National Minimum Wage should be phased out and the Income Tax threshold raised to average wage and the rate above this cut to 10%.

I could go on endlessly, surely there is a problem that there are seperate issues and there already are seperate links to those and there are general blogs for raising issues more generally and naturally people's musings anyway would include policy ideas, surely the only point of having a seperate Policy Ideas bit would be if it were to be the proposals of complete integrated manifesto's of detailed policy but that wouold be liable to run to the length of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

One thing did occur to me last night, which was that as the Ex Pats have the vote for up to 15 years and as there is no reason to suppose that they neccessarily have any more link with the last constituency they were in than with the UK as a whole, why not have seperate seats for them in different parts of the world, if the current seats in the House of Commons were cut to a third of their current number then there would still be substantially fewer seats than now?

... or a grant of £1000 for every home to install renewable sources of energy and then VAT on non-renewable energy sources to pay for it?

You mean a bit of market distortion in order to favour expensive and often inefficient "green" technologies, which even with a grant that size would still be beyond the means of most families, while financially penalising those who can't afford to switch? That's already New Labour policy with businesses, you know. Fair and transparent it is not!

Yet Another Anon- your age of consent is discrimatory- no place for that in the modern Western world- try Saudi Arabia or some tin pot babana republic for that to go down well.

Transport- big trucks off the road; more employment and use of the rails- how?- road tax of 5000 pa for big trucks seen by Crapita cameras more than twice on a 20 mile stretch of road in one day- no road tax for them ferrying goods to and from the railway station cargo trains. Net result- no new roads necessary, less global warming, more employment, less stress on Britain's roads.

"I am sure further grants for renewable sources will be forthcoming..."

"I would like to see a commitment to CUT DOWN on the amount of form-filling..."

Don't you think these two aims are contradictory, as realising the former would involve more form-filling...

Yet Another Anons post @14.26 is perhaps the worst set of ideas that I have ever seen from anyone in any party. I know the party is a broad church but having to be in the same party with someone who if he/she was being serious is very upsetting.I can only hope? that Yetanotheranon was trying to deliver a very unfunny joke or was deeply under the influence of the drugs he/she wishes to legalise.

Certainly it is desirable for men and women to have equal opportunitys in education, work etc... not neccessarily through quotas (which I don't agree with) but that said there are still going to be imparities - the physiological differences due to gender are obviously the biggest differences, otherwise in jobs involving more heavy work men will always tend to be in greater numbers because women tend to be smaller and physically weaker; men tend to vary more from the average due to hormone rushes at birth, of course women mostly need to eat less as well and tend to live slightly longer; other differences are so small as to not even be worth mentioning.

There is a problem however that the more radical elements of the Feminist movement have managed to railroad people towards an argument that men and women are exactly the same as each other which obviously they are not, there are advantages and disadvantages from the few specific differences for both men and women, otherwise it's mostly averages or ranges of averages and these probably balance out overall - many feminists indeed are questioning the extent to which the Politically correct culture has gone regarding the genders.

Yetanotheranon was trying to deliver a very unfunny joke or was deeply under the influence of the drugs he/she wishes to legalise.
I stick to alcohol and coffee, I just think that there is no point trying to stop adults killing themselves in their own way and that it would be better to obtain tax revenues from it and because of lower prices reduce crimes of acquistition and it would free police and courts to deal with crimes affecting people such as burgalries, terrorism and vandalism.

Obviously the best thing is to restrict it, as with prostitution sweep it off the streets and out of the way of anybody who doesn't want to have anything to do with it, the only form of prohibition that will work will be if it is totally ruthless and involves mass executions of dealers and pushers to do a total purge of society, anything inbetween will fail.

Ed - Thank you very much for initiating this one. I agree with Denis Cooper @ 12.35 though that most of us will not be in a position to cost anything at all accurately.
Indeed, could we not initially just produce outline ideas, for you to select from and then post the 100 that you deem to be the best and most practical, after which we can all dabate the ones that interest us most?

Don't understand all your age of consent stuff but as a celibate i'm not sure i want too...
OK policy ideas.
Have very few prisons which will only be for extremely psychotic individuals and paedophiles and will be esentially hospitals with a high staff/prisoner ratio.
Everyone else presently incarcerated is released under tagging , with their labour being directed into employment , a large bulk of their pay going to the state , with some pocket money for the prisoners.

