David Cameron's Sunday AM interview

Europe: Interviewed on Sunday AM this morning David Cameron said that Eurosceptics tempted by UKIP should vote Conservative at the next General Election because of the party's opposition to the single currency and the EU Constitution.  He resisted Andrew Marr's suggestion that the Tory position was one of the status quo - resisting further integration but not repatriating powers.  David Cameron disagreed and promised that Britain would leave the social chapter should the Tories win the next General Election.

NHS: The Tory leader advocated a highly localised future for the NHS.  He said that he hoped for all hospitals to become Foundation Hospitals - owning their own land, employing their own staff and choosing their own specialisms.

Tax and spending: Charged with largely accepting Gordon Brown's European levels of tax and spending, Mr Cameron said that he would run a different fiscal policy from Labour.  He repeated that he would not make up front promises of lower taxation that might be difficult to keep but that he would cut waste and bureaucracy in order to progressively deliver a lower tax economy.  He reaffirmed his commitment to share the proceeds of growth between tax and spending and rebalance the tax system.  There might be higher green taxation but lower tax on business and families.

Taxing air travel: The Conservative leader said that it was right to make air travel reflect more of the environmental externalities it causes and to ensure fairer price competition between aeroplanes and trains.  He rejected Tim Yeo's ambition to see all domestic flights ended.  It was not for politicians to make those decisions, he said.  It was for politicians to put a proper price on carbon and let customers and businesses decide which transport methods should prosper.

Iraq: Mr Cameron - confirming William Hague's Thursday statement - distanced the Conservative Party from Margaret Beckett's support for George W Bush's troops surge.  Mr Cameron said that a policy closer to Baker-Hamilton would have been preferable including building up the Iraqi army; an internal political settlement between Shia, Sunni and Kurd; more investment in the Middle East Peace Process; and involvement of neighbouring countries in Iraq's future.

Gordon Brown: Mr Cameron said that he did not know Gordon Brown well.  He had only ever held two conversations with him.  He did not oppose Gordon Brown for personal reasons but because of his record.  He dismissed the Chancellor's campaign to defend Britishness and said that Mr Brown's support for regionalisation and ID cards were profoundly unBritish.

Comments

[EML]

I saw the interview and I think it was quite good. Nothing to frighten any horses, and a few very good reasons to keep supporting Cameron and the party.

Nothing on the Armed Forces, though, perhaps they deserved a mention somehow.

[Annabel Herriott]

I thought DC came over well. Got his points across without too many interruptions. Nice interaction with Polly Toynbee at the end of the programme. Sorted out that bit of misin formation (nulab spin).

[ukfirst]

QUOTE:"... David Cameron disagreed and promised that Britain would leave the social chapter should the Tories win the next General Election."

Perhaps he did say this (I must have been distracted), but if so how could he possibly do that, any more than take back the fishing?

[Simon]

The usual piss-poor Marr interview! Where oh where was the 'union' (no , not the GMB) in the discussion? Hmmmmm. Actually, DC came across rather well, but the poor sod is virtually mute on anything until the 'policy reviews' report back. Pluses from the interview- the 'differing' view on Iraq, and letting the NHS have more 'freedom'. Apart from that the interview was all about Marr being a 'serious' interviewer on the political stage. He ain't.

[Mark McCartney]

If Cameron keeps talking about UKIP rather than ignoring them he must be getting very worried. After the EPP fudge he is right to be.

The Sunday Telegraph is full of more actual and planned defections to UKIP. While the editorial takes a "pro Tory but..." line its sister daily has lately showed itself to be surprisingly UKIP-friendly.

Cameron has also ordered Tory MPs not to sign up to BOO. All this is undoubtedly music to the ears of Nigel Farage who clearly wants to polarise the EU-orientated distinctions between the two parties and wield power by threatening the Tory Party's very capability to form a government.

Last time round UKIP is generally believes to have deprived 27 Tories of hoped-for parliamentary seats.

I make no secret of my sympathy with the UKIP EU withdrawal programme, and a substantial minority of Tories share my views.

If other less committed Tories blame Cameron for making a foolish decision likely to cost him the election, we patriots will become a majority in this party.

[CDM]

There is nothing "patriotic" about voting for a party that will give Britain a fourth-term Labour government, which can be the only result of voting for UKIP.

[TimB]

While all repatriation of powers from the EU is good, should we really be prioritising leaving the social chapter? This leaves us extremely vulnerable to attacks from Labour along the lines of "Tories to abolish your right to a holiday"...

[John Moss]

Actually Redwood has the right approach to the EU.

First you go to all EU members with a list of regulations that, we believe, should no longer apply to any member state. Whilst this is being earnestly discussed in Brussels, we pass an amendment to the Regulatory Powers Act which asserts primacy over EU Law and then, if as expected, our EU colleagues decline our generous deregulatory offer, we simply repeal those regulations ourselves.

