« Culture Warrior: Jeremy Clarkson & Top Gear | Main | "The truly astounding fact we have discovered in recent months is that a Cabinet without John Prescott and Margaret Beckett is less competent than the Cabinet when they were in it." »


I 100% agree with you and Matthew Parris.

People vote Conservative when they want things fixed.

About time too,let's do it,asap.

This is the final paragraph in today's Telegraph editorial:

"Westminster is a cosy place, insulated by soft furnishings and their mental equivalent: a belief that Western-sized public sectors are compatible with the ruthless global competition of the 21st century. This is a delusion comparable to the 1970s belief that economies could thrive under double-digit inflation. Margaret Thatcher shattered that myth; with storm clouds nearing, we shall soon need another Mrs Thatcher to shake us out of our complacency. But who will rise to the challenge?"

C'mon Mr Cameron:- show us that you are the Thatcher of our times!

"C'mon Mr Cameron:- show us that you are the Thatcher of our times"

Sorry,he can't,he'll be on parental leave!

"The new Conservative language should be about waste, maladministration, extravagance, incompetence and drift. "

Maladministration, what a great word Mathew Parris uses which sums up this Labour Government, and when people are really beginning to struggle to pay all their extra taxes they are going to bloody furious at the obscene waste taking place in everything the Government does.

But where are the New Conservatives ? Hmmmm up in Gateshead (nothing wrong in that ) having a proto-socialist get together (everything wrong with that)!

The one fundamental flaw with this is that neither Dave nor Gideon has ever done a proper job. As such, they show very little economic intelligence or understanding or even empathy with the business / wealth creating community.

They should put tax cuts centre stage, a rolling back of central and local government expenditure (or waste as it's more commonly known) and ditch most of this green crap that the average voter doesn't give a monkeys about.

It always takes Joe Public some while to grasp what is happening with the economy- it is only when bad news hits him in the pocket that he will then move out of the comfort zone Gordon Brown has wrapped in him for the past 11 years. The ordinary punter does not really understand what is happening with the credit crunch- and oh boy when that really starts to bite, we will then see Brown's economic miracle blown apart. That is when the opinion polls will really start to move!
For all those frustrated with Team Cameron at present, I say, just hold your breath- the tide of economic retribution is about to sweep this Government off its feet.

We must be ready to continue to demonstrate that once again, we are a Government in waiting

I do support David Cameron but feel there are times when he is a bit too deferential to the Labour government and isn't aggressive enough when attacking them. The Conservative party is landing blows on the government but they are all little jabs to the body, what the Conservative party needs to do is forget about the cute and clever little jabs and start headbutting Labour, do it repeatedly. The government is so weak in so many areas, particularly the economy and the Conservative response is too slow, too polite and too ineffective. Whenever Labour lie about something the shadow cabinet should be laying into them viciously, yet usually we get no response at all. Think about this, if the Labour government have to face immediate rebuttal every time they appear on TV telling a lie, it won't be long before they will be avoiding the TV cameras! Currently they have a free and open liars platform and can hoodwink the public with fantastic fantasies about us having full employment, low inflation, low crime, stable public finances, etc. Is there one shadow cabinet minister with an ounce of political passion? Or are they all in the comfort-zone?

There's nothing "proto-socialist" about what's happening here in Gateshead Iain!

Emphasising the family should be core to conservatism. Without strong families and a strong welfare society the demands on the welfare state will only grow and grow. In order to rebuild the family we will be faced we will have to do some difficult things that may involve more state intervention, not less, in the short-run.

He needs to say that we're living beyond our means. We're spending too much and borrowing too much.

Who is this 'we' Editor? Who is going to spend less in the idealised world you seek to create

(I agree with the points about 'surrendering the streets' by the way)

"There's nothing "proto-socialist" about what's happening here in Gateshead Iain!"

