Attack, attack, attack!

Late last week David Cameron promised an "absolute bare-knuckle fight" with Labour over the 40 maternity units and 90 A&E units currently under threat of downgrading or closure.  It's a good subject for him to choose.  His commitment to the NHS is clearly authentic.  He saw how local hospital staff cared for his son Ivan and he believes deeply in the NHS' values.

The need to attack Brown is the advice coming from the leader-writers at The Sunday Telegraph and Michael Portillo in his Sunday Times column.  It's good advice.  ConservativeHome has already recommended a guerilla war against Brown during the summer months.  We need to rattle Gordon Brown.  We need to erode his poll lead so that he fears the result of an autumn election campaign.  The longer we manage to delay an election the more likely it is that Brown will eventually lose.  The fundamental failures of the Brown-Blair years will steadily reassert themselves.

For The Telegraph the number one target for the Tory charge should be Labour's manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the new EU constitution/ treaty.  Europe may not be a big concern for voters but the issue of a broken promise will resonate widely.

Michael Portillo lists other (and I think better) objects for attack:

• The early release of prisoners from our overcrowded, underfunded jails.
• The disastrous new system for appointing junior doctors and the denial of life-prolonging drugs despite the huge expenditure of taxpayers' money.
• The incompetent BAA monopoly that presides over the misery that is Heathrow airport.
• The extent of Britain's broken society.

We need daily activity over the summer and ideally the attacks will poke fun at Gordon Brown.  ConservativeHome's LabourDoNotDo series could be turned into a series of YouTube ads, for example.

Let's have Chris Grayling coordinating the attacks.  Liam Fox can target Labour's deadly under-equipment of the armed forces.  David Davis can lead on prisons and immigration.  George Osborne can remind voters of Gordon Brown's stealth taxes and pensions fiasco.

The grassroots will react well to a period of strong opposition.  David Cameron should largely stand above the fray.  As soon as the F&M situation is clear he should take his holiday.  He needs a break.  A period of refreshment will allow him to return with more strategic clarity.

Postscript: Michael Portillo also uses his column to defend David Cameron's Rwanda trip.  He writes:

"Cameron has every right to feel unlucky. He deserved a good press for his visit to Rwanda. The Conservative party initiative was not just a photocall. Eight Tory MPs spent two weeks doing voluntary work there in an experience that has changed their lives. Cameron’s journey was not to pose with photogenic children but to pay respects at the genocide memorial and to address the Rwandan parliament.  Before leaving home he had already been to the flood-afflicted areas of his constituency. To have stayed longer posing in wellingtons would have been merely a stunt. If Britain thinks that inundated British homes are more important than thousands of murdered Africans, that is an indictment of our values, not Cameron’s."

I couldn't agree more with Portillo's last sentence.  The timing of the Rwanda trip was unfortunate but a deep commitment to the poorest people of the world should be a central characteristic of our party - the party of William Wilberforce.

Comments

[TomTom]

he believes deeply in the NHS' values.

What are these ? Have you polled doctors on them recently ? I doubt they are impressed with MTAS and MMC "Murdering Medical Careers" as examples of good employers.

When nurses and Unison march on 13th October, I doubt they will be praising "NHS Values" as they treasure their 1.9% pay increase after re-grading

Privatising operating theatres at Kingston Hospital (Sunday Telegraph) sounds fascinating

Do not make an assumption that people know what these "NHS Values" are any more...politicians do not seem to have caught up with tuition fees for doctors and nurses, redundant physiotherapists, laid-off midwives, and the resentment felt by NHS staff towards political words and political deeds

[tally]

this government is imposing unitary authorities (regional assemblies) in the face of public opposition through out England. This ant English new labour party is determined to wipe England out before they get booted out.
The Conservatives should promise not only a referendum on the EU, but a referendum through out England on the same day as to whether we want unitary authorites or not.
A referendum on an English Parliament would not be bad idea either.

[Tony Makara]

The way to attack Labours record of faliure is across all fronts. One single big issue isn't going to be enough. However the subject of the NHS is one that particularly rankles with most voters, especially because Labour for so many years made the NHS their cause celebre and after stating that they had a week to save the NHS they have spent ten years destroying the NHS. Gordon Brown has given up on district hospitals and wants to run essential medical services from health and community centres. This is an admission of faliure. David Cameron is quite correct in setting focus on Labours NHS failings.

[Ben Surtees]

Its important to remember that attacks should be focused and consistent... a scatter-gun approach wont work and will seem directionless, there has to be a coherence to any critique of the government, our "grid" must reflect this.

[Jennifer Wells]

You are completely right to say that Cameron should take his holiday. All these cancellations of holidays is so much macho posturing. The nation can manage without Brown ringing everyone up at 6am every morning and the shadow cabinet should be good enough to fill in for Cameron.

[Brown Spin]

Why are we buying so many US treasuries when the USD is collapsing and rates are going up? This has the potential to lose more money than the sale of gold at the bottom of the market.

HIPs are simply a device to extract tax from the housing market in the future. Once compulsory they will suddenly start to cost more as they provide an effective platform for 'taxing' every house sale in the country, even though stamp duty already exists.

[TomTom]

Why are we buying so many US treasuries when the USD is collapsing and rates are going up?

It is called forward intervention in the forex market. It is how we manage exchange rates. It is essential to exporters hedging strategies.

[The Huntsman]

On the downside, Huhne is again the BBC's commentator of choice on F&M on News 24 Sunday.

On the upside an assured and calm performance from Chris Grayling who resisted Sisson's every desperate attempt to portray GB as a great statesman who walks on water, not just now and then but all the time.

Good under fire is the main impression of him and your advocacy of him as a leader of the attack dog section is to be applauded.

The targets you suggest are entirely sensible and others will soon occur, but the referendum remains a glaring issue of trust in and the honour of Brown and his henchmen and is such an open goal mouth that it must not be neglected.