Of course the EU will say we can't and they will take us to court and fine us, we won't pay and will appeal and as this will all take several years, during which time our companies benefit, others in the EU will clamour for the same and eventually Brussels will cave in.

Redwood's done his homework and the EU's legal position on this is shaky at best.

Once we've done it once, every other state will start looking for something they themselves can derogate from and so the whole edifice of excessive regulation starts to reverse.

It's a long game, but it's the right approach, provided we always keep the EFTA option expressly on the table.

[Alison Anne Smith]

Very good performance by David Cameron. It will appeal to the average viewer of Sunday AM who we nwwd to vote Tory again.

[Alison Anne Smith]

nwwd !!! meant need Sunday typing !!

[Andrew Woodman]

I thought DC came over well on the whole. (Although to remark that the Peers who defected weren't ares then say a UKIP MEP had defected was a little disingenuous). I find this position on Europe less than joined up though. As previously mentioned, why has he just picked on the social chapter and not mentioned fishing or CAP? I agree with John Moss that John Redwood has the right approach. It would take some guts and strength to follow that though.

[Umbrella Man]

Interesting Tim that no mainstream journalist has picked up your Liam Fox story...

[Mark McCartney]

>>There is nothing "patriotic" about voting for a party that will give Britain a fourth-term Labour government, which can be the only result of voting for UKIP.<<

And there is certainly nothing patriotic in, (1) supporting continuing membership of the EU, and (2) failing to assist Conservative victory by co-operating with the excellent Nigel Farage.

I continue to remain with the Conservative Party because I believe I can make myself more extensively serviceable to my country by working to change this party's policies.

On the other hand, I believe that Farage is best placed to serve his country by heading UKIP.

Our parties need to work together. I am happy to work for that outcome.

[HF]

John Redwood actually has a viable plan to roll back the EU.

The only party that has a chance of implementing it within next 10 yrs are the Conservatives.

[Sean Fear]

John Moss, Andrew Woodman, and HF, yes that is the correct approach to take towards the EU. The "Metric Martyrs" case was explicit that judges must give primacy to British legislation that explicitly repeals legislation or regulations based upon EU directives.

The European Court of Justice would likely reject this view, but since it cannot actually enforce such a ruling, should our government not comply with them, their decision would have no more effect on us than a decision to repeal the Government of India Act 1946 would have on the Indians.

There would of course, be a big political row, but, legally, Redwood's proposal is pretty watertight.

[Denis Cooper]

So far, to vote UKIP in a general election has had almost the same practical effect as not voting at all. On the whole, I'd rather that the millions of people who are now disgusted by all three of the main parties actively went out and voted for a no-hope or protest candidate, than simply turned their backs on the election.

CDM @ 11:23 makes the facile assumption that for all those tempted to vote UKIP the only choice is between that and voting Tory, but it isn't. The obvious alternative is to say "**** the lot of you" and not vote, or even to take the trouble to go to the polling station and write "**** the lot of you" on the ballot paper.

The less obvious alternative is to vote Labour and let them have another term during which they can bring the corruption of our political system to full fruition, hoping that a major crisis and possibly widespread violence on the streets will finally force our politicians to make a fresh start. A dangerous idea, of course.

[John Ashworth]

Well said ukfirst, how is Cameron going to leave the social chapter. By giving up on Fish, he has shown he has no intention of taking any powers back from the EU.
Why worry about voting UKIP and letting in a Labour or Lib-dem to be an MP, the Conservative MP's like the other two parties, give the supremacy of Parliament away, and will not let the electorate, through the ballot box, bring about change, so the only answer is to vote for a smaller party, and send a clear signal to the 3 main parties, you are no longer wanted by the electorate.

[Ted]

As Campbell-Bannerman pointed out on Iain Dale, while attempting to make the opposite point, Gordon Brown already ignores the Maastricht rules on economic policy which "bind" the UK - he gets ticked off, takes no notice & nothing happens.
Parliament remains sovereign and EU regulations are only enforceable with the permission of Parliament.

I think Cameron is being sensible in picking an area where it will be difficult for our partners to take effective action - social chapter - rather than the CFP where we would need to put the Royal Navy in direct confrontation with the fishing fleets of allies. Little Englanders might be unconcerned at the effects but what would happen to NATO if Dutch, Spanish, Norwegian frigates were in conflict with the RN in protecting their fishing vessels? We were keen enough to preserve our fishing rights against Iceland.

Once the principle of national supremacy is established (as De Gualle achieved for France) then the dominos will start to fall - probably and most effectively through re-negotiation and some compromise.

[John Ashworth]

Don't be daft Ted, once a Fishing limit has been established by international law, wherever has a navy had to use force to protect that zone. International law has already established the UK fishing zone of 200 mile or median line, and other Nations respect that decision.
Your line of re-negotiation - obtaining the unanimous agreement of every other member state?, don't think so.