Sorry Mr Editor that's exactly what is taking place, for when we have just had a budget that well and truly screwed Astra and Mondeo man, and when small business are in serious trouble, ( there was a business man on the radio yesterday and of the five local businessmen he knew four were heading to go anywhere but here, NZ, OZ, Canada) and when the Conservatives should be knocking lumps out of Labour for their lies, Darling said in the budget that most motorists were going to be better off, yet 9 out of 10 are going to be worse off, ( and the AA believes Labours motoring taxes were done at short notice off a fag packet) what are the New Conservatives and Team Cameron talking about? State interference in families, extra health visits, and six months off paid leave for parents after the birth of the child. So yes proto-socialist!

and the AA believes Labours motoring taxes were done at short notice off a fag packet MPs buying fags whilst lecturing the rest of us about smoking?- Never. Well I hope the contents of the packet wasn't smoked in a public place or the workplace! Seriously, only a very small proportion of Astras and no Mondeos will have to pay the new taxes.

six months off paid leave for parents after the birth of the child.

Well women can have a year already- this simply allows husband and wife to split the leave between them. There is more to life than making money for an employer and if this means the Conservative party is in some small way recognising this, great.

"There is more to life than making money for an employer"

Yes fine when there is loads of spare money around, unfortunately there isn't, what we have is a massively bloated state, a massive black hole in Government finances, massively over taxed, highest ever, and a massive trade and current account deficit, so right now what the Conservatives should be talking about is getting tax payer value for money out of the state. Regretfully the New Conservatives are talking about the opposite and seeking to add costs onto businesses, which makes you really wonder about the political nose/instincts of Team Cameron, who continuously lurch into these politically correct announcements when people are desperate for them to grapple with the nuts and bolts issues, which probably explains the anaemic lead they have in the polls.

'The one fundemental flaw with this is that neither Dave nor Gideon has ever done a proper job. As such, they show very little economic intelligence or understanding, or even empathy with the business/wealth creating community.'

Mark Hudson I am sure that you cannot be suggesting that the present government has even as LITTLE economic understanding as you seem to suggest that 'Dave and Gideon' have?

You perhaps didn't read Iain Dale yesterday, in the Telegraph, the article entitled 'Tories must grab the business opportunity', is on the same topic, but does indicate that George Osborne has been around in the City.

For goodness sake we have had over ten years of schoolyard politics, with a government and chancellor that have the trade unionist attitude to business and the City, i.e. that businesses and the City are the 'money tree', which are there for the plucking, and that is their - the trade unions 'right'. Of course, it wouldn't occur to them that, as in nature if you pluck a tree or growing plant incessantly/too greedily, you inhibit the growth, and eventually KILL IT off, then where is your MONEY POT?????

michael m @ 9.41 - I agree with your long first paragraph.

There are 'lean & mean' economic arguments for doing everything possible to help parents: Less stressed parents, higher productivity, better parents, better country, happier kids, less crime.

"michael m @ 9.41 - I agree with your long first paragraph."

I don't for the Conservatives can't expect to benefit from the dire mess Labour have made unless they are seen to be making the appropriate critical assessment of what Labour have done, what they wouldn't do, and what they would do instead. Something I believe is bourn out by the polls, in that the Conservatives should be doing a whole load better than they are, and also bourn out by recent polling on economic competencies of the various parties.

The trouble with many people on this site, especially those that edit it, is that they just want the party to stand for the same things it stood for twenty years ago and I`m afraid times have changed, the country as moved on and its about time many Conservatives moved on as well.
Tax cuts in the eyes of many mean cuts in health and education, a vote loser. Increased spending on defence looks as if your putting fighting wars before health and education, a vote loser.Thinking that you can can reduce crime just by throwing people in prison doesn`t work, people know it, and its a vote loser.Shouting about immigration and there`s too many people coming in the country is seen, as we saw at the last election, as intolerant and is a vote loser.
The platform the editors of this site and many who post on this site want the party to stand on is a vote loser and will simply lead to yet another defeat for the party.

@ Jack Stone

In summary Jack are you reccomending we vote Labour. You seem to be out of step with core Conservative values!

I think what is very clear now is that:

#1 Labour must now be kicked out. If Brown had called (and no doubt won) the election, then a different scenario (split etc) would have emerged, but now Labour must go.