Before the spin starts on the F&M outbreak, as it will, let us remember that ultimately it is the Government that is responsible for both the physical security of this lab and for the legislative framework for ensuring that security. Given that foot and mouth swept the country in 2001, putting the Government on notice that it had to look to our defences against such outbreaks, any failure in that security, whether by negligence or deliberate act, is down to this government and this government alone and cannot be blamed on anyone else. This pathogen should not get out of the building, but it has and prima facie that is down, ultimately, to the government.

Perhaps Chris Grayling should be helping Peter Ainsworth to hone his knife.....

[Alan S]

Peter Ainsworth should be sacked. To mess up the floods was bad enough but to be absent again now in the foot-and-mouth crisis is inexcusable.

[voreas06]

Tony Makara "The way to attack Labours record of faliure is across all fronts."

I agree the government need to be treated like dodgy car salesman. Virtually every reply by our shadow cabinet members should start with complete disbelief. Actually what would be even better is Ken Clarke's approach which was to laugh and dismiss the government's claims as if they were naughty tearaway's telling porkies to the public, and he was the jovial policeman catching them in the act. Although frankly that came naturally with him, the important part is that the government are challenged on the nonsense that they spout precisely by calling it nonsense, rubbish etc.

Ben Surtees "Its important to remember that attacks should be focused and consistent..."

Whilst it might sound contadictory to Tony's statement above it is not. We need to attack on all fronts but be consistent in the message of the attack that is what Labour have learnt i.e you repeat things often enough people will believe them. If labour can and constantly do this with lies and half truths then surely doing it with the truth makes sense.

Finally this should not be seen as a summer offensive this should be a permanent change. People are not happy with this government and we need to reflect that unhappiness.

[SimpleTory]

Re. Ainsworth - following 'The Huntsman' and 'Alan S',he really needs a kick up the backside.
This F&M outbreak has occurred in his own county and still no comment.
As much use as a back pocket in a string vest!!!
ST

[Andrew Woodman]

This article is very sound advice. It will also shake up the grassroots and make them release what they're fighting for. We need to take all these recent Brown promises and rip them apart based on his record.

Also on Ainesworth, I've been questioning his effectivity for weeks, but it's becoming more and more obvious that he needs sacking. It's just not happening from his department at a time when all the major stories seem to be surrounding DEFRA. I'd be interested to see how he fared in the members survey.

[Stand Up Throw Up]

What are NHS values???

Longest queues for treatment in the G7.
Worst health outcomes in the G7.
Lowest morale amongst medical practitioners in the G7.
Absurd postcode rationing of vital drugs and procedures.
Dirtiest hospitals and highest incidence of hospital-acquired infections in the G7.

Keep the name. Keep the logo. Copy someone else's system.

[Tony Makara]

It is certainly very important to debunk the myth that the Gordon Brown government is some sort of 'New' government. The BBC in particular have been using the term 'New Government' at every opportunity. The public need to be remined, time and time again, that this is the same old stale Labour government. Gordon Brown has been the prime mover of the failed Labour project. The ersatz economy in particular has been Gordon Browns brainchild. The fake economy, the half work/have benefit tax credit economy in which millions have found themselves anchored to and dependent on the state, the stealth tax regime, etc. All are Gordon Browns doing, all are Gordon Browns responsibility. The focus must be on exposing Gordon Brown.

[Richard North]

Good to see that The Sunday Telegraph is arguing that "Target Number One" must be the Labour Party's Manifesto pledge to call a referendum on the new EU constitution.

It is not wrong when it says that, "if Mr Cameron were to lead a decisive attack on the Prime Minister on this issue, he would find that he was leading an army not just of card-carrying Conservatives."

Despite our reservations on the leadership of Mr Cameron, EU Referendum will fully support the Conservatives if they put their full weight behind the campaign for a referendum, and back those who do likewise - as this post demonstrates.

This is an ideal opportunity for the blogosphere to show that it is a political force in this country and, very soon, we will see it divided into those who lead and those who follow.

[Anonymous until fourther notice]

Hmmm 'guerilla war' - that's not difficult to report showing a rather unpleasant extremist tendency. Talk about reaffirming old stereotypes.

I guess Labour could just as easily juxtapose Cameron's own words from WebCameron praising the economy etc with the 'nasty' (but schoolboyish and ineffective if your past ads are a guide) ads you seek to produce to show that the nasty side is still live and kicking.

The fact is, attack all you like, but when people see video of Cameron telling his MP's to give Blair a standing ovation, praising the economy etc (WebCameron YouTube interview) ,you'll realise that it is Cameron himself who has guaranteed you defeat.

I think this site is becoming a touch embarrassing. There's more chance of Justin Hincliffe dropping his support for a federal EU than this site rattling Brown!

In fact I think I'll produce counter ads; not because I support Brown, but because you guys are just too easy to beat!

[michael m]

As a life long Conservative, I am more in dispair about the state of the party then I have been for many years. 15 years after our last vistory and after 3 humiliating election defeats, the vast majority of MPs seem to be sleepwalking into another, which this timeround could take the party backwards.

There appears to be no fight at all as far as most of the MPs are concerned- and that includes some frontbenchers. Open goals are missed and not even recognised and heads are buried in the sand. For instance,we should have seen that Brown would seize on the national housing shoetage, where he now appears to be the only one championing this cause(remember what Macmillan did in 1951) Brown has backtracked on Blair policies which we opposed as though it was his idea- casinos etc when we should have been making him do this as part of our agenda.

We should be demanding loud long and at every opportunity-leaving aside the Referendum

Immediate cancellation of identity cards
At least some iniative on Iraq
Knife and gun crime crackdowns

etc etc etc

Instead we just let Brown and his band call the issues and take all the credit

This band of Tory MPs is a pathetic lot- in behaving as they are, they are betraying the many supporters and ultimately letting down their country.. I have not heard one of them show any dtermination to win or even say that we will!

I write this with sadness but also a firm supporter of David Cameron who deserves better from his troops.

