Too many straw men, too few bold political voices

Francis Maude scores a hit in today's Sun - pointing out Labour's misuse of the Communications Allowance.  His Implementation Office is also vital for Conservative success.  It was the tenth reason for voting Conservative in our list of last Monday.  But why does Mr Maude have to give interviews of the kind he has given to today's Telegraph?  His interview includes these two points:

"The idea that offering tax cuts is an instant route to electoral success is utter rubbish."

"There are those who think that if you commit to massive tax cuts then people will automatically vote for us, but people are not impressed these days with politicians promising tax cuts that look like us serving our electoral self interest by appealing to their self interest."

We'd like Francis to identify these people who think that tax cuts are "an instant route to electoral success".  While he's at it we'd like to know who is in favour of "massive" tax cuts that will lead people to "automatically vote for us".

We know lots of people who want tougher control of public spending so that we can begin to find room for economy-boosting tax relief.  We know people who want tax relief to be part of a Conservative manifesto that also includes measures to tackle poverty, improve our schools and clean up politics.  We don't know anyone who thinks that tax cuts will "automatically" produce victory.

One of the lessons of the grammar schools row was that internal party tensions need to be handled sensitively.  Last weekend's Spring Forum address by David Cameron was notable for its tributes to grassroots activists.  This website doesn't agree with the party's policy on taxation but, on Wednesday, we attempted to explain it respectfully.  Francis Maude really does noone any favours by misrepresenting the views of those who think that tax relief should be part of a Tory plan to get UKplc back on track.

Mr Maude's misrepresentation of his own side is a long way from meeting Matthew Parris' cry from the heart in his must-read Times column of today.  Matthew Parris is desperately searching for a big political voice characterised by "bold advocacy", an "impatience to persuade" and an "urgency of argument" that is proportionate to the challenges of our time.  We are with Matthew Parris in that search as we explained last week:

"It's time for David Cameron to tell the British people that Britain is going in the wrong direction.  He needs to say that we're living beyond our means.  We're spending too much and borrowing too much.  We have surrendered our streets to yobbery and incivility.  Britain's schools are failing the poorest members of society.  He needs to promise a government that will put things right and he should tell the British people that it won't be easy or painless.  We need to forget the focus groups and the polling for just one minute and tell the truth about a nation that is in trouble.  Mr Cameron might be surprised at voters' reaction.  Our hunch is that the first  politician to tell the British people 'how it really is' will form a bond with many millions of them."

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

Whilst I think Maude is right I think he expresses his views very badly indeed. What he thinks he'll gain by insulting abody of conservative opinion I'm not sure.
Wholeheartedly agree as usual with Parris.

[Margaret Hemmings]

"The idea that offering tax cuts is an instant route to electoral success is utter rubbish."

Good grief. No wonder DC cycles the wrong way down a one way street. He seems to be taking the party with him.

I have campaigned long and hard for a flat tax. What is the Conservative Party for if it is not smaller government and less tax?

So I am wealthy! I deserve to be. I have worked hard and built my business. Now I watch my hard earned money being taken from me as taxation to fund all kinds of socialist rubbish.

We learnt under Margaret Thatcher how lowering tax for the wealthy encourages entrepreneurship. Ever heard of trickle down economics?

Mrs Thatcher was right and the country knew it. She was rewarded with 3 successive election vicTORIES!!

She would have won a 4th if those meddling wets hadn't brought her down.

We need a Thatcherite in charge and victory will surely be ours

[R.Baker.]

Wounded again by a shot in the foot.

[Northernhousewife]

Re Mr Parris' comments.
Cameron may just do all of that. He may well be listened to. He is the only politican on the stage who can make such a move and expect people to listen to him.
However, it needs to be done nearer an election, when people are focused on the potential change ahead.
Why when DC has been so successful, does everyone think they can run the Party better than him?

[Northernhousewife]

We need a Thatcherite in charge and victory will surely be ours.