#2 Cameron and Osborne are not the change Britain needs right now, but we need to beat the right policies into them with concerted pressure in some key areas.

Cameron and his team have sense the change in the political weather, will capitalise on it with the right talk, but probably have little intention of delivering what they double-talk allude to. However, it is our job to push them in the correct direction. And that is likely to involve some unpleasantness for them but it will be good for Britain!

It really does you no credit Jack to attack straw men.

ConservativeHome has consistently backed a progressive conservatism that tackles poverty and takes international justice issues seriously.

Our defining idea though is the 'politics of and' - our belief that familiar Tory beliefs in lower taxation and a tough approach to crime etc should be twinned with the 'newer' messages.

I do not think it is as easy as that Jack Stone. You must take two things into account. First of all that the political climate today is different than it was in 1997 and 2001.
Second of all, how we are going to convey the message.

In 1997 people were more willing to accept higher taxes, to improve the Public Services. 11 years later we have the highest tax burden in Britains history, ordinary families are fealing the squeeze, and our Public Services are not much better than they were in 1997.
In this new climate we can advocate some tax cuts, simply because people understand that high taxes does not neccesarily equate into high standards of public services.

The second point is how we convey the message, especially on sensitive issues like immigration and welfare.
The target of the welfare reform is not to "axe the scroungers", but to help people out of a life as welfare-recipients, with all the social-evils that follows.
As with immigration. The Tories does not want to reduce immigration because of hostility towards Black people, but rather because it is limited how much immigration the Britains infrastructure can take.

" I`m afraid times have changed, the country as moved on and its about time many Conservatives moved on as well."

So says someone destined to re-live history, as are lessons now being re-learned in the financial markets, the same will take place at personal level and the state level, for all have been on a binge, and just about the time when people have deluded themselves into believing that we are in a new world order and past lessons have no baring on their brave new world, the reality of the past comes back and bites them hard.

Currently we have unsustainable personal debt, we have a bubble property market, we have unsustainable public borrowing, we are over taxed which is going to damage future economic prospects, and not surprisingly because of the cedit being we've been on, we have a massive trade deficit (in % terms bigger than the US's ) Nothing new about any of this, nor will there be anything new about the lessons we will have to learn from it.

ConservativeHome has consistently backed a progressive conservatism

Indeed, you have. Consistently. And all credit to you.

I'm sure that that Labour defeat will become increasingly certain, and in such circumstances, it will be essential to fight to maintain the balance, rather than see a return of an imbalanced uber-agenda that would have previously delivered undoubted defeat if Brown had actually had the backbone to call an election.

For me, all pressure must be piled on Osborne to u-turn and drop his non-dom levy which is going to cause untold damage to Britain's wealth creation power.

Patsy Sergeants as someone who actually works in the City, I can assure you that Dave-Gideon are regarded jusr as poorly as Gordon-Alastair. One note of caution, Ed Balls is certainly seen as having done a decent job as City Minister and light years ahead intellectually of our own Shadow Chancellor.

When there's so little difference between the two main parties on tax and spending, no wonder so many of us are disillusioned. And just who's stupid idea was it to open up the whole idea of non-domicile taxation in the first place? Ah yes, little Gideon. Enough said.

Mark Hudson, my son works in the City, and my father worked in the City throughout the war and after.

Judging by the relevance of your comments, I take it that was the Boer War.

The Editor and Matthew Parris are correct.

As the world financial markets are in crisis, Osborne has nothing of substance to say. There are a few glib sound bites but there is no sign that Osborne has any understanding of economics or financial markets.

Instead, he focuses on green ISAs and creating a green equity market (with no evidence that there is demand in the City for one). As other posters have commented, Boy George is regarded as a joke in the City.

As government debt spirals out of control, Lansley makes another expensive health pledge. The Shadow Cabinet is out of touch with economic and political reality. We are back to the left-green-liberal agenda that cost us so dearly last summer. The lessons have not been learned.

There is substantial difference between Conservative policies and those of the Government in most areas. Only Michael Gove, Nick Herbert and David Davis are offering a real alternative. Some, e.g. Ainsworth and Lansley, are to the left of the Lib Dems.