Perhaps someone could advise me how we can get through to this lot how strongly we feel about their continual inactions- perhaps they should all cancel their holidays for a start and get out there campaigning and supporting DC

[Curly]

"Europe may not be a big concern for voters but the issue of a broken promise will resonate widely."

The issue of a referendum over the new EU Treaty really ought to be uppermost in the mind of the electorate, not just because of it's federalist ideals and the frittering away of Parliament's decision making capabilities, but mainly because the Labour Party made a firm commitment to allowing the people to decide.

If they can be allowed to break this promise then how can we trust them on many other major issues?

Surely it is time for the blogosphere to start driving this forward.

[Paul Kennedy]

I'm not convinced that the electorate are impressed by a sole policy of attack, attack, attack. Many if not most, know what the problems are they afterall experince them in their daily lives, and would I think, prefer to hear from us what our solutions would be, as afterall when and if elected, attack, attack, attack is no policy for Government.....well for one which wants more than a single term. Contrary to popular belief, I do believe we have some good policies and ideas for Government, we need to start expounding them....and fast.

Just a thought on pensions, might be worth looking at how many schemes have been closed or wound up, and replaced by schemes where the employer has greatly reduced their funding from what was 10% to a substantially reduced percentage. The real, current and future problem with pension provision in the UK is the widening disparity between those offered by private sector employers and those offered.....and underwritten by taxpayers, to state sector employees....including MPs, and the implications thereof.

[David Belchamber]

That's much more like it:

"We need daily activity over the summer and ideally the attacks will poke fun at Gordon Brown. ConservativeHome's LabourDoNotDo series could be turned into a series of YouTube ads, for example.

Let's have Chris Grayling coordinating the attacks. Liam Fox can target Labour's deadly under-equipment of the armed forces. David Davis can lead on prisons and immigration. George Osborne can remind voters of Gordon Brown's stealth taxes and pensions fiasco".

Attack on all fronts, using as many members of the shadow cabinet as possible and give David Cameron a rest.

I doubt that Gordon Wastealot will react well to jibes. Can we not harness the talents of Jeff Randall to annihilate GB's economic record? The important thing is to be sure of our facts before criticising him.

[Tony Makara]

Anonymous, David Cameron's standing ovation for Blair was good manners and etiquette. While not every Conservative stood and applauded Blair, David Cameron thought it right to applaud Blair, out of politeness and I don't see anything improper in that. On the subject of the economy and wider political issues David Cameron has always said that he will support the Labour government when they do the right thing. There is nothing inconsistent in that. It is easy to take quotes out of context and try to make a contradiction. You will find that David Cameron's comments on Labour, if taxen in full context, have always been appropriate and consistent in equal measure.

[Registration Now!]

"If they can be allowed to break this promise then how can we trust them on many other major issues?"

Think about it. Now I personally support a referendum but if you were Brown, what would you do?

He hasn't actually broken any manifesto pledge as yet. He is just as likely to delay the approval until after the next impending election and not include any such pledge in the next manifesto.

Then he would be elected on a platform that does not include such a pledge and would therefore be able to claim that there is no such public demand for one.

And what will the Tories do? Repeat their 'Keep the Pound' like campaign that fails to resonate with the public and lose again.

In short, further Tory incompetence that lets Labour off the hook again.

Beating the Tories get easier by the day, and that is another example of them selling Britain short as we need a better opposition.

[voreas06]

Paul Kennedy "I'm not convinced that the electorate are impressed by a sole policy of attack, attack, attack."

You are absolutely right attack alone won't do. There needs to be both attack of the governments record, credibility, and honesty. As well as a narrative, policy framework, and small examples of how we are going to improve things for people's everday lives.

[TomTom]

Time to tap some funds for posters outside the Labour Conference with the section of the 2005 Manifesto on billboards

It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. WE WILL PUT IT TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE IN A REFERENDUM and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote

[michael m]

You have to destroy a Government's credibility before the electorate will listen to what an Opposition has to say. Blair/Brown saw that in 1994 and we should remember

[voreas06]

Registration Now! "And what will the Tories do? Repeat their 'Keep the Pound' like campaign that fails to resonate with the public and lose again."

Rubbish,if Brown kicks the decision into the long grass then there is no reason to make Europe the centre of any campaign, just to say that we know Gordon is scared that the electorate don't like his position and we will continue to harass him so he constantly delays the decision thereby disproving his "Strong" leadership. Meanwhile there are a million other things to campaign about that are wrong with this government.

[Martin Bristow]

It is absolutely crucial now that we energise our activists.The period following Brown's takeover was always going to be difficult.We have however made our own problems to a large degree by unsettling our own side over selective Education and imposing a candidate at Ealing South.

We need to reach out now and attack on the issues which unit us all.I would select the following:

Immigration-Linked in with security concerns and the fiasco of asylum system.

Lawless streets-Emphasis on violent Crime and drawing in the prison fiasco and early release.

The EU referendum commitment given by Brown.

The effect of Brown on peoples pensions.

Our Broken society -Drugs policy and the effects of addictions on Families and child outcomes.

Picking these five and doing it well should unite all Tories whatever wing of our party they sit on.At present attack is more important thanpushing out our positive prospectus that should come after the summer recess.

[Teck Khong]

Of course we attack, and attack very hard at every seriously flawed policy. And there are many with agonising failures. The fact that the country is ticking over doesn't mean everything is right. It could be so very much better.

The NHS is something I can speak about as I have a very long association with and within it. The damage will be progressively felt, and repair will be difficult. Much of the healthcare profession is progressively de-skilled, compounded by ponderous administration and costly mistakes over planning and implementation, while the patients and the lay public are fed garbage about choice, improvements, etc.

It saddens that more is not done, and quickly.

[Registration Now!]

"The EU referendum commitment given by Brown."

I hate to repeat myself, but a new election is pending and Brown won't include such a pledge in his manifesto, thus disarming the key argument of those campaigning for a referendum.

voreas06 - OK, let's discuss this after the next election. Not straight-away, as you'll need a little time to wipe the egg off your face.