Wounded again by a shot in the foot.

How apt.

[Alan S]

And what about FM's view that 1/3 of Whitehall Permanent Secretaries should be women? Is there no end to the man's political correctness?

[Mr Hare]

If people like Francis Maude won arguments by persuading us we all might be happier but they take the short cut to "victory" by misrepresenting their critics. The shallowness of political debate helps to explain why our MPs have lost respect.

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

'We'd like Francis to identify these people who think that tax cuts are "an instant route to electoral success".'

Well you have Margaret Hemming above for a start, and no doubt "TFA Tory" and "Gospel of Enoch Powell" can come along and talk about November criminals and the like, and how wet Dave is leading the Tory Party to disaster and ruin and only a Thatcherite (or rather, only Mrs Thatcher herself) can lead it to glorious triumph.

People such as this don't merely have to be ignored, they have to be seen to be ignored by the rest of the electorate in order to prove that the Tory Party isn't in hock to its own tiny group of greedy suburban members.

I often think the Editor posts this sort of thing exactly to prove Maude et al's points for them.

[Pete]

Matthew Parris is an articulate chap, but though he likes to avoid mention of this, he profoundly believes in the EU state. Therefore what he says about needing the Conservatives nominally in charge of these 12 Euroregions is just about the window dressing.

[m dowding]

"Re: What's Going Wrong? (#43)
by lastword on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM GMT

Northern Monkey, for once we agree about something! Brown's "coronation" is the root cause of all this. He was not forced to put his ideas to the the party so they could make an informed choice about whether to vote him in as leader, rather we got this totally unknown quality who's now doing all sorts of things in the Labour party's name for which hae had no mandate. That's why people are not campaigning and staying at home and as Ken's team discovered when they wanted every CLP to deliver 20,000 leaflets in under a week no activists = no leafletters, canvassers or Labour "ambassadors" in the community. I have never felt so demoralised as I do now and I am actually one of the active ones.

[ Parent ]

Re: What's Going Wrong? (#44)
by Wiseman on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM GMT

As a PPC, I am very worried. We had a recent by-election in my constituency and our vote fell by 50% after a good campaign. Somebody at head office better listen, because when I walk into my local all people seem to be talking about is that utilities bill going up. These are our core vote and after the rubbish budget. I live near a remploy factory 500 yards away, and we have sold them out. My seat is not winnable by any means, but I worry for the marginal seats and councils, we are going to get murdered if we are not careful. Boris for London, now I know we are doing something wrong."

Copied and pasted from LabourHome. Seems we're on the right track, just need to be careful when out cycling!

[Tony Makara]

"We need to forget the focus groups and the polling for just one minute and tell the truth about a nation that is in trouble."

This is very true. The next election is vital for the future direction of our country. A Labour victory will mean more of the big-fix, the quick-fix, followed by the quick-fail. The social and economic problems that plague our country cannot simply be legislated away and need a different approach, dealing with the cause of the problem rather than just the after-effects. If Gordon Brown gets a mandate at the next election you will see sweeping statism and all Labour's pretence at being a party that supports the individual and enterprise will be thrown overboard.

[David Sergeant]

"People such as this don't merely have to be ignored, they have to be seen to be ignored by the rest of the electorate in order to prove that the Tory Party isn't in hock to its own tiny group of greedy suburban members."

Posted by: Margaret on the Guillotine | March 22, 2008 at 16:01

This site has regularly been inundated with people saying that great tax cutting policies are the way to GE wins. This probably creats a problem in that the leadership has to be seen to come down on them for the party to keep crediblity. If the tax cutting headbangers (and I have never once read a sound argument from these people) shut up perhaps Cameron et al could start a mature debate about tax and move things forward.

The point about Thatcher is that tax was cut AND finance to the public services increased. I have come to the conclusion that Tory "activists" don't want to be seen being associated with public service spending increases &/or don't want to be seen supporting the Major government. As a consequence the obvious selling point for tax cuts does not get made, Labour gets away with lies about public service cuts in the 18 years and Cameron and Maude are hamstrung in telling it like it is.