2)Cap numbers of EEC foreign workers.

Could there be one discussion on Conservative Home that doesn't mention homosexuality? Just one?

Have very few prisons which will only be for extremely psychotic individuals and paedophiles and will be esentially hospitals with a high staff/prisoner ratio.
Everyone else presently incarcerated is released under tagging

There are a lot of very dangerous people, many of whom are not psychotic and who are large - I think there have to be distinctions between people who have committed crimes and those who haven't, those who have committed crimes have to be punished in some way depending on the seriousness of the offence - I am opposed to people being allowed to use age or claims of diminished responsibility due to mental state as grounds to be let off or have their sentence reduced, I think this puts things wide open for liberals to get in there and use all kinds of justifications to undermine the system, however obviously there are people who are dangerous for whatever reason - they may be psychotic, psychopathic, have some kind of personality disorder or obsessive neurosis; if they are dangerous to others they still have to be locked up and cannot be allowed out while it is determined that they remain dangerous to others whether or not they have committed a crime but unless they have actually committed an offence they have to be merely held and not specifically punished unless they then break the law.

Tagging has had mixed fortunes, you do realise of course that more people tagged would mean there having to be more people assigned to monitor them, people take off their tags and some know how to deactivate them, it would be possible to implant tags under the skin and booby trap them so that they would cause severe injury or death if an unauthorised attempt was made to remove them but of course the Human Rights lobby would object.

And even if they know where someone is a tag doesn't tell an operator whether they are committing a crime or not, just roughly where they are - as part of a National identity Database of all citizens it might be far easier to work, I favour a National ID system that is biometrically based and involving periodic checks on people and tracking their movements and linking the security Camera's around the country into a national network - people can take tags off but doing anything about their retinal patterns or Blood Group types (there are 255 Blood Group Types and the chances that anyone in the UK has the same type for every group as anyone else who ever lived in the UK is apparently in the order of 1 in 3,000; there are many other indicators as well that can be used).

Well, you know what they say nowadays , if your antihomosexual your gay but just in denial, and if your prohomosexual your just gay. So really , in the permissive world , everyones gay. Mind you , it was illegal fifty odd years ago, its acceptable now, but how soon before its compulsory? Well maybe when Mark Oaten becomes PM. By the way have i mentioned my hair is thinning....
Now thats an interesting policy idea , compulsory gaiety

wow . Yet Another Anon , you've really thought this through haven't you!

Cap numbers of EEC foreign workers.
I favour withdrawing from the EU, numbers caps are somewhat crude and could mean keeping out someone with a special skill that might be of great use and potentially keeping out people coming here on genuine grounds of asylum, I rather favour ending free movement of labour and the UK vetting everyone coming in to screen out criminals and people with links to dubious groups and who are likely to cause trouble regardless of why they are coming here, otherwise I don't see any problem really - for years people were complaining about shortages of plumbers and now there's no shortage people are complaining that the plumbers who turn up are Polish.

Surely a law of exile for undesirable British Citizens (ie persistent troublemakers, for more minor offences) where another country is prepared to take them would be an alternative to incarcerating them, in the days when there was transportation some people who caused trouble here actually ended up playing quite a useful role in other countries they were sent to. Exiles could be for fixed periods or for life and anyone returning would then face facing penalties they would otherwise have faced.

We need to massively reduce the level of population of this country as we're a bit awash with people.
There seems to be a lot of emigration, many emigrants from this country don't seem to realise that they too are immigrants - just somewhere else.

"Yet Another Anon - your age of consent is discrimatory ..."

Here's an idea. Instead of parrotting the PC language of the "liberal left" and so giving further currency and legitimacy to their poisonous ideas, why not resolve to systematically challenge it, and gradually exclude it from common usage?

Take "discrimination", which we are supposed to assume is a bad thing.

Even in the 1996 Oxford Study Dictionary used in many schools, the first definition of "discriminate" was still "1. to have good taste or judgement", the secondary meaning being "2. to make a distinction; to give unfair treatment, especially because of prejudice". Go back to older dictionaries, and they have nothing but good to say about "discrimination", eg in 1907: "act or quality of distinguishing: acuteness, discernment, judgement".

It's an extraordinary thing that in a world which is getting ever more complex, people are being taught to reject "acuteness, discernment, judgement".