[Denis Cooper]

Anyway Norway isn't in the EU, so the likelihood of conflict between Norwegian frigates and the RN might actually be higher while we're in the EU ...

[Scotty]

"Our parties need to work together. I am happy to work for that outcome."
I don't agree, if you want to influence the direction of the conservative party and its policies then come and join the party. If not, don't expect us to bow to the demands of a disorganised and very vocal minority party like UKIP on the back of threats to promote a 4th term Labour government!
At the moment there is a lot of froth and foam floating about with some widely off the wall and frankly laughable claims about just how important or effective UKIP could in stopping the conservatives winning an election.
In the present political climate at a time when the conservatives are maintaining a consistent lead in the polls why should we risk our recent revival to do any kind of deal with any party the public don't associate with mainstream domestic politics and see simple as a protest vote. I think that in the recent years this kind of pandering to the UKIP vote has cost the conservatives more votes than it ever gained.
UKIP should be very worried about the continued progress made by the conservatives because a close GE race tends to concentrate minds and does polarise the vote between the two main parties.
At the last election some might say that UKIP cost the conservatives votes in some marginals, but come the next election I think the conservatives could cost these UKIP candidates their deposits.

[Richard]

"This leaves us extremely vulnerable to attacks from Labour along the lines of "Tories to abolish your right to a holiday"..."

To which we reply "Tories to abolish regulations that push up business costs, force some businesses to lay off staff or restrict wage increases, hamper economic growth and therefore hurt everybody."

[Denis Cooper]

It could be that Cameron is playing a very clever game here. By publicly cracking down on Tory MPs who might want to sign up to "Better Off Out" he's sending a subtle message to our European partners that there is now a growing body of opinion within his party that the UK should leave the EU, while distancing himself from that view. So when he gets to No 10 and goes along to negotiate new treaty terms - no CFP, no CAP, no Social Chapter, no EU involvement in defence, etc - they will know that in the background there is the unspoken threat that his party might insist on complete withdrawal if his demands are not met. Alternatively, it could be that he has no intention whatsoever of making any of those demands, and he's just stringing the eurosceptics along with few false promises.

[Ted]

John Ashworth

UK has by international treaty agreed to the CFP and so already accepted a loss of juristiction over the 200 mile EEZ - so if the partners to the treaty do not accept a unilateral withdrawal then their fishermen will continue to fish, in some cases based on historic rights, in other cases on the CFP. In EU law & the law of the member states the CFP would remain the law - the UK's regulations would be viewed as illegal. Fishing rights have historically been a point of conflict.

The 1995 Turbot War between Canada & Spain/EU (where public pressure in UK made UK government side with Canada and stymied an EU response) is a case where the Canadian Navy arrested a ship outside of the 200 mile zone on the basis of the NAFO treaty.

I am against the CFP but it is, rarely for any UK treaty committment, an obligation entered into freely by the Parliament of the UK and that treaty confirmed by a referendum of the people of the UK. It is the case that there have been changes to the EEC since which do not have the same popular endorsement.

I would be happy to see the Conservative Party stand on the basis of working to revoke the CFP but to start by saying that we will first oppose and revoke Social Policy regulations we believe to be against the best interests of our nation seems to me a very sensible first step.

[kingbongo]

We couldn't use the RN to do anything about fishing rights anyway as the RN won't have any ships in a couple of years' time. Brown is doing a spectacular job of destroying the UK's armed forces and the UKIP wingnuts on here all seem quite happy to let that continue as they glory in the purity of their ideology.

As a pressure group to cajole and persuade the party into taking a more confident approach to the world UKIP had a role; it seems a shame that it is now populated and led by people whose biggest dislike is not the EU or socialism but the pragmatic Conservatism that all successful Conservative leaders have adopted.

[Scotty]

Kingbongo, we have a party in power who dislike conservatism, they also seem more inclined to bow to EU pressure and are planning to elect/crown a leader with very socialist tendencies. The fight to oust that bunch from power is the real battle, not a minor skirmish with a few deserters.

[deborah]

I am getting so demoralised, I haven't been able to work up the enthusiasm to post since Christmas. The news on Liam Fox was miserable and I thought Cameron was singularly uninspiring this morning. The message I heard was regaining control over our own law-making is too difficult so let's not talk about it very much; let's be constructive and think how we can use the EEC to influence world affairs...that's easier". Yes, it may be easier, but it's not what I wanted to hear and it's not what I thought I was voting for when he stood for the leadership.

Cameron led us to believe that he would lead a return to proactive principled politics. Since becoming leader he has reneged on the EPP commitment, he's trying to stifle Liam Fox and he's warning MPs not to sign the Better Off Out declaration.

Why do all our MPs have to toe a line decided by a few elite? Can't we handle any dissent? Surely, if the policy is the right one, our leaders should be able to convince us? Is this how democracy should work?

On Europe, John Redwood's approach sounds better to me. Come on Cameron, don't just take my loyalty for granted, at least try to convince me otherwise.