The Conservatives are fortunate that the Lib Dems chose Calamity Clegg rather than Chris Huhne. Huhne and Vince Cable would have made mincement of Dave and Gideon.

TFA Tory - spot on mate.

Too right Mark. Gids is an increasingly weak-link in his role as shadow chancellor.

Maybe time for Hague to come in and drop this whole stupid non-dom levy?

Yes, many of us do want Cameron to tear apart Labour's record; he and Osborne did well enough in response to the Budget but I share other contributors' concern at the competence of the present shadow Treasury team to do just that.

Iain Dale in his excellent article mentioned above, stated that fewer than 10 out of 350 Labour MPs have ever run a business. Good point but he doesn't say how many tory MPs have done so. Osborne has not, as far as I know - and it shows.

Matthew Parris was excellent:

"The new Conservative language should be about waste, maladministration, extravagance, incompetence and drift".

This is what several of us have been saying on ConHome for a very long while. ConHome is effectively a very disparate focus group and I often think we hear more good sense from it(when people are making an attempt to be positive) than from MPs; we should now focus on what we, as ordinary citizens, feel.

For starters, I repeat what I said yesterday: let "Mending our broken Society" be our clarion call and "Caring for those who earn less than £25K a year" our policy focus.

Let us chuck away that dreadful mantra "Sharing the proceeds of Growth" and substitute something realisable like "Sharing the proceeds of Waste Reduction".

The recent actions of the Fed, in artificially trying to create liquidity, have been reckless to say the least, particularly given the weakness of the dollar. This will open the door up to inflation eventually. The best thing the MPC can do now is shadow the ECB because any attempt to cut rates for reasons of expediency will weaken Sterling relative to the Euro and be a fast-track to high street inflation. We do need to cut rates but can't because a widening differential between the Pound and the Euro will damage us greatly. Once again our dependence on imported foodstuffs from Europe makes us hostage to high interest rates. Because we import so much every time we cut our rates we import inflation, this is a very worrying scenario with many financial experts predicting that the pound will be the next currency to 'do a dollar' and collapse in value. George Osborne needs to look at the forex situation very carefully and make sure that Conservative policy supports price stability over sporadic attempts to re-boot the economy Fed-style.

I would have thought it obvious that for any politician, particularly a Conservative one, to start saying all the tough things most of you seem to want s/he needs first to be accepted as being in favour of things people like. Any excuse is grabbed by some people to go on head banging tax cutting spree which merely demonstrates to voters how out of touch politically (and nasty) so many supposed Tories are. Even if Parris is right, and I'm sure he isn't, going on about cutting central and local government is electoral suicide and demonstrates a complete ignorance of what is going on right now. Confronted with the financial problems perceived above voters will prefare the reassuring opium of Darling to the hysteria of some of the above contributers. However, I would guess that the silly anti Cameron remarks by the likes of Hudson and TFA Tory probably encourage support for Cameron in the eyes of most voters.

However, the problem that has been there since 1993 is the biggest single reason for only a 5% lead. It was a classic example of this when Darling's main sales pitch (apart from the downright lies) for his budget is parading the myths that have been allowed to grow up about the 18 Tory years. 11 years on!! This is raving mad, for years Tory leaders have been drawing attention to Labour's mess but even people on this site are banging on about the need for it to be said and presumably havn't noticed. The Conservative party does not need new policies right now it needs understand what voters (not the City) think and ALL of them get communicating. I suspect, though, that large numbers of them are too lazy to bother and some, like some contributers to this site, would only put people off if they tried to communicate.

Cameron and Osborne would be well advised to refrain from making any financial statements whatsoever.

The economic firestorm will utterly change the political landscape and the next election will be fought against a totally different backdrop.

I know it's hard to get people to listen to hangover remedies when they are still in the bar but it might help if the Tories stopped ordering drinks.

However, I would guess that the silly anti Cameron remarks by the likes of Hudson and TFA Tory probably encourage support for Cameron in the eyes of most voters.

LoL. Don't let the facts get the way of a rant.