You've really underestimated Brown strategically and your own strategies are quite amateurish and embarrassing. EU elections aside, most people really don't give a sh*t about EU-related issues. Very sad but true.

But please feel free to have a go at me, rubbish a different view etc, as I will just save your messages and remind you of them later!

[TomTom]

a new election is pending and Brown won't include such a pledge in his manifesto,

But first he has to have a Conference next month........

[Martin Bristow]

Brown is no strategist he is a tactician.If you want to understand this refer to Matthew Parris in Saturday's Times.The EU pledge is key at present because it speaks directly to the integrity and trust issue.Leaving aside our own Euro policies we are using the commitment given by Brown.The objective is obviuosly to dislodge the perception of GB as trustworthy and a break from the past trend of Labour spininng.

Such an attack would have the benefit of drawing wide support amongst all tories for differing reasons but nontheless welcome.

[James Maskell]

The announcement that our manifesto is being written is terrifying given the state of policy development. If our manifesto is weak, we will have no chance of holding our own. I fear that the manifesto is going to be just that.

Im think the Party is having a simultaneous panic session here. Calm down. Yes, professionalise, but lets not delude ourselves that an election is imminent. Its not going to happen this year. Hes waited 14 years for this. Hes not going to risk losing it now.

[Yet Another Anon]

The longer we manage to delay an election the more likely it is that Brown will eventually lose.
On the contrary, a General Election this year or even in 2008 would raise suspicions in the minds of voters that Gordon Brown was cutting and running - people would believe he was getting the election over before hard times were going to hit. They would expect economic difficulties and that issues of security and things such as Foot & Mouth were going on the verge of becoming worse and an apparently benign situation for Labour in which people were expecting them to increase their majority would almost certainly result in a drop in their majority and maybe even to them losing their majority and getting fewer votes than the Conservative Party. This has happened in 1970 and 1974 to governing parties. In 1966 and October 1974 Labour was able to claim that it needed a mandate because it didn't have a majority in the House of Commons, even then in 1966 and to a much greater extent in October 1974 it was more a matter of Edward Heath's unpopularity that won it for Labour and in fact in October 1974 it was done on the back of a Labour vote that hardly changed.

The closer to 4 years Gordon Brown can leave it, the more chance Labour are likely to have of winning, as with most PM's though he wants a safety margin so if there are major difficulties in June 2009 he could leave it till later in the year or into 2010. June 2009 though has the advantages for Labour that they can save money by combining Local, EU and General Election campaigns and also maximise Labour turnout in the EU and Local Elections, a much improved performance in the EU and 2009 Local Elections along with a solid General Election victory and Labour dissidents in parliament will largely fall quiet for some time and the next parliament will be off to a good start for the Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown is eager that the public perceives changes before the next General Election and an early election doesn't allow him to do this, Labour though will delight in confusion in the Opposition over the timing of an election. Political parties always have to be prepared for a General Election, but an early General Election is extremely improbable.

[voreas06]

Registration Now! "The EU referendum commitment given by Brown."

I hate to repeat myself, but a new election is pending and Brown won't include such a pledge in his manifesto, thus disarming the key argument of those campaigning for a referendum.

voreas06 - OK, let's discuss this after the next election. Not straight-away, as you'll need a little time to wipe the egg off your face.

You've really underestimated Brown strategically and your own strategies are quite amateurish and embarrassing. EU elections aside, most people really don't give a sh*t about EU-related issues. Very sad but true.

But please feel free to have a go at me, rubbish a different view etc, as I will just save your messages and remind you of them later!"

So basically I am a moron and have underestimated Brown. I guess in your mind I should be admiring Gordon and his brilliance. Sorry but the man is an indecisive, incompetent, dishonest weasel, I will grant you he is a weasel who is very good at spin but contrary to New labour beliefs, Perception is not reality and the British people know something just does not add up with Labour's stories.

[Ash Faulkner]

I agree we should push the referendum issue, but we should make it as much an issue of broken promises as it is an issue about Europe. In PMQs (I think it was the most recent one, actually), Cameron rightly asked Brown about the referendum, and Brown masterfully responded that he's "back to the old agenda." There's no doubt he knows what he's doing, but what is important is that 'straight talking' Brown didn't actually answer the question.

Cameron should have immediately responded with something along the lines of "Is he actually going to answer the question, or does he hold Parliament in the same contempt his predecessor did?" That was the response I thought of at the time. It attacks him as being dodgy and indirect, it links his style in with that of his unpopular predecessor, and it was quite quick which is always good. As it is, I think Cameron had used up all his questions.

But pushing the referendum/broken promises issue is key. Someone above said that you have to destroy a government's credibility before the opposition get listened to. If we push the broken promise (without appearing to hark on about it simply because it's Europe...perhaps we could find a few other manifesto commitments they haven't met) and pick up Brown whenever he inevitably tries to dodge the question, we could do quite nicely.

[voreas06]

James Maskell "Im think the Party is having a simultaneous panic session here. Calm down. Yes, professionalise, but lets not delude ourselves that an election is imminent. Its not going to happen this year. Hes waited 14 years for this. Hes not going to risk losing it now."

I don't think the party is remotely panicking I think what is actually happening is they are getting ready to fight an election. If there is no election which honestly I am not sure about (A matter in my local region concerning a popular planning decision by Blears (in an area with at least two marginal labour seats, makes me think there might be))but there are a lot of reasons for Brown not to. Regardless there is no harm in as you say professionalising, there is though harm in using words like panic.