[Mark McCartney]

>>Kingbongo, we have a party in power who dislike conservatism,<<

Sadly, the same charge can equally be levelled at our Cameroons friends.

BTW Scotty, do send my regards to Keith.

[Scotty]

"Why do all our MPs have to toe a line decided by a few elite? Can't we handle any dissent? Surely, if the policy is the right one, our leaders should be able to convince us? Is this how democracy should work?
We democratically elect a leader and then we try to get behind them and work as a team, that is what most political parties find works best as a strategy for then going on to win GE's.
It is well documented why the Conservative party can't handle bucket loads of dissent, and more importantly it has made many grass roots members despair as they have tried to sell a party riven with infighting on the doorstep.
We had a long drawn out leadership debate and we are in the middle of a policy review, but that "few elite" as you put were elected to run the party.

[Scotty]

"Sadly, the same charge can equally be levelled at our Cameroons friends.

BTW Scotty, do send my regards to Keith."

Oh dear Mark, not happy at a conservative member from Scotland being unimpressed with UKIP?
UKIP is a one trick pony past its best, and until their electoral fortunes undergo a considerable reversal of the present decline I won't take them seriously.
Just remind me how well they performed at the last years local elections?

[Denis Cooper]

Scotty @ 16:11 - "we have a party in power who ... seem more inclined to bow to EU pressure" - more inclined than which other party, do you think? The last time the Tories made any serious attempt to resist "EU pressure" was under Thatcher, which was one reason why she was bumped off*. I would point out that Major was not compelled to agree to the establishment of a European Union, nor to that Union issuing its own currency, nor to that Union having "a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence", nor to that Union enshrining a Social Chapter in the later Amsterdam Treaty which was negotiated while he was still in office, and so on. He could have said "No, we don't agree to these developments, and under the existing EC treaty they can't be pursued without our agreement". Instead of which he "bowed to EU pressure", just as the present bunch "bows to EU pressure", and so far there's precious little evidence to suggest that Cameron would not also "bow to EU pressure".

* See Christopher Booker today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/14/nbook1401.xml

"The way she was tricked at Milan alerted Mrs Thatcher to the true nature of the "European project", which in turn played a larger part than is generally realised in the events that were to force her from office, before she could sabotage that second treaty and the single currency."

[Martin Cole]

Kingbongo at 15:30 stated: "We couldn't use the RN to do anything about fishing rights anyway as the RN won't have any ships in a couple of years' time...."

Andrew Marr in the interview failed to point out to Cameron that Regional Assemblies (the scrapping of which was Cameron's only realistic suggestion for extra funds) were started under Major and that scrapping them would probably prove impossible in the existing EU as that is how the small percentage of our contributions returned from the EU are actually channeled back, 9thus deliberately avoiding local democratic control).

UKIP's policy of EU withdrawal on the other hand means real extra funds for either the RN or whatever our parliament then sovereignly decides.

Lord Pearson on the crossfire element of 'Sunday with Boulton' put all the points superbly.

[Deborah]

Scotty,
That would be fine if what we were sold in the leadership election was consistent with what we then received from the leader, once elected.
I, like many others, am wondering if I was misled.

[Rudyard.]

Could someone please remind us all,exactly what the benefits of being in the European Union are?

Also,perhaps,someone else could be providing us with a list of disadvantages of being in the European Union?

[Richard Carey]

I'll take the European point first and get that out of the way - strange how it seems to be the one factor in the interview that's dominated this thread...

I think the position on the EU laid out was very clear, especially with regard to BOO etc. Some people may not like that we're taking a moderate, sensible eurosceptic position, and we need of course to keep talking to them but our direction is now clear and is not changing. Good advice from the Chief Whip regarding Better Off Out, too - it's not an invalid campaign, it's a point of view, but candidates and elected members should be careful not be seen to sign up to anything on the instruction of a minority opposition party.

DC was always going to get the UKIP question from Marr, and needs to be dismissive of them, certainly not row back from his previous remarks but not engage either. His job is to look more Prime Minsterial than Brown, skirmishing with fringe parties dosn't help that. I liked the "optimistic vision bit" for EU and international affairs, too.

Right, on to more important sections. We're starting to be clearer about what we mean on health reform. I like the fact that we're moving toward a "Direct Democracy"-type agenda, I think there's alot of good in us becoming the party of a new localism. Looking forward to fleshing out more power for local government, more devolution of responsibility in public services etc.

On environmental taxation, I think we're previously had a problem getting over the "and theory" of this - we've found some lack of understanding on the doorstep that, as DC said again today, it would be paired with tax reductions for enterprise and the family. We need to keep making that link for people.

The foregin affairs section of the interview is an entire topic for discussion on it's own, but I think we need to be clearer in communicating what we take from the "Baker-Hamilton proposals" and put forward constructive suggestions on how to implement them (should at least keep the Foreign Affairs and defence teams out of mischief!!).