[Votedave]

"The idea that offering tax cuts is an instant route to electoral success is utter rubbish."

That has quite a lot of truth in it I'm afraid. We promised tax cuts in the 2001 and 2005 elections and it didn't work.

[Alan S]

In 1997 we proposed tax cuts too Votedave. Did we lose that election because of that promise or did other factors overwhelm that promise?

We did not lose the last two elections because of last minute, half hearted tax cuts. The world is more complicated than your line-to-take point would suggest.

[Conservative Homer]

The problem with the 2001 and 2005 elections was not the message, but the messenger. Neither Hague nor Howard had a fraction of Blairs PR capabilities, and while i doubt compared to Blair Cameron does either, Brown is a far weaker target.

Besides the £4 billion or so promised by Howard (if you can even call that a tax cut, more like a marginal slowdown in spending) was hardly worth getting out of bed for, being less than 1% of spending. It was never the centre of any campaign. 2001's main issue was save the pound, 2005 was...err, matrons in hospitals?

[Conservative Homer]

+ of course the hangover from sleaze (and Tories did win in England in 2001 and 2005 in raw numbers im pretty sure of).

I still to this day dont believe we lost any elections because of so called 'nasty party' policies. Most people seem to view Labour as the lesser of the evils, ie the least sleazy, and vote on that alone.

[John Reeks]

People really should stop getting worked up about what the Tories are saying about tax, it seems pretty simple to me; slow the rate of growth in the public sector as a whole, with welfare taking the biggest brunt, save money by cutting waste, put all the cash into a big pot and then start using it for tax cuts, among other things. It seems that they couldn't have been clearer on this, that in the medium to long term taxes will be lower. Seems alright to me. A long term commitment to tax reduction, rather than a short term slashing exercise which will undoubtedly alienate plenty of people from the (correct) argument that low-tax economies are better.

[David]

"Good grief. No wonder DC cycles the wrong way down a one way street. He seems to be taking the party with him."

To a 10+ lead in the polls? Oh yes what a failure.

"Ever heard of trickle down economics?"

Yes, it's pretty much discredited.

"Mrs Thatcher was right and the country knew it. She was rewarded with 3 successive election vicTORIES!!"

Yes, 20 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.

"She would have won a 4th if those meddling wets hadn't brought her down."

No, she wouldn't.

"We need a Thatcherite in charge and victory will surely be ours"

Which totally ignores the fact that in recent elections the charge of being Thatcherite has been harmful.

Grow up, move on, and realise that politics changes with the times, and we need to change with them. Oh, and that Thatcherism is not the be all and end all of Toryism, there's a vast array of policy traditions it draws upon, being a party typified by pragmatism. Well, until the Thatcher worshippers took over.

[ChrisD]

David Sergeant, hits the nail on the head. Read his comments, and then reread Tim's editorial again and note which *newspaper* interview caused him to fisk Maude's comments.
Tim asks, "But why does Mr Maude have to give interviews of the kind he has given to today's Telegraph?"
Says it all really!

[David]

"I still to this day dont believe we lost any elections because of so called 'nasty party' policies. Most people seem to view Labour as the lesser of the evils, ie the least sleazy, and vote on that alone"

Were that the case, the scale of Labour's victories would not have been so large. There was a heavy degree of tactical voting that can only be explained by a visceral hatred of the Tory party and its policies. This is further backed up by the fact that a reversion to a core vote strategy paid no dividends until 2005, where there was some degree of tactical unwind and a transfer of some of that hatred (and thus tactical voting strategies) towards the Labour Party due to Iraq; without that, it is likely that the party would have suffered a second successive triple figure defeat. Both campaigns highlighted tax cuts; neither endeared the party to the electorate, allowing it to be attacked and caricatured by Labour and the LibDems as 'same old Tories'. The fact that line has an effect should lead to the obvious conclusion to all but the most blinkered.