[malcolm]

Some good stuff here and I agree with it. Acouple of points though. We have launched numerous attacks on Labour over the past 10 years but very few have been successful.
They have to be SUSTAINED.Too often we have used the media for 2-3 days on a certain subject and then let it drop. The world moves on and so does the electorate. A few weeks later it has been forgotten.
If we judge that the people of Britain should be angry about something then for goodness sake let's argue our case with PASSION.Too often we see the 'more in sorrow than in anger' pose 'aren't I so reasonable' pose adopted by our spokesmen.It has let Labour ministers get away with murder, if the electorate see little passion from spokesmen why should they be passionate about our cause?
The attacks should also be COORDINATED.Too often we have changed the subject ourselves letting ministers off the hook. The fiasco over sailors being detained by the Iranians is a good example.
Finally if we are to attack we must have BETTER IDEAS OF OUR OWN. If Brown turns round and says 'look after only been in this job five days, three months ,six months etc, what would you do?' and we don't have anything credible we'll look very foolish indeed. That's how Blair was able to get away with his lamentable handling of the last foot and mouth crisis or the Iraq war.

[Curly]

If only "Big Dave" looked as if he was spoiling for a fight!

[ToMTom]

Worthing

MP Worthing = Peter James Bottomley; Timothy Paul Loughton

[Yet Another Anon]

The fiasco over sailors being detained by the Iranians is a good example.
The electorate mostly (including me) don't believe much that the 3 main political parties say about Defence - Labour and the Liberals at various stages having had positions in favour of Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament and the Conservative Party claiming the high ground on Defence and then slashing Defence spending, especially Michael Portillo who did more to weaken the MoD than any other Defence Secretary since the 1930's - the peace dividend was just an excuse and an illusion because it had been decided that savings had to be made to pay for higher social spending and so the argument had to be made to fit what John Major, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind had all decided was desirable - the fact that although the nuclear arsenals of the Warsaw Pact were broken up there was of course instability inside countries across Eastern Europe, Central Europe and into Central Asia that had been under very tight control from the top and radioactive material being widely traded - new powers emerged to fill the vacuum especially China who are now more powerful than ever.

The same is true of policies on Law & Order - the differences between what the parties say and what they do when they get the chance indicates that it is all politicking and that they are merely continuing to implement what are Liberal policies and increasingly people are realising this.

[ToMTom]

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=8046

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes we do have to attack, and to the anonymous---- posting around 10am, look to your own if you talk about guerilla warfare! If information regarding this government is posted on this site that can be proved is accurate, and that attempts have been made to 'bury it' or otherwise disguise it, well that is power for the course. Mr. Blair and Mr. Campbell did a lot worse when they decided to achieve power.

[The Huntsman]

The issue of whether or not Macavity will yield on the referendum is important in two ways aside from the principle of the Constitution itself, which remains important in itself.

These are:

1. The related issues of trust and honesty. Trust in the sense of the breach of promise implicit in failing on a major matter to honour their manifesto commitment; honesty in the sense that GB and the Junta can easily be demonstrated to be lying when they assert that the Constitution is dead;

2. Forcing him into giving a referendum will be an enormous political defeat for him given that he and the Junta have invested so much effort into trying to stonewall demands for a referendum.

It will be a humiliating defeat on a major issue of policy, in part inflicted because he cannot carry all his Parliamentary party with him. He knows full well that a defeat of this kind will involve a loss of prestige and make him look weak and his party divided.

He knows too that there is a second whammy wrapped up in it which is that his recommendation for a 'Yes' vote (or a 'No' vote depending how weaselly the question is) will be resoundingly defeated with all the humiliation that that implies and all the explaining he will then have to do to his very very irritated EuroNabob colleagues as to why he has allowed their precious power-grab to be trashed, again.

And he also realises that the larger the majority against the Constitution the greater the question mark over whether and to what extent the UK should be engaged in Le Grand Projet.

The fallout from losing a referendum are such that his Government will be bogged down in things he desperately does not want to be bogged down in, namely the political killing fields of Europe.

Getting voters in those circumstances to focus on their agenda will be almost impossible as he shuttles off endlessly to Brussels to negotiate his way out of the mess and then has to come back and try and explain away yet another piece of devious compromise that people then pick over like Hyenas.

Just ask Major about how debilitating that is.

This scenario provides for so much opportunity to destroy the Brown Premiership that it would be one of history's biggest bungles to let him off the hook.

That is all before we consider the nature of what it is he is trying to railroad this country into and how much damage that will do to his reputation.

That said, it should be but one issue of competence, trust and honesty, of which the suggested ones above are excellent starters for ten, upon which GB and the Scots Junta are impaled.

Of course there have to be policies to accompany this which is why some urgency needs to be injected into the process of completing policy reviews and translating those into a draft manifesto.

The GE Campaign may already have started, so time and opportunity is of the essence.

[Miss Tooty]

Cameron couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

[Miss Tooty]

Just a ps... All Brown has to do to win the election is say one sentence......I have listened and decided that I.D cards will NOT now be introduced.

[Jack Stone]

i am afraid if you think banging on about Europe morning noon and night is going to win the next election you are completly mad.
The party needs to talk about the NHS, Education, and the broken society we have that leads to the many problems we suffer from.
Going on and on about Europe makes the party seem obsessive and a one trick pony like the idiots who support UKIP.

[TomTom]

The party needs to talk about the NHS

It does, does it Jack Stone ? Well you tell us what it should say about the NHS....there are lots of people just waiting to read your views on what the Conservative Party should say about the NHS......

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Now Jack...you list all these wonderful things you want to hear

[Patsy Sergeant]

Huntsman @ 14.40 - I do wonder whether the reason for the 'deathly hush' on the subject of a Referendum is actually because in some 'room', office block or some 'specific agency', there could be found a whole team of whizz kids devising a referendum questionnaire which would be sufficiently devious that however you answered it, the answer would come out as a YES?!!

We are dealing with Gordon Brown the inventor of taxes that nobody has ever thought of before, amongst many other things.

[The Huntsman]

David Cameron was on the radio earlier concerning FMD. The best effort for a long time: he had been properly briefed and was raising the sort of issues of competence (eg the shabby condition of the lab buildings which was flagged in 2002) that are legitimate to raise just as GB is trying to spin us into believing his lot are squeaky clean on this issue.