Did anyone else notice a subtle change in emphasis regarding Brown? I thought DC made a lot more references to dividing lines between himself and Brown, making it less Tory v Labour and more Cameron v Brown without personalising it? I wonder if this a deliberate tactic, gearing up to go more man-on-man?

[Rudyard.]

Another thing,have any of you noticed the word "Communist" being very frequently tied to the words"European Union"recently?

As in "The Communist styled European Union".

Or,simply,"The Communist European Union"?

[Scotty]

"Scotty,
That would be fine if what we were sold in the leadership election was consistent with what we then received from the leader, once elected."
I, like many others, am wondering if I was misled."
Deborah, David Cameron was elected because the conservative party wants to WIN again!
At the moment I do not feel the least bit mislead and in fact have not felt this optimistic about the fortunes of my party both North and South of the border in many years.
Go back and listen to his speech at conference again and you will find that what he has been doing in the last year has been consistent with what he said then.

Denis, I stand by my assertion that Labour and the Libdems will tend to bow more to EU pressure than a conservative government led by David Cameron.

[ToMTom]

So when he gets to No 10 and goes along to negotiate new treaty terms - no CFP, no CAP, no Social Chapter, no EU involvement in defence, etc - they will know that in the background there is the unspoken threat that his party might insist on complete withdrawal if his demands are not met.

After the other politicians in the room have finished laughing at him no doubt he will link out of the room.

There is no prospect of undoing sections of Treaties since those sections interlock with others; it is fatuous to think you can go and change wording on treaties already signed and you might as well go and renegotiate your mortgage under threat of defaulting

[Mark McCartney]

>>Some people may not like that we're taking a moderate, sensible eurosceptic position<<

No at all. What we don't like is continued collaboration with Eurofascism.

The moderate "freedom" position is withdrawal.

[ukfirst]

Quote: "I liked the "optimistic vision bit" for EU and international affairs, too."

To have an "optimistic vision" for Britain in the EU one has to be lying or stupid.

[Mark McCartney]

>>BTW Scotty, do send my regards to Keith."

Oh dear Mark, not happy at a conservative member from Scotland being unimpressed with UKIP?<<

Why would you say that, Scotty? Surely something of a brusque non sequitur in response to my friendly "third party" greeting.

UKIP scarcely play at all in Scotland so I would hardly expect you to be impressed by them.

They are seen as an "English Party", just as - sadly - we are these days.

[CDM]

We should remain in the EU, for the simple reason that only our membership stands between the status quo and a United States of Europe.

[Denis Cooper]

"Better Off Out" is not a UKIP campaign, it's a non-party Freedom Association campaign as can be seen on its website: http://www.betteroffout.co.uk/ .

As I understand, UKIP have said that if an MP signs up to "Better Off Out" then they will take that as sufficient evidence of his sincerity over the EU issue and not oppose him at the next election. There's nothing like an "instruction" that MPs should sign up to it, but if they do it will be noted and given due regard.

Even the Sunday Telegraph article mentions that: "During his leadership quest, Mr Cameron promised to let MPs campaign for a British pullout from Europe if they felt strongly about it", so isn't this another promise that he's reneged on?

[Richard Carey]

There's nothing like an "instruction" that MPs should sign up to it, but if they do it will be noted and given due regard.

Perhaps my use of the word "instruction" was a little imprecise. I actually think the Sunday Telegraph's leader column put it more succintly:

This is effectively blackmail and Mr Cameron deserves praise for stamping on the small band of Tory MPs who have had talks with former Conservatives now in self-exile on the rag-bag fringes of politics.

I'm still intrigued by the discussion of increased localism in the NHS that the interview touched on. Any interesting ideas on some small ways this could work? I was talking to a colleague the other day whose wife is a senior health visitor - she's fizzing with ideas and really passionate about improving the service she and her staff provide, but finds it incredibly dispiriting trying to get senior staff to listen to her.

If devolution of power in our public services is to mean anything, it really has to start with empowering people like her to make the changes they can envisage so clearly. That means not just managers listening to them, but those of us in politics listening too.

[Scotty]

">>Kingbongo, we have a party in power who dislike conservatism,<<"
Sadly, the same charge can equally be levelled at our Cameroons friends.
"No at all. What we don't like is continued collaboration with Eurofascism."
"They are seen as an "English Party", just as - sadly - we are these days."

I thought we Scots were meant to be the "Dour" merchants of doom and gloom!
Well I am glad that you are not leading the conservative party, and that David Cameron's positive and enthusiastic style of politics is helping revive our parties fortunes.
In fact if I had felt like you back in 97' I would have given up on my party, where as instead like many others I pulled my sleeves up and got stuck in helping my local party by delivering leaflets.
That kind of "the end is nigh" politics and scaremongering really was a turn off for voters and the focus on "save the pound" & "immigration" dog whistle issues end up having the opposite effect every time.