[Christina Speight]

Francis Maude was so unpopular a chairman of the Tory Party that even Cameron sidelined him into a shadow post of such obscurity that he might be said to be in the shadows!

He now flies in the face of all the evidence both specifically in the polls and more generally in the reaction to Osborne’s pledge on Inheritance tax and flatly denounces tax cuts.

It is quite true that tax cuts will be difficult to achieve if the economy collapses but Maude is so economically illiterate that he does not grasp the economic fact that tax cuts stimulate the economy and must be a high priority. Reading what he says he clearly finds the idea of tax cuts repulsive in themselves. Is he in the wrong party?

The weasel nature of his argument is shown up in the monstrous way he implies that those who want tax cuts are anxious to cripple the Heath Service. Well as almost all doctors say, the NHS is in dire need of rationalisation and stripping out of bureaucracy, target setting and waste. But that’s not the point. The whole ramshackle bureaucracy which permeates everything the government does, needs severe pruning and that’s the chief source of room for tax cuts. Then there’s a little matter of £15 bn earmarked for ID cards, £12bn wasted on the failed NHS computer system (300% over budget) and eventually the gross waste of the net figure we have to hand to Brussels. The latter would never occur to Maude who is limply somewhat europhile.

On the question of giving preference to women both as candidates and as ministers he admits there is too small a pool of women MPs . Has it occurred to him that one reason for this is that many ( - not all; many ) women have no desire to become MPs, which entails putting their families second and neglecting the home. If the pool IS enlarged at the next election the new women MPs will have no political experience and will need to gain some before being ready to take on ministerial jobs. Blair’s Babes are hardly an advertisement for promoting untried inexperienced MPs - of either gender!!

And for heavens sake Labour did NOT win rthe last two elections because of Tory tax cut promises (Which went almost unnoticed). NewLabour won largely because of a skewed political system as far as England was concerned plus a lingering dream that NewLabour offered a sea change for the better.

[Jack Stone]

Francis Maude is totally right.Promising tax cuts will not win the party votes because the public are convinced that these will be paid for by spending cuts in health and education.
The party needs to concentrate on convincing the public that they can run our public services better and more efficently than Labour.
Personally I am against cuts in taxes until we have public services to be proud of and not what we have at present public services barely able to cope.
We need to appeal to the selfless not the selfish.

[Robert Winterton]

Sadly, most of the opponents posting here of reducing the burden of tax remind me so much of the Tories under the Heath administration.I know that was a long time ago, but we never seem to learn from history. I need not say more. I suspect the current opposition will flounder unless they address the issues of excessive taxation, regulation,a hugely inefficient and burdensome state despite the fact that a substantial part of the electorate is directly or indirectly employed by the state. I am also concerned at the obvious lack of understanding of economics by some on this post. Please all of you note the growth of government taxation as % of GDP,and government expenditure as % of GDP. It tells a frightening story. I just cannot believe how supposed intelligent can ignore this state of affairs. It seems, as Matthew Parris I believe is arguing, that we have lost the will to advocate, persuade and argue that a diffrent course of action is right for our country.

[Robert Winterton]

Addendum - apologies - line 10 I meant to say intelligent people and line 12 it should read different!

[michael mcgough]

Can somebody please explain to this thicko why I should vote for a new administration with identical spending plans as the current one for the whole of the next 4/5 year term .