The "judges" on Planet Strasbourg may be so ignorant of human anatomy that they can't distinguish between a female body part intended for reproduction and another body part which both sexes have for defaecation, but that doesn't mean that we have to dumb ourselves down to their level.

No more ideas from you, Yet Another Anon. I don't like repeat posting - particularly of such junk.

here is a good one ( i believe)
support the legalisation of drugs it is very good and has worked in many countries including portugal, holland and recently mexico
what does everyone else think?
i am 15 and a modern tory

Denis C and David B: I accept your points about the difficulties of costing ideas but I'd prefer to keep the subheading if only to remind ourselves that every good idea has a price tag and something else (perhaps more worthwhile) can't be done if it costs too much. If people don't know the cost I suggest people simply post 'unknown cost'.

Ewan: I'd prefer that this thread didn't discuss your idea. If you want to work it up into a proposal according to the format I've outlined above - please do so and we'll discuss it then. This thread should be for thinking through the general idea of soliciting 100 policy ideas... The thread has already shown that there are perils in the process as well as positive possibilities.

The most important, over-arching idea is to leave the EU, and derogate or withdraw from all other international treaties which impinge upon the exclusive right of the Crown in Parliament to decide the law of the land. Hence besides leaving the EU, we should derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights and all UN Conventions which have the effect of pre-determining domestic law, while remaining in the Commonwealth and NATO. However that often comes up here, and we know that it won't become Tory policy while Cameron is leader.

It follows that many sensible suggestions can be ruled out straight away as contrary to the "international obligations" which the Foreign Office has accepted on our behalf. For example, restoring the death penalty for say half a dozen of the worst convicted murderers each year would certainly provide a powerful deterrent and save many innocent lives. But the Foreign Office has promised the Council of Europe that we won't do that - in fact we won't even execute spies and traitors in time of war - so those innocent people will just have to continue to be murdered.

There are still a few policy areas where a future Parliament with a Conservative majority should be able to pass the domestic legislation which best suits our needs, without falling foul of one international treaty or another. For a start the EU hasn't yet taken complete control of policy on personal savings, and I can think of a few simple but useful things which could be done.

the conservatives should change their policy on israel and start criticising Israel's policy towards palestine and lebanon. It has already been mentioned by Hague but needs to be a DC policy.

david cameron should distance himself from america and come out against what israel is doing in the middle east at the moment as it is not right that America sell them arms weapons to defend themseleves and he should go against bush on this as well and they are violating un resoultions in killing far to many lebanese civilians. DC should also ban the group within the conservative party - friends of israel as they are in the wrong.

there are big risks and he will be very brave in doing it as he could lose friendly relations with america (which he is trying to re-build after ids and howard) and also fighting in the party especially the mps part of friends of israel

only cost would be making a good presentation sppech on it.

...the EU hasn't yet taken complete control of policy on personal savings...

Give them time; don't be impatient.

It would be great to see the death penalty back, but that was high up on the hitlist for our Euro-masters.

If people don't know the cost I suggest people simply post 'unknown cost'

Tim, if I may venture a question - do you see 'cost' as being just the financial implications? Might it also include loss of international standing/reputation, having to withdraw from established treaties, loss of alliances etc?

EPP withdrawl would be just such an example where there is also a diplomatic cost, and Israel has been mentioned on this thread too.

Drugs legalisation would result in a huge cost to the fabric of society. Many things are not just valued in £££.

You make a good point, Geoff. All costs should be considered as far as is possible.

Following on Geoffs point it's not just costs but things like ease & costs of implementation, impact on various population sectors (economic, social/ethnic, age groups), acceptability to a broad range of opinion, whether it's the governments business at all, effect on economic growth, impact on constitution, on our agreed committments and agreements with other countries, on our safety and security.

Probably most important in terms of what we want to achieve is if it would help or hinder our winning the next election - without which we might as well form another LibDem type party and have policy discussions ad nausem as it won't matter what the policies we have are.

We have suffered from late 80's through to today a falling away of members and MPs so that we have become the hard core of a once broad party. Our policies should be those that attract back the wider conservatives and especially those in the North, Scotland & Wales who share our values but see us as a hard-nosed, Southern biased party.

On a lighter note I would quite like to ban professional association football matches between 1st May and 31st August - I enjoy football but there is just too much of it! It could be a popular policy amongst much of the population but fails my tests - what business is it of government?