[Scotty]

"If devolution of power in our public services is to mean anything, it really has to start with empowering people like her to make the changes they can envisage so clearly. That means not just managers listening to them, but those of us in politics listening too."
While the NHS is being used as a political football I don't think we will see real devolution in the public services. I think that is what is needed, but I remain unconvinced we can achieve it, unless we do something really radical and finally take it out of the politicians hands altogether.

[Phil]

Based on what the Ed reports, I’m a little reassured on tax. Disappointed with Cameron's position on Iraq. Although I'm not sure the troop 'surge' will work, it is better than asking states like Iran to help! The link on today’s home page to Michael Gove’s interview with the Observer which suggests the Labour Government might be more open to what Mr Gove is pointing out than is the Tory front bench is depressing.

As for the EU, why only get out of the Social Chapter? I understand that the Sexual Orientation Regs, which end our freedom of religion and conscience, are a result of an EU Directive. But whatever one's view on these Regs, should it the business of other nations in the shape of 'Brussels' to determine our law on such issues? If most of our laws originate from 'Brussels' anyway, why only to get out of one aspect (the Social Chapter)? Is this merely tossing a small piece of meat to the Eurosceptics to prevent more defections to UKIP? Perhaps better off out of the EU altogether!

As for domestic flights, no environmental policy has credibility unless the impact of transport is tackled. The railways can be developed to provide a competitive more environmentally-friendly choice thus removing the need for many domestic flights.

But Mr Cameron's comments on the un-Britishness of regionalisation and ID cards are very welcome. Won’t regionalisation will take power from (thus destroy) the County Councils, rather than from Westminster? Regionalisation will remove power further from people.

[Denis Cooper]

Well, Richard, the word "blackmail" may be appropriate, but not as used in the Sunday Telegraph leader. "Blackmail" implies that somebody is being compelled to act against their wishes under duress. But while nobody is being forced to join the "Better Off Out" campaign, Conservative MPs are now being blackmailed by Cameron to prevent them from doing so, despite the promise he gave during the leadership contest.

[Sean Fear]

you might as well go and renegotiate your mortgage under threat of defaulting"

That can actually be a very effective way for a debtor to renegotiate better terms. After all, if you owe the bank £10,000, you're in trouble. If you owe them £10m, they're in trouble.

[Richard Carey]

Denis, I'm beginning to think that you might be being deliberately obtuse here in choosing to ignore my points (I have several), as they seem pretty clear to me...

1. I'm not sure why we're spilling so much ink on this issue. I don't want to pander to UKIP, I want to beat them. As they're a minority party, we need to beat them as a side-efect of running a broad, optimistic campaign on the issues that really matter to people that will see us beat Labour.

2. UKIP have written to all MPs asking them to sign up to BOO, or they will stand candidates against them.

3. Chief Whip has warned Conservtive MPs not to accept offers or deals from political opponents, citing this one in particular.

I really don't know which point you're getting so disturbed about. Here's a question for you: if another opponent, say the LibDems, had made a similar offer, would you have responded in the same way?

I'd love to clear this up so we could talk about something else for a change - I've mentioned the health and localism issues above, were there any other areas covered in the interview where you found some exciting nuggets to pull out?

[Richard Carey]

After all, if you owe the bank £10,000, you're in trouble. If you owe them £10m, they're in trouble.

Something that Guido pointed out that the Labour Party might just (allegedly!) have learnt a while ago, Sean!

[Yet Another Anon]

This leaves us extremely vulnerable to attacks from Labour along the lines of "Tories to abolish your right to a holiday
THe legislation passed to comply with Social Chapter regulations would still be in place (unfortunately) unless that was repealed seperately through UK parliament - because of the way EU regulations are implimented through Member States parliaments.

[Denis Cooper]

Richard, it's very simple. "Better Off Out" is a non-party campaign run by the Freedom Association. It is not a UKIP campaign, and even if UKIP offers Tory candidates a deal contingent on support for "Better Off Out" it is still not a UKIP campaign, it remains a non-party campaign run by the Freedom Association.

I understand perfectly well that no party leader can allow candidates to make unauthorised deals with other parties, but that's quite different from forbidding them to support a non-party campaign, especially when in this case the leader had previously said that they would be allowed to support such a campaign.

[Scotty]

Denis, I agree with Richard's points at 19:28.
I also think that if you are a political party serious about governing the country on a clear party manifesto, you cannot have individual MP's playing pick and mix with policies advocated by other parties.

[Richard Carey]

I did write a long and serious response to this, Denis, then deleted it when I realised I'd be wasting bandwidth because we're not going to agree, are we? I stand by my position although I do understand your point that the involvement of a third-party group complicates the argument a little.

Did you manage to pull any other intersting policy directions out of the interview yet?