[John F Aberdeen]

I agree with all of Mathew Parris,s statement,, in fact I think this country is almost at the same state of despair as it was in 1979,, Mrs Thatcher won because her honesty and plain speaking won over the public,, like Essex man.
I know David Cameron can rise to this challenge, however the inane stupidity of most of the media (includng the so-called quality newspaper Mr Parris writes for) in following the Mirror,s Cameron bike story shows them to be as dummbed down as the common left wing tabloid press, who are so devoid of critisim of him they have to use this pathetic nonsense to get at him.
So Mr. Parris you should have included the substandard and trivial rubbish being published in the so-called quality media in your critisim of the low and sinking standards in this country.
As for Francis Maude,, he should save his arrogance and venom for our enemies in the labour and lib-dem parties,, not supporters of the tory party.
We all have different opinions about tax cuts but there is no need for insulting language from leading members of the Party.
Personally I,m in 2 minds about promising cuts now,, the fact is I think the public finances are in a far bigger mess than we realise.
The reason for that being for the expense items not included in the deficit, because of Brown,s creative accounting.
The items missing are 1. Northern Rock £100 billion,, 2. Network Rail £?billion 3. Public/Private finance being used to pay for schools hospitals etc. £??billion.
and 4 the public sector pensions including politicians and civil servants,, last time I looked was £35 billion and rising.
This means that by the time the next election comes nobody really knows how bad things will be, plus I wouldn,t put it past Brown, Balls and the rest of the Nulab crew to make things even worse especially if they suspect the Tories will win the next election.
This being the case its not wise to promise tax cuts now because the costs of the hidden parts of the public sector finances will only become apparent when we come to power, however cutting out waste and cutting taxes must be a top priority when we come to power, or at least in the first tory budget to reorginising the tax system to lift those in low and middle incomes out of the current penal tax rates.
A good start would be to increase the personal allowance to around £10,000 -£15,000 because, one of the cruellest things Brown has done in his time as chancellor (and there have been many)to low and middle income earners, was to freeze it the personal allowance.
One ray of hope which can help at present are the Tory councils who are cutting the waste and reducing council tax without cutting essential services. Added to that the Post Office initiative from Essex council is proof to their local populations of the benefits of local Tory policy and make them more likely to vote Tory at a general election, thus take advantage of Localism.
As for Francis Maude wanting quotas of women in senior civil servant positions.
I would hope that part of the civil service shake up would be a system to identify senior people with the following attributes,, 1. Competence, 2. Accountability and 3. Honour and by honour I mean willing to accept responsiblitiy when things go wrong and to resign with no big pay offs.
So talk of quotas is irrelevent,, after all the C/E (a woman) of the hospital where 90 plus patients died of diseases caught in her hospital, didnt resign or accept responsiblity instead took a large £400,000 pay off.
As for Francis Maude, he should direct all his energies (like Cameron, Osbourne, Hague and all of us in the freedom loving Tory party who want rid of this corrupt, incompentent, nannying ladour governement) to fighting the Labour and Lib-Dem parties with such vigour that it makes him twice as unpopular with them as he was as Tory party chairman.

[john broughton]

Francis (Fr)Maude is an embarassment to many members - why he still holds any position of responsibility is a mystery.

He says nothing that I can see that will encourage swing voters, ergo his prpose can only be to enrage staunch Conservatives.

Tax cuts are possible but they should be (in the early years) the consequence of rebalancing tax and tax credits. We need to create the situation where work pays (sounds horribly NuLab!) while at the same time time helping mothers bring up their children if they so wish.

[David]

"Can somebody please explain to this thicko why I should vote for a new administration with identical spending plans as the current one for the whole of the next 4/5 year term ."

Because the other policies relating to public services and expenditure will be such that savings could be made for subsequent terms. I appreciate its a complex thought.........

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am not convinced that tax cuts, as such, would win the next election, although I know that many people on this website appear to think it is 'tax cuts' or nothing! I wonder if those people, who obviously and quite naturally are thinking, at least in part, of their own pockets, have also thought of the 'knock on' effects of tax cuts. Yes I know, cuts are supposed to be good for 'business', or maybe get business moving, but at the moment this country has the largest debt mountain that it has ever had, that is NOT going to disappear, and a few tax cuts are not going to help it either.