Editor: I accept your decision to not discuss Ewan's policy on drugs. However, it seems a shame, particularly in the light of his statement:
""i am 15 and a modern tory.""
In saying this Ewan has written a great and significant truth.

Ed - I'm sorry I know you mean well, but this whole exercise is pointless and its main effect will be to give our real opponents (Libs and Lab, for those who seem to forget that very easily) a lot of material to portray the membership of the Party as a) divided; b) reactionary and right wing; c) opposed to David Cameron and "Cameronism". "Raising the gay age of consent to 21 is anti-PC and therefore a good idea" hardly fills me with hope.

I could bet you £100 here that the policy with most votes (after homophobic discrimination) will be withdrawal from the EU: clear indication of the myopic obsession that still afflicts a minority of our Party. And yes - it #is# a minority - CH is a forum mainly for that embittered minority that wants to see the Tory Party like the ILP of old: "impotent but pure".

If I were you, I'd end this idea right now as all it does is expose divisions unnecessarily. But then, if you had Hague bowing and scraping to you over the EPP, what's to stop you using this new idea to have the entire Party over a barrel and in thrall to your readership's base prejudices? I'm sure you'll be happy when you lose the 09 election and get to say "it was because we weren't right wing enough: 100policies.com would have won us it..."

"I could bet you £100 here"
Oi,oi he hasn't paid up on the last one yet!

This is a fabulous idea. We cannot expect to progress our position with the electorate without some serious policies. This is where the real challenges begin. We have to have a vision, something that we can sell to the electorate otherwise we have no chance of forming a government.

I believe there is genuine cause for optimism. We have a five point lead and we barely have any policies at all. That's some sort of miracle. Let the brainstorming begin.

Margaret on the Guillotine wrote:
"".......in thrall to your readership's base prejudices.""
How very patrician. But I suppose that that's the trouble with democracy - all sorts of ghastly upstarts offering their views. Much better that matters of policy should remain in the hands of a liberal elite. Isn't it? Well, isn't it?

Whenever an election comes up our left wing media keeps pretending that Tories are obsessed with immigration. Perhaps we could try to challenge this head on my announcing fresh policy in this area - one that recognises the benefits of open immigration are only hampered by the welfare state. A free market immigration policy would be a great way for David Cameron to show how far 'modern Tories' really are from their unfair racist stereotype.

Margaret, what are you afraid of? Is it your belief that we are a bunch of homophobic, foreigner hating, xenophobes who will come up with 100 pieces of political bigotry and make us a laughing stock. I think you underestimate some of the people here.

"CH is a forum mainly for that embittered minority that wants to see the Tory Party like the ILP of old: "impotent but pure"." Margaret

I say it was a forum showing just what a broad church the Conservative party is. Already we have seen several ideas that are not associated with traditional Conservatives views, eg legalising drugs.

You say that withdrawal from the EU would be the second most popular policy and yet at the same time you say that it is a minority of the party that wants to leave the EU. Which is it? I would hardly call this place the home of the reactionary right. There are tons of people who post on this site who I would probably mistake for leftist Liberals.

I am sure that there will be bad ideas, but I am sure there are enough very sensible people on here that can assist in weeding out some of the poorer ones.

I think this is a great opportunity for people to put their views and ideas to the party.

I could bet you £100 here that the policy with most votes (after homophobic discrimination) will be withdrawal from the EU: clear indication of the myopic obsession that still afflicts a minority of our Party

The European Union is the greatest threat to liberty these British Isles have ever faced. When freedom itself is on the line excuse us while we become "obsessed"

CH is a forum mainly for that embittered minority that wants to see the Tory Party like the ILP of old: "impotent but pure".

As opposed to "impotent but totally unprincipled"? Who here would give a damn whether or not David Cameron wins the next election if we didn't expect him to enact conservative policies? Perhaps some would get cushy jobs leaching off the taxpayer, but for most other people we're here to advance conservatism and not the enployment prospects of elites

Also it might be a good idea to try and plan out how the relaxing of political advertsing rules - as I think I saw in ToryDiary recentl - would work in reality

This thread is disturbing. That's all I can say.

Yet again, the party is obsessed with Europe, rather than an argument worth fighting for, such as the EU pushing through more tax harmonising rules that we should oppose.. It's about immigrations.