[Denis Cooper]

Sunday Telegraph, January 2007:

"During his leadership quest, Mr Cameron promised to let MPs campaign for a British pullout from Europe if they felt strongly about it. His new hardline stance follows ... "

Sunday Telegraph, January 2011:

"During the general election campaign, Mr Cameron promised to take back powers from Brussels. His change of mind since becoming Prime Minister ... "

[malcolm]

I thought when I saw that the interview would be discussed on the diary it would soon get hijacked by those who seemingly can only talk about the European issue and pretty much nothing else. Unfortunately I missed the interview,I'm interested to know whether Marr laid a glove on DC at any point.Can anyone tell me please?

[Richard Carey]

since becoming Prime Minister

Well, it's encouraging that you acknowledge that our chances are pretty good!

I'm curious about the electoral politics behind your posts today. I genuinely find it hard to tell whether you actually want to see a Conservative win or not? I'm not trying to be provocative with this, by the way, but you do seem to be very single-issue here.

When DC made his comments about the Conservatives "not banging on about Europe" I wonder if he had this thread in mind!

I've asked you a couple of times if you have any views on the other areas covered in the interview. Don't you think it's the right path for us to be developing a broader agenda? Or only if we agree with you first?

[Richard Carey]

I'm interested to know whether Marr laid a glove on DC at any point.Can anyone tell me please?

I don't think he did really, Malcolm, although he went for the "you're not going to be different" line alot, DC usually had an answer. I'd have liked the foreign policy answers to be deeper, but they were at the end of the interview and I think got squeezed.

If you can access it, you can watch the interview from the link here.

[Denis Cooper]

Richard, the fundamental "electoral politics" are that I would prefer an elected British government to be a real government, not a largely pretend government acting as local agents for the EU, or for that matter the UN, or the US. Lord Tebbit once said something like: "If the British people vote for socialism, they are entitled to get socialism". Neither Lord Tebbit nor I would ever vote for socialism, but that's not the point. We're now in the dangerous situation where each newly elected government is handed a poisoned chalice, filled with the accumulated "international obligations" incurred by its predecessors. I'm looking for signs that Cameron would be prepared to pour that poison down the drain and reassert the de facto, not just de jure, supremacy of our elected Parliament.

[RodS]

In this desperate situation with all 3 parties happy to submit to evergrowing control by the EU (Eurocreep) - the best available rallying point is the B O O Campaign. Every pressure should be brought on every MP to sign up to a deal with UKIP. We should use UKIP for all possible leverage - we may not get another chance.

[malcolm]

Thanks Richard.I'll watch it now. Hope it's more interesting than this thread, I'm getting really bored with so many threads no matter what subject they started on ending up as a discussion on the merits or otherwise of UKIP.

[TomTom]

Sear, just make sure you have no Mortgage Indemnity Insurance before trying that stunt or watch your lender re-possess

I was talking to a colleague the other day whose wife is a senior health visitor - she's fizzing with ideas and really passionate about improving the service she and her staff provide,

She has her chance now. The Govt wants PCTs to stop employing any nurses or other staff and wants them to organise themselves into cooperatives or private companies.

She can set up her own enterprise now before Hewitt enforces the policy

[Richard Carey]

Every pressure should be brought on every MP to sign up to a deal with UKIP.

On behalf of hard-working Conservative activists everywhere, Rod, I'd like to thank you for supporting a screwball political opponent and direct you here!!

[TomTom]

There is apparently a 3-day meeting of EU Interior Ministers in Dresden to discuss harmonisation of Divorce Laws and Child Support, Inheritance, and other aspects of Civil Law

[spagbob]

the more i listen to Cameron's vision for britain the more impressed i am with him and the more certain i am that its a conservative vision. i started off a little sceptical of cameron (though i voted for him in the leadership election as i thought he was our best chance for the future), and despite a few things which i disagree with his stance on, he seems to be turning out quite well. maybe we can win the next election after all!

here's a suggestion too. instead of the conservatives arguing for a withdrawal from the EU as an end in itself and being portrayed as isolationists e.t.c. why dont we start to get an optimistic vision and argue for a "global economic community" along the same sort of lines as we thought the EU would have been - free movement of goods, services, capital and labour and no trade barrriers or protectionism of any kind, but this time open it up to every country in the world - a worldwide free trade block. then we can argue that to stay part of the EU is backward looking and isolationist. it would be a forward vision for the 21st century and if we made other requirements on members like they have working democracies and respect human rights, it could finally be a way to create a better, more prosperous, more secure world. thats what we need to be arguing for - an optimistic, outward looking vision for the future that captures the imagination, not having an internal war over membership of the EU.

[Richard Carey]

I'm getting really bored with so many threads no matter what subject they started on ending up as a discussion on the merits or otherwise of UKIP.

I know what you mean, Malcolm! I ask myself sometimes when posting on here whether I'm encouraging these kind of people by rebutting them - I try and find a point to draw a line!

I have attempted to suggest to posters on this thread broader policy topics from the interview, but takers have been comparatively few and far between...