At the moment this government and Brown in particular, are totally fixated on continuuing to throw money at their favorite people, regardless of the fact that the kitty is empty. In a very short time Brown is going to have to go cap in hand to someone - who? America is not going to be 'lending' for some time to come; the EU wouldn't dream of lending TO us, even if they could!

There is one country that Brown would probably feel comfy approaching for a hand-out, because it is his natural home - ideologically speaking - anyway, and that is Russia. However, it is most unlikely that finance would be forthcoming from any country without strings attached....

[ChrisD]

"And for heavens sake Labour did NOT win rthe last two elections because of Tory tax cut promises (Which went almost unnoticed)."

Did you even bother to watch the news or read a newspaper during those elections?
Did you miss Letwin being posted to a cottage somewhere in the wilderness where he could not be reached by journalists, or the great big posters put up by the Labour party during the last election?

"Sadly, most of the opponents posting here of reducing the burden of tax remind me so much of the Tories under the Heath administration.I know that was a long time ago, but we never seem to learn from history. I need not say more"

You hark back to the last Heath administration in a rather insulting way, while the party has spent the last two years trying to erase the appalling reputation our MP's gained during the last Conservative government and in subsequent opposition. Our present number of MP's in Westminster is a testimony to the long term damage we did internally to our party in electoral terms.
You also call into question the economic intelligence of some on here, well don't forget that while many voters do not have a degree in economics, that does not stop them from managing their personal finances in a sound and competent manner!
They may feel that cutting bloated public spending to bring down debt is more important than immediate tax cuts.

[Sean Fear]

Why does Francis Maude remain a member of the Conservative Party, when he is clearly quite happy with what Labour has done in office?

[Christina Speight]

Chris D appears to conflate one phrase of mine with what others have said. So I'll just deal with tax not being the issue which lost two elections . He says "Did you even bother to watch the news or read a newspaper during those elections?"

Yes I did but I - like him - am a political nerd. Nobody outside our nerdish loop paid the slightest attention to Letwin whom they'd never heard of anyway. People don't trust politicians -( Haven't you noticed, Chrid D?) so they don't bother much about what they say unless its something that;'s bothering them anyway. And I'll tell him something he may not have noticed and that is people are VERY bothered about tax right now whereas they weren't when Letwin was caught out saying naughty things.

Maude is a disaster as Sean indicates.. Earlier on today I criticised his utterances when he uttered the innuendo “But I haven't found a single person who wants us to spend less on the health service” , which nobody, in fact, was suggesting.

But in case anyone thought that that all the money in the NHS was well spent just read this from a leading cancer specialist !

"Media hype is always a double-edged sword. The balance between reality and false hope is a difficult one. My advice if you're concerned for yourself or someone you care for is to talk to your specialist, they can advise you best as they know your case.

The real sadness, of course, is that although we lead the world in many aspects of cancer research, the NHS is unable to fund six new cancer drugs of proven value now used regularly in Europe and given to those with private medical insurance.

And our overall cancer survival is poorer. Yet the total amount we spend on cancer now matches that of our neighbours.

The problem is the massive inefficiency of Europe's largest bureaucracy, the NHS. Politicians need to hand over the reins of health care to those who know how to do it properly.

Drastic reform is the only way forward.
---------------------------------------
Karol Sikora is Medical Director of CancerPartnersUK and a leading cancer specialist.

[ChrisD]

"Nobody outside our nerdish loop paid the slightest attention to Letwin whom they'd never heard of anyway. People don't trust politicians -( Haven't you noticed, Chrid D?) so they don't bother much about what they say unless its something that;'s bothering them anyway. And I'll tell him something he may not have noticed and that is people are VERY bothered about tax right now whereas they weren't when Letwin was caught out saying naughty things."