Having got hold of the bone, he needs to gnaw on it for a while.

see http://tinyurl.com/yv983z

[The Huntsman]

Patsy

I hope that at fashionable Labour Soirees and dinner parties (graced no doubt by Quentin Davies: oh to be a fly on the wall there!) they talk of nothing else but "the Question" for the referendum: hopefully it will give them serious indigestion.

GB only does weasel, so expect any question he comes up with to written in high class weasel.

[Richard North]

i am afraid if you think banging on about Europe morning noon and night is going to win the next election you are completly mad.

Posted by: Jack Stone | August 05, 2007 at 16:24

Why do you keep banging on about banging on? Is it because you think that, by banging on, you will make your point whereas, by not banging on, you won't? In that case, does this not prove that banging on is better than not banging on, unless of course you really do believe that banging on doesn't actually achieve anything, in which case why are you banging on about it anyway?

[Ken Stevens]

Richard North | August 05,17:09

Bang on target, Sir!!

Love Europe;Hate EU

[Cleo]

Constantly attacking the government over Europe will only put voters off, and remind them of the party of the 1990s which almost split over the isse. They might be broadly sceptical but it is not the ultimate issue for voters as it is for so many Conservatives.

[CCTV]

Cleo..just what is your viewpoint on the EU ? and, what views do you hold on immigration ?

[John Leonard]

Cleo@17:44

Constantly attacking the government over Europe will only put voters off, and remind them of the party of the 1990s which almost split over the issue. They might be broadly sceptical but it is not the ultimate issue for voters as it is for so many Conservatives.

But attacking the Government for reneging on a manifesto promise is not. Particularly when 80% plus of the public want the Government to fulfil that commitment and the Government is clearly lying when they give their reasons for not holding the referendum.

[Richard North]

Constantly attacking the government over Europe will only put voters off, and remind them of the party of the 1990s which almost split over the isse.

Posted by: Cleo | August 05, 2007 at 17:44

Constantly attacking the government is what oppositions should do and, until the Parliamentary Conservative party re-learns its attack skills, it is going nowhere.

"Europe" is as good an issue as any and probably better than most, witness the number of Labourites who do not want him to mount an attack. Unless you believe that the leader of the opposition's tactics should be dictated by the government, attack seems a very sensible option.

Futher, there is a real penalty in not attacking on "Europe". Many people would expect an opposition to attack the government on its determination to rush though the EU constitution with almost indecent haste.

Any failure to engage would be taken as a sign of weakness, which could be considerably more damaging than the jibes from people whose sole purpose is to neutralise such an attack.

[Cleo]

CCTV- my view on Europe is that there has never in reality been any doubt that the European Coal and Steel Community/European Economic Community/European Community and now the EU wants to create ever closer union between nation states. Wording and ideas in the text of the various treaties- while the competences have increased over time- has shown lots of continuity. There might have been changes in name but the path was created in the early post-war years. Britain's biggest mistake was to say no in those early years when perhaps it could have steered the path differently. The Conservatives did not call referenda on SEA or TEU which gave many new competences to Brussels so they can't really complain now when a referendum does not happen. Voters would not contemplate withdrawal so the job of the next government is to reform Europe and create a 2 tier Europe where nation states can opt in or out of new measures. Europe can be beneficial on policy areas such as the environment and organised crime so we should be happy to work together. Other areas we should be able to make our own decisions.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Voters would not contemplate withdrawal so the job of the next government is to reform Europe and create a 2 tier Europe where nation states can opt in or out of new measures. Europe can be beneficial on policy areas such as the environment and organised crime so we should be happy to work together. Other areas we should be able to make our own decisions.

Posted by: Cleo | August 05, 2007 at 19:04

Dream on, Cleo, dream on. The only way your objective would be achieved is if we threaten to withdraw and meant it (it aint going to happen under the present Consensual Parliamentary Parties). If the case was presented for withdrawal the voters could well vote for disentanglement and a cessation of being governed by Brussels.

I believe (like John Major) that we should be at the heart of the EU (but armed with a scapel - for a bypass)

In the light of what has taken place since the Common Market first made its appearance in the world I do find your comment, Cleo, as Cameron would say, delusional or fruit and nutters, but highly entertaining.

[Cleo]

No, banging on about Europe and all the old election loosing issues is delusional.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper / delusional conservative]

I agree with the editor. If the Tories can't have policies of their own they should at least attack, attack, attack, those of other parties. That way they'll be knackered by October in time for their relaunch.

Seriously, who gives a stuff about politics in August. They should go away on their own to reflect for a few weeks and reconnect with why they are in politics. They have a credibility problem based on their useless, derrivative policies and disconnect from meaning, not a machismo problem, imho.

[Richard North]

Britain's biggest mistake was to say no in those early years when perhaps it could have steered the path differently.

Posted by: Cleo | August 05, 2007 at 19:04

That is one of those delusional Europhile myths.

In 1950, Monnet made it quite clear than Britain was not wanted, and nor was joining at all practicable. Come 1956 and the negotiations for the Treaties of Rome, the junktim between Euratom and the Common Market made it impossible for Britian to join - and deliberately so. Britain was never welcome until the CAP funding had been sorted out in favour of France (which was the real reason why de Gaulle blocked British entry), whence Britain was allowed to join on highly unfavourable terms.

[Yet Another Anon]

Voters would not contemplate withdrawal so the job of the next government is to reform Europe and create a 2 tier Europe where nation states can opt in or out of new measures. Europe can be beneficial on policy areas such as the environment and organised crime so we should be happy to work together. Other areas we should be able to make our own decisions.
Either the UK agrees with other members of the Eu and is able to continue inside on a mutually beneficial basis, or the UK withdraws from the EU.

Whatever they want and whatever anyone in the UK wants, there has to be agreement - such a system can't work on the basis of opting in or out on each single policy, because if the UK can choose which policies to accept and which to reject then so can other countries in which case it would have no meaning, no order and therefore by definition no possible purpose. There is a choice to be made, in my opinion the only valid choice at this point is withdrawal from the EU, European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Justice.