A wake up call folks, this country is running on immigration for potential growth of the population and the economy. Working in retail shows just how many customers are not British, they are a driving force behind the economy.

As an asian reading this thread, I do get worried what an extreme-right-wing we have.

Back to the purpose of this thread;

A freeze on increasing paternity and maternity time. I've noticed that many small business' are suffering greatly from this, they cannot afford to hire more people while another is not present doing the work they are being payed for.

John Coles: the CH readership mouthing off here does not constitute democracy. The Party at large is under no obligation to accept unconditionally policies put forward by the unrepresentative sector of the membership that posts here. I'd rather places like the CPF served as feedback, rather than CH seeking to make itself an unofficial policy committee seeking to blackmail the Party into its own views.

Chris Hughes: "The European Union is the greatest threat to liberty these British Isles have ever faced. The European Union is the greatest threat to liberty these British Isles have ever faced." - Are you just trying to prove my point about irrational prejudices finding a home on CH? How about Nazism to gazump the EU in terms of a threat to liberty?

"impotent but totally unprincipled" - I presume you mean by this mainstream Tories who don't tend to pop up on this site - it's outrageous and false of you to think that just because fellow Tories don't share your point of view that they are unprincipled; their principles may just be different from your own. You may think it heresy but it is part of the Disraelian tradition that held some sway in the party for over a century.

Editor, I suppose you'd hoped this thread wouldn't fall into a debate on its legitimacy - sorry if I've provoked the wingnuts - but I thought I ought to put my view on record that it can only degenerate into something that puts ammo into our opponents arms to portray us as split and reactionary. I can only hope you get some decent sugggestions through the emails from those who can think beyond "EU bad; homophobia good; full stop".

If "Yet Another Anon" had tried anal sex he (or she) would find it very natural and enjoyable indeed. The whole gay thing is something to distract the voters. Let's concentrate on simple things like policies that promote individiual freedom, personal responsibility and economic prosperity rather than expressing distaste as individual preferences.

Perhaps if the conservative party looked at these broader issues rather than commenting on minor issues that may isolate potential voters than the game may be more easily won.

I am an ardent believer in conservative philosophy but also a very proud gay man and I do not want the party to turn against the many similar people like myself who could help swing the vote in some minor constituencies (except hoodies that I think promote fear and agression!!!).


A great idea from the Editor. Let's not compromise it by dipping into tonality and ideas which veer from the puerile to the offensive via the somewhat bizarre (with the occasional interesting and appropriate thought). The purpose of the thread was to elicit ideas direct to Tim not to raise them in the comments.

I'm not sure this thread is representative of either the modern party of the readership of Conservativehome. Perhaps we should just stick to the request - e-mailing Tim direct with the ideas, rather than the occasional back of the envelope posting.

I would respectfully suggest that an approach like that would be more likely to give credibility to those ideas which do come forward - and then perhaps we can influence the policy groups.

Fast growing small businesses create most new jobs. They are usually under-financed and have cashflow problems, which limit their growth phase. They usually become profitable and pay large amounts of corporation tax.

If this sector could be targeted for 100% corporation tax relief, it would save the government money, as far more jobs would be created, and the capital base of such companies would establish quicker and more would survive any sudden downturns.

The growth phase of most fast growing companies (20% per annum or more) is usually about ten years. If growth is defined as growth in sales combined with growth in employment, once a company hits plus 20% they should pay no corporation tax. At plus 10% they should pay half. At plus 5% three quarters. Another condition, no dividends should be payable.

These incentives would persuade far more small companies to plan for growth, increase the country's productivity, and its capital base.

Most entrepreneurs tire after ten years of 20% plus growth. At least these golden years would not be wasted in payment of tax.

Margaret on the Guillotine:
The democracy I referred to was that of the internet & blogs: it is available to all and will never be reversed. Regarding "mouthing off", "wingnuts", "irrational prejudices": what a choice and unhelpful turn of phrase: Disraeli's legacy is no justification for this fulmination. In many ways he was a reactionary politician.
Paul D'Arcy.
I do think we've reached some sort of limit with your suggestion to engage in certain unnatural practices.