Christina (we share a name by the way!), taxation did feature in the last two elections, and to dismiss it as something that only nerds paid attention too would be simple wrong.
Rightly or wrongly, the Labour government won the argument in those two elections, they persuaded people that they needed to pay more tax to provide for better services.
They also successfully undermined the Conservatives attempts to push for tax cuts by creating enough doubt about our ability to deliver them without slashing basic services.
Now the argument has moved on, but rather than being against tax cuts in the future when affordable, I would be against the Conservative party making election promises about tax cuts with the present economic situation. This government continued to tax in the good times rather than indulge in good financial housekeeping. Just standing still with no more tax increases for a few years whilst we sorted out the bloated public sector and tried to get the national debt under control would more fiscally responsible.
Simple put, sweeping tax increases by Labour during economic good times without putting any of that money to good effect to balance the books was bad economic management.
I also think that tax cuts at a time when debt is such a problem would be economic madness, we did not have the eye watering level of personal debt we see now back in 1979. I have not seen anyone who makes the argument for an immediate tax cutting agenda tackle that issue.
I don't see anyone on this site making the argument for further increases in tax or public spending as a whole, some of us just think that standing still on tax while we tackle the debt is a more economically and electorally sound policy.

[Yet Another Anon]

A Labour victory will mean more of the big-fix, the quick-fix, followed by the quick-fail
Unfortunately all 3 main political parties indulge in such, maybe if the Conservatives and Liberals hadn't granted the plebs the vote there wouldn't be this problem.

Democracies tend to encourage quick fixes and government of the lowest common denominator. In many ways a one party oligarchy is a more effective method of government providing it is composed of the right people and with the right leaders.

[Woodentop]

Has anybody thought that Maude's interview may well be a clever public relations exercise? His choice of the Telegraph is an interesting one. Not only does it have a strong Conservative readership - but it is also read by many who are "borderline" - people who have been wrongly influenced by the media of the 80s and 90s which pushed the line that Tories were selfish, grasping people - that there was "No such thing as Society" (a misquotation which annoys me intensely as what Mrs T finished off the sentence with was "There are people and there are families") and that above all, Tories were only interested in "tax cuts". What Maude is doing is pointing out that this is not the case. I think it is quite a clever move.

[Christina Speight]

Chris[tina] D:- My chief gripe about tax is that the party is defeatist and never shows the slightest sign that its goal is to get down the monstrous level of tax we - and particularly the low paid with a 70% marginal rate - as soon as possible. It should be a proclaimed goal That I think is cardinal.

But personally I go further for all my economics studies tell me that unless we get taxation down the economy will not recover from the recession - if not slump - we are heading for. I put tax cuts as a high priority as a way of saving the country not a way of making life more comfortable. I would give priority to restoring the 10% band, to raising the personal, allowance and reducing corporation tax so that we can once more compete in the world.

Where's it to come from? From that sacred cow the NHS for a start (see the eloquent plea in my last posting from the leading cancer specialist. Not an easy one to sell, I know but people are beginning to realise that the NHS is a scandal ands a disaster. In parenthesis I might add that if Margaret Thatcher spotted a sacred cow she became very suspicious!!!

But we all know there umpteen other cases of gross mismanagement which need surgery - I instanced ID cards and the ludicrous NHS Computer disaster.

If tax did surface in the last election it was on;ly because the Tories lost their nerve. People will follow strong leadership but wobbly arguments get nowhere.

[James Maskell]

Matthew Parris as ever writes a good piece on the lack of political leadership in Britain at present. Maudes interview just solidifies the view I have of him being an arrogant s.o.b... Someone who says there was consultation with the voluntary Conservative Party over the internal changes to the Party when the consultation constitutes a single survey which said below each question which answer CCHQ recommended be selected by the consultee, is not someone I would want as a Minister of the Crown. He cant be trusted.

[Old Hack]

Maude is yesterdays man who has failed in every post he has held, not least as Chairman where he failed to destroy the spirit and beliefs of party members, which he had clearly set out to do.

We are not and never shall be a 'liberal' party akin to socialists in Labour and Lib Dems.

To that end he should never go near the phrase 'utter rubbish' as it is what he utters to often.