If the EU were to satisfy me in what it was doing, this would not be on some kind of pick and mix basis - rather this would be the abandonment of the concept of a fortress Europe, on abandoning liberal restrictins with regard to dealing with terrorists and abolishing all restrictions on the carrying out of execution and torture as part of Criminal Justice and Counter Terrorist operations as well as abolishing the concept of European citizenship while having a Free Trade agreement and Free Trade with the rest of the world.

There are no signs the EU will make such changes though and so so far as I can see the only reasonable option is withdrawal.

[Yet Another Anon]

Cleo..just what is your viewpoint on the EU ? and, what views do you hold on immigration ?
Important to bear in mind that immigration is about far more than numbers, mostly immigrants are far harder working than the indigenous population and do many jobs that otherwise would not get done, mostly they are more socially Conservative too.

The state though has to be able to filter out those troublemakers either petty criminals, organised criminals or terrorists and lock them up and or execute them whether they are immigrants or not and from whatever ethnic group they come from.

The EU interferes in the UK's ability to deal with criminal and terrorist suspects, the police need far greater powers, as do the courts and Human Rights legislation just gets in the way.

A major problem with the current EU system - regardless of numbers admitted whether more or less, is that even supposing it was to be decided as it has been that there should be such a thing as an EU citizen and that there be free movement within the EU, under such circumstances it is crazy to allow each member state to admit whoever they want - there is a choice to be made - either there is not free movement of labour within the EU only of goods and each member state decides only on who becomes a citizen of that state or is admitted to that state, or there is a single organisation that decides on who should not be admitted anywhere in the EU. The current system is the worst of all systems - it's a total shambles open to every two bit terrorist and organised criminal across the globe.

[Matt Wright]

We do need to attack over the summer for several reasons. It will help to unify our purpose; it will get the party onto TV screens; it will disrupt Labour; it will reduce and stop Brown's spin taking hold.....and most of all our duty is to fight for the public and tell the truth about what the Govt is doing wrong. We cannot just let things drift over the summer or our work in the Autumn will be even harder,

Matt

[Scotty]

"The announcement that our manifesto is being written is terrifying given the state of policy development. If our manifesto is weak, we will have no chance of holding our own. I fear that the manifesto is going to be just that."

James, I am a little confused by that comment?
We have spent the entire duration of Cameron's leadership having a detailed policy review which was always going to be completed around this time, how about letting them report their findings before we start the doom and gloom scenario's?
I am very optimistic about the outcome of such a wide ranging review and I would suggest that if anything it would strengthen our manifesto.
I am not convinced that we will have a GE this Autumn, but I would still expect there to be a well constructed strategy being put in place by CCHQ in the event of one being called.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Important to bear in mind that immigration is about far more than numbers, mostly immigrants are far harder working than the indigenous population and do many jobs that otherwise would not get done, mostly they are more socially Conservative too.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | August 05, 2007 at 22:56

In general I would agree with the content of your comment, but not with the paragraph above: I do not agree that most immigrants are far harder working than the indigenous population (many are either too young or too old and do not even speak English and haven’t bothered to learn). Many of the jobs that do not get done do not get done because Welfarism pays better than working. Immigration is said to be the number one concern and worry of the electorate. Cameron is a fool not to recognise those concerns. In some cases the Brits are being priced out of work – all part of Blair and Broon’s legacy - The Revenge for Culloden Party (it certainly feels that way despite Broon’s recent love of all things British).

[Yet Another Anon]

In some cases the Brits are being priced out of work
The simple answer is to move towards greater universalism in benefits, maybe at lower levels and to scrap the Minimum Wage and deregulate the labour market.

Immigrants working though generates more jobs in this country, they pay taxes and buy things here and so boost economic growth, in addition they can send money home to relatives in their native countries and so this works out as a very effective form of International Development too.

The major threat to jobs in this country is not from immigrants, but rather from more companies carrying out business in other countries that might otherwise be done here, because high levels of regulation of the labour market including minimum wages and maximum working hours and Health & Safety regulations along with high taxes in the UK mean that it is cheaper to do it elsewhere and the available workers will work far harder for less.

This is the free market at work, something that Conservatives should seek to embrace, not try to restrict it.

[TomTom]

he simple answer is to move towards greater universalism in benefits, maybe at lower levels

Jobseekers Allowance is c. £55/week. It is only women with children that get the higher incomes on benefit which is the reason that they find work uneconomic because of childcare costs.

Ironically such 'families' probably have better credit ratings too - guaranteed incomes, no threat of redundancy, low travel costs and no need to buy work clothes.

Poverty is associated with having children; so to change the benefits system is to reduce support for children and cap it say at two children. Is any political party going to do this ?

So child-rich families will be concentrated among those on benefit and investment bankers; the working poor will cap their progeny at one or two

[James Maskell]

In terms of reporting back, we are only half way through. Therefore the Policy Groups havent completely finished. In a rush to get a manifesto togetgher, Cameron and Co will not spend time reading through the reports and considering properly how the manifesto will run. Corners will have to be cut here.

[Yet Another Anon]

Poverty is associated with having children; so to change the benefits system is to reduce support for children and cap it say at two children.
It would depend how it was changed, I favour splitting the Family Premiums so that a Single Parent gets half what a couple would get; I also favour cutting back rates of benefits for single people aged 18+ so that they are half the rate of that for couples.

Also tightening eligibility criteria for disability benefits to return to definitions based more strictly on the infirm and increasing the waiting times to qualify and tightening residency requirements generally.