Margaret @ 22.36: "CH is a forum mainly for that embittered minority that wants to see the Tory Party like the ILP of old: "impotent but pure".
Margaret, that is your point of view to which you are entitled. I see ConHome as a most exciting development in real democracy. DC has torn up all existing tory manifestoes and is going around throwing out ideas for new ones. We, the Demos, by virtue of this technology can respond as we see fit and Nulab, of all parties, should be horrified - and impressed - by our freedom to say anything. They can't.
This is a brilliant idea and I believe we are capable of coming up with a lot of original thoughts that we hope DC and the shadow cabinet will look at carefully.

"Are you just trying to prove my point about irrational prejudices finding a home on CH?"

It is your opinion that it is an irrational prejudice not fact. Furthermore you have absolutely nothing to base your opinion on. There is a difference between disliking the EU and being a xenophobe. How about stating why you think it is irrational and prejudice to attack the EU? I've said it before that whenever anyone mentions Europe you get the same leftist dogmatists accusing people of being bigoted when they have no evidence of such motivations on their opponents part

"The Party at large is under no obligation to accept unconditionally policies put forward by the unrepresentative sector of the membership that posts here"

Then there's no problem then is there. They can choose to ignore policies they don't like. How will we have "the party over a barrel," or be able to "blackmail" the party into accepting our views? The only blackmailing you'll see next election will be the trade unions blackmailing the Labour party as they always do.

I don't know why Margaret calls herself "Margaret on the Guillotine", but what she is suggesting is in effect a guillotine on political debate. Anyone who doesn't want to "talk about Europe" doesn't want to talk about the government of this country, and as politics is the art of government, what's the point of a political blog?

To take just two instances at random from a perfunctory scan of today's papers, where the impact of the EU is openly admitted:

Observer: "British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world."

Sunday Telegraph: Michael Meacher on GM foods: "Enough, you might think, for the Government (or the EU, for the Commission is now in charge of GM policy)..."

So according to Margaret on the Guillotine, either:

1. We can talk about fingerprinting our six year old children and about GM foods, but we must make ourselves complicit with the Great Deception by pretending that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

2. We just avoid talking about those issues.

Eventually there'll be nothing at all that we can talk about without either "talking about the Europe", or lying. We're already most of the way there.


Before you extol the economic benefits of immigration, you may like to read this article by Jeff Randall in the Telegraph Money section last week:


"Immigration - how New Labour got the numbers completely wrong"

and especially the paragraphs relating to "bogus assertions about immigration's economic benefits, the validity of which not even a D-grade GCSE student would have trouble demolishing."

And this, too:


"Secret report warns of migration meltdown in Britain"

"A massive rise in immigration next year could trigger a devastating crisis in Britain's schools, housing and welfare services, according to a secret Government report leaked to The Mail on Sunday.

The document reveals that every Government department has been ordered to draw up multi-million-pound emergency plans after being told public services face catastrophe as a result of the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans pouring into Britain."

Lots of talk about Europe and a couple of homophobes thrown in for good measure. Marvellous. What a great thread.

*rolls eyes*

Not a great thread Iain, I agree. I will work very hard to ensure balance in the 100 policies so that we represent both sides of ConservativeHome's 'politics of and'. I've also been encouraged by some of the ideas emailed to me - for which many thanks. I'll be replying to everyone in due course...

James Hellyer @ 14.51 yesterday - I am not sure that I would say that the two ideas are totally contradictory. But I did say that my suggestion would cost initially, don't all ideas, think of how much of our money this government has wasted on endless useless ideas?

I know some people my think my idea is naive, and obviously there has to be paperwork in society, but I am talking about the time that apparently a policeman has to take filling in forms etc: etc: that we have been informed about. And many other similar areas.

Of course, unfortunately, in many cases it might be that adjusting or 'doing away with' the Human Rights Act would save more money than anything else!