[Scotty]

Richard, I must admit I wrote a post in reply to RodS's comments but deleted it, because I am bored with coming on here and sparring with UKIPPERs instead of talking about the conservative party.
I believe that tomorrow there will be a dairy piece of Europeanism?

[Scotty]

Richard, I did reply to one of your posts regarding the NHS but you might have missed it.
I know by mentioning this I run the risk of finding out you did see it and decided it was unworthy of a response. (cue a smilie)

[Richard Carey]

I know by mentioning this I run the risk of finding out you did see it and decided it was unworthy of a response. (cue a smilie)

Funny, you were one of the honourable exceptions I had in mind!

I did indeed see it Scotty, and it certainly wasn't unworthy. We do need a policy alternative to Brown's thing from a couple of months ago about an independent NHS board Whatever happened to that? Talk about a one-day wonder.

As regards RodS, I probably shouldn't have risen to the bait, but unlike senior politicians I don't have to worry about always being a statesman, sometimes I have the luxury of being a streetfighter!

[Ted]

Richard, Scotty - wouldn't it be good to have a week when EU/UKIP/Europe, Immigration and Tax were banned words/subjects. See if posters can discuss the Union, Education, NHS, foreign policy etc. without reference to those?

Ah! the eurobores cry - you can't, Europe is all; No, it's all about affordability and the tax hungry state say the 'core'. Well it isn't - its about hope, competence, ideas, nationalism, family, charity, justice, neighbourliness, conservation, care. What we can do rather than what threatens.

[malcolm]

Too true Ted. I'll wait for tomorrows diary with some trepidation.

[matt wright]

Good performance from DC in the interview. The most powerful approach we have is this new positivism and it is clear from canvass surveys that most floating voters like and want a positive, forward looking Conservative party,

Matt

[UKIP@HOME]

Apparently UKIP are working on a 'headline grabbing' policy of legalising all drugs.

However if you disagree with UKIP's 'Free Heroin for everyone' drugs policy, UKIP plan to introduce local referendums on issues of major local concern where you can reverse UKIP policies in your local area with a public vote if you disagree with them.

Welcome to the crazy, crazy world of the United Kingdom Independence Party where chaos will reign supreme (...but at least the drugs will be free!)

[Scotty]

"Well it isn't - its about hope, competence, ideas, nationalism, family, charity, justice, neighbourliness, conservation, care. What we can do rather than what threatens."
Ted, those are sentiments I agree wholeheartedly with.
Richard, the NHS is a subject I could chat about for hours. The previous conservative government really did not invest enough in it, but the shameful amount of money wasted in the pursuit of figures that Labour could use for a headline or across the despatch box is obscene.
I genuinely believe that David Cameron thinks the NHS is vital to most voters and must been protected, and that means investing in it wisely by not pouring billions down a drain and then starving it of funding all over again.
Just realised I spelt dairy earlier rather than diary!

[ToMTom]

"global economic community" along the same sort of lines as we thought the EU would have been - free movement of goods, services, capital and labour and no trade barrriers or protectionism of any kind

I am glad you're being satirical Spagbob or you would be certifiable.

Very few people on the planet have houses, running water, pensions, cars, televisions, beds, non-working children, medical care, schools, roads, vacations, etc..................but you feel we should give those up to become more like the 144 million people in Bangladesh, the 200 million in Indonesia, the 1300 million in China.............

Very altruistic. Just how do you intend to defend your standard of living in a world where hundreds of millions of people could move into your neighbourhood ?

[Denis Cooper]

Did any of those who say they're bored stiff by all the discussion of the EU notice this from TomTom @ 22:06?

"There is apparently a 3-day meeting of EU Interior Ministers in Dresden to discuss harmonisation of Divorce Laws and Child Support, Inheritance, and other aspects of Civil Law"

What is the point of having long debates on here about Tory policy on inheritance tax, if the decisions of a future Tory government will be pre-empted by the present Labour government through EU agreements?

As I recall I said during one such debate that I favoured something like the Irish system, despite it also being the system preferred by the EU, as I had heard.

But above all I would prefer that the British people made a decision through their national democratic process, rather than having one imposed by the EU.

[Denis Cooper]

Just come in: http://euobserver.com:80/9/23250/?rk=1

"EU threatening parliamentary democracy, says ex-German president"

"Germany's state of parliamentary democracy is under threat from the European Union which is slowly taking away all the national parliament's powers, the country's ex-president has said. In an article for newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Roman Herzog pointed out that between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels."

[RodS]

" I know what you mean, Malcolm! I ask myself sometimes when posting on here whether I'm encouraging these kind of people by rebutting them" (Richard Carey)

The problem is RC, is that you never rebutt anything, you just try and close down the argument. Where is your evidence that EU decisions do not constrain Westminster decisions ? Where is your evidence that there is a net economic and financial benefit to the UK from being politically enmeshed in the EU Institution ?