One possible move towards moving towards a Universal system might be to abolish Income Based JSA and Income Support; and extend the Working Tax Credit to become a kind of Resident's Credit for people working less than 30 hours per week and those aged 16+ adding additions for the Severely Disabled. Medical, Education and Housing costs could be paid for by low interest loans repayable in the same way as the Student Loan with Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefits scrapped - this would substantially reduce the levels of benefit and rationalise the system reducing the numbers of separate benefits and avoiding problems caused to many coming off JSA\Income Support and going into work. It would prevent starvation while having benefits at such a low level that it would not encourage laziness and it would remove disincentives against people doing part time work.

[TomTom]

I favour splitting the Family Premiums so that a Single Parent gets half what a couple would get;

You could draw up and post your Skeleton so we can see how you would argue that before The High Court under Art 14 of the ECHR

[TomTom]

t a Single Parent gets half what a couple would get;

You mean the Child of a Single Parent would get half.....

[Yet Another Anon]

You could draw up and post your Skeleton so we can see how you would argue that before The High Court under Art 14 of the ECHR
The answer is simple -withdraw from the EU, ECHR and ECJ!

t a Single Parent gets half what a couple would get;

You mean the Child of a Single Parent would get half.....
No, the rates for each child would be the same whether they were part of a couple or a single family, but the rates for adults would be exactly twice those for a couple that they were for a single person and if there was going to be such a thing as the Family Premium then the rate should be per parent not per family unit, therefore where both parents are present the rate would be twice that of when only one parent is present and where both parents live separately looking after children then they only get the rate for themselves and any other partner they are living for.

So for example if it was £8 per adult then a single parent would get £8, if they were living with a partner looking after a child then together their rate would be £16. In other words a couple can't live in separate accomodation and end up getting double the amount of Family Premium as Single Parents while having children living with each. This would remove what are financial disincentives for them to live together as a couple.

[TomTom]

You could draw up and post your Skeleton so we can see how you would argue that before The High Court under Art 14 of the ECHR
The answer is simple -withdraw from the EU, ECHR and ECJ!

We do come back to that same issue so many refuse to contemplate - the 1951 ECHR and the 1972 Accession Treaty....

[Yet Another Anon]

So far as I can see the European Convention on Human Rights would not apply to benefit rates anyway, there are requirements under both the ECHR and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states make an effort to prevent their citizens from becoming totally destitute, but nothing I suggested wouold be remotely going along the lines of possibly causing this anyway, but there are other reasons why it would be desirable to abandon such rights charters.

[Miss Tooty]

Look, we all know Brown is a has been. But we all MUST see that Cameron is a total flop, and as Mezie, well maybe a nice old bloke, as as for the bnp/ukip... don't get my blood boiling.Wake up or stop lying to yourselves that Dave is a great or even good leader. Or are you all after a peerage as well?.

[Miss Tooty]

OOppps sorry MENZIE.

[TomTom]

So far as I can see the European Convention on Human Rights would not apply to benefit rates anyway, there are requirements under both the ECHR

Perhaps you should read Art 14 and then decdide how any one of our High Court judges would determine....btw. they don't need the ECHR to rule on such matters. A High Court Judge could use Common Law

[Yet Another Anon]

Perhaps you should read Art 14 and then decdide how any one of our High Court judges would determine....btw. they don't need the ECHR to rule on such matters. A High Court Judge could use Common Law
Common Law has nothing to do with it, parliament and the crown decide benefit rates and just as with changes implemented by the National Government in 1931 and changes under Income Support in 1988 and under JSA in 1996 which in many cases cut amounts people got it went ahead and there was nothing the courts could do about it. Other countries across Europe also have restructured their welfare systems including withdrawing benefits from people who had already got them, in New Zealand where law is largely British in origin cuts in benefit were implemented in 1996 - Common Law and International Agreements have little input in such matters. Parliament brings forward a bill and says the rate per person is such and such an amount or the amount for a single person is such and such and for a couple it is such and such, and so long as it can't be interpreted legally as being racial, sexual or age discrimination then it can be enacted as law.

[TomTom]

Common Law has nothing to do with it, parliament and the crown decide benefit rates and just as with changes implemented by the National Government in 1931

Benefit rates have nothing to do with it - enjoy your red herring - but you suggested you would retrspectively change the treatment of households according to how many parents were in the house......that might well open you up to an Article 14 challenge which is not restricted to racial, sexual or age discrimination and that is why I suggest you read it carefully before giving your considered legal opinion.

I can see why politicians embroil themselves in so many legal problems - they simply do not think things through - and your comment above fits in that category.

There has been a considerable change in the Judiciary since 1931 and I do not believe there is a serving judge still on the Bench from that era. You might also recall that Section 18B would be unlawful today yet it was used contrary to the purpose of the legislation 1939-45.

I can now see why the United Kingdom and Italy are the two countries most often referred to the Court in Strasbourg.....

[Yet Another Anon]

but you suggested you would retrspectively change the treatment of households according to how many parents were in the house
By parents I mean parents or guardians, but I didn't say anything about it being retrospective - it's simple, there is a change in the law including resetting the rates and it is implemented from a given date. A family is defined as one or two parents\guardians living together with children and so the rates would depend on whether it was a single parent family or a couple looking after children - there is a Family Premium payable under some benefits and there is actually a slightly higher amount payable to certain lone parents and rates for couples work out at less than twice the amount for single people - all I'm saying is that this should be altered so that whether it is paid as a rate per couple or separately for both members of a couple living together with children then the rate before any applicable deductions for income should amount to twice that a single parent would get. Then rates specifically for the children should be payable for that child regardless of whether they are eldest or not, there should just be an applicable rate for a child so that wherever they are living the rate before any deductions should amount for them to the same amount. I favour scrapping Child Credit which I think is actually encouraging families to have more children.

[Yet Another Anon]

Article 14 of the ECHR says:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

How exactly would a change in rates of benefit for a single person or a couple including changing the Family Premium so that it was for a single parent family changed to be half that of a couple, and which was not retrospective be definable as being an infringement of any of the articles of the ECHR - and so far as article 14 goes none of the categories listed have any bearing whatsoever on such a setting of a rate so article 14 would be irrelevant anyway to it.