I don't know if it's just me, but this strikes me as just about the least successful thread I've ever surveyed on this website. The editor asked for policy ideas to be sent to him directly. The comments on here should therefore presumably be about the nature of that process, and not about policies themselves. I suppose it's legitimate for someone to say "These (x,y,z) are the policies I should really like to see, but I know they've got no chance of being accepted", but it's a bit negative, isn't it! Once this sort of thing starts, people just start sniping from their entrenched positions, like the opponents in the First World War, and no-one gets anywhere.
As for those who are writing with such strong feelings against homosexuals: I have been married for over thirty years, I am not homosexual, and I do not carry a torch for homosexuals. (However, I do know a number of people who are homosexual, and I am also aware that some of the regular posters on this site are homosexual [because they have mentioned it when it was relevant] and they are among the nicest and most interesting posters on this site.) What I would say to the anti-homosexual posters is this: the nature of human attraction and the nature of human feelings have always been and remain a mystery (as does, indeed, the nature of human existence itself), and only people speaking from a falsely dogmatic position can possibly think otherwise.
As an example: A few weeks ago, when I was in the local supermarket, I saw, and heard speaking, a woman I had never seen before, and felt instantly attracted to her. This must be the first time in about ten or twelve years that I have had this mysterious experience, and I was so intrigued by it, in an abstract sort of way, that I discussed it later with my wife, but neither of us was able to come up with an entirely convincing explanation. This, in my experience, is how it is with most men (I'll just speak for men, and let women speak for themselves): you don't ever really know what it is that has attracted you to a particular woman, and any "explanations" you come up with are in fact no more than guesses, no more valid for being made by you than if they were made by someone else. So, until you can adequately explain your own feelings, I don't think you should condemn the feelings of others just because they are different from your own.
Surely, the true Conservative, Burkean position on life in all its variety is to recognize that it is, essentially, a mystery, and to therefore enact policies which go with the grain of life as it exists, and change it as little as possible, rather than attempt to unnaturally crush it. Leave that dogmatic approach to hidebound religions and those adolescent political "isms" which should be the true anathema for everyone on this site.

How To Stop Teenage Pregnancies and Third Generation Welfare Dependency.

We adopt the US version of state dependency for parents on welfare - the state pays for one baby on the State - everyone can make one mistake, but you can't make two. This policy has decreased the numbers of welfare dependent single mothers.

There is an underclass of 3rd and 4th generation broken families who are having babies outside of a stable relationship, often by teenagers, often with different men who are wholly reliant on the State. These children grow up without the benefit of a male figure, under achieve at school and some are contributing to anti-social behaviour and crime because the mother cannot cope with them, particularly boys.

These young mothers have no role model to tell them that they should be thinking about work or further education post 16 and stable relationships before considering babies. In these families girls see their grandmothers and mothers who are welfare dependent with no male partners or a string of male fathers none claiming paternity of the children. The State has to say that this behaviour in unacceptable and we will stop the welfare culture.

We would adopt the US policy and give notice to the electorate that only one baby will be funded by the State. We would also roll out a very hard hitting advertising and education campaign to ensure that the message gets through. The policy cannot be retrospective.

Now, this will be unpopular, but we offer abortions to all girls who are not in stable relationships. We institute a campaign along similar lines to the Aids campaigns that we successfully ran in the '80s about birth control, sexual health and where to go to get help very early on in the pregnancy.

When we have an increasing ageing population, low birth rates resulting in less tax being paid to fund the welfare state, drastic measures need to be taken. I believe that the tax payers of Britain would sooner see the welfare being channeled to the elderly for them to live in dignity and warmth rather than funding teenage pregnancies.

Politically, we will be accused of State managed baby extermination and a lurch towards the extreme right. We risk losing votes from the few of these people that do vote and they will also be encouraged to vote against us by left-wing agitators. No doubt the Church of England and the Catholic Church will have strong views on this. However, it seems to work in the US and we have to start somewhere. We cannot allow this underclass welfare dependency to continue.

An English Parliament and St George's Day as a national holiday.

The English have little say over their destiny thanks to the West Lothian question and money being diverted to Scotland to fund their health, elderly and education policies.

I propose the English parliament sets up shop in our existing House of Commons, administered by existing civil servants thus reducing bureacracy and cost.

The money that has been diverted to Scotland can be ring-fenced and promised to be spent on care of the elderly, our health service and education.

Politically there is the will to do this. Ordinary people who are not interested in politics are remarking on the inequities of the current system. They see a large contingent of Scottish MPs in the Cabinet; they see the Scots and Welsh proudly supporting their cultures and flags and they are aware that they have no redress at the ballot box when unjust laws are made on their behalf by Scottish MPs. We would win votes back from UKIP, the BNP and the English Democrats and have a nation that can be proud again.

Approved candidate, non A-lister: "Now, this will be unpopular, but we offer abortions to all girls who are not in stable relationships."

It's certainly unpopular with me! Abortion is freely available already without further promotion.

I'm now closing this ugly thread. Please email any policy ideas to me.

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