When faced with a certain defeat (as later admitted by Cameron) with an imbalanced uber agenda, pulled an 'unpopular with voters' tax cut (IHT) out of the bag, saving their careers by scaring Brown off an election with the sudden jump in the polls.

Again, not one person here has *ever* called for a tax-cutting only agenda, it is just the kind of rubbish the ubers come out with (like Graeme's regular reference to conHome as the voice of the 'right') when it has been calling for a balanced agenda that includes tax-cutting from day one.

The only extremists in the Tory Party are the ubers and, untamed, they almost succeeded in delivering an election victory for Brown.

Both Iain and Mike Routhorn spot on.

Firestorm is the word – and China has yet to fall flat on its face – lot more dire news to come. On the plus side the euro will probably break up but people may be hurt in the process.

Cameron and Osborne are babes in arms – for them a baptism of fire and they may be swept away in the process.

Chad Noble @ 11:46 is only partly right with ‘all pressure must be piled on Osborne to u-turn and drop his non-dom levy which is going to cause untold damage to Britain's wealth creation power.’

Too late – once a policy comes over horizon the City will react – no waiting till it’s happened - next plane out. I personally know half a dozen who have gone to the airport– how many have already left with their money and their business? And who started this hare running as someone else hare as already commented!

"Even if Parris is right, and I'm sure he isn't, going on about cutting central and local government is electoral suicide"

In current circumstances, I totally disagree. In 2006, Conservatives won control of several local authorities in London, by making it quite clear that they would axe inessential expenditure to keep council tax down - and are acting on those promises.

I see no reason why the party nationally couldn't do the same. The main beneficiaries of very high public spending are located in safe Labour seats, not the seats we need to form a government.

Let's adopt Nelson maxim that "the boldest course is often the safest course."

As before, Brown and others will repeat ad nauseam the fiction that "the tories are proposing a £10billion unfunded tax cutting programme that must lead to cuts in essential services".

Can someone please remind me what Gordon Brown's mouthpiece actually said himself in the Budget about cuts? I believe he suggested that considerable "savings" (or "cuts", if the tories make them) were going to be made but I didn't hear our side pick up on the point. Was it £30M of savings and where are they to come from?

We could point out that many village post offices are due to be cut under this government and they are going to cause real hardship, if not stopped.

David Sergeant, despite the Northern Rock fiasco, voters believe that Labour is more competent than the Conservatives on the economy. Osborne, in the eyes of the voters and the City, lacks substance and gravitas because he has failed to offer credible alternative policies. He lacked consistency on Northern Rock. The NR policy paper would have shamed a banking student. Michael Fallon showed up Osborne to be an inexperienced lightweight.

Gimmicks like green ISAs, only undermine Osborne's credibility rather than enhance it. That is the sort of nonsense you would expect from the Lib Dems or Greens, not a Conservative Chancellor-in-waiting. If the Conservatives want to win the next election, they replace Osborne with a heavyweight with real world experience.


Surely, all the Tories have to say is that they will take no lectures on unfunded commitments from a government that has failed to fund its spending commitments for x years, leaving each taxpayer with a debt of x thousand per person, that like credit cards, will have to be paid off or continue to accrue interest charges.

It is time to ram home the equivalent debt per taxpayer that Labour has saddled them with, and stress that if this is not settled, it will continue to get worse.

David Sergeant, you competely miss the point. First, the City does matter. Without it, the UK would be economically somewhere below Portugal as an economic power. Secondly, people want to keep more of their own hard-earned money. Yes, I am lucky, I work in a well paid environment. But when I see my taxes go up each year, my council tax bill now exceeding £2,500, where is the Conservative Party in all this? Offering pointless and electorally weak pledges on green issues which, quite frankly, the average punter does not care about.

The reason the lead is so consistently c.5% (and that's among the few who'll actually bother to vote) is that on the key issue of economic management, Dave/Gideon are offering very little different to the present lot. So why bother?

I see no point in advocating things that will lose you votes. Tax cuts will lose you votes because Labour have successfully convinced the public that tax cuts mean fewer nurses, doctors and teachers.
As for a progressive International policy. I don`t see whats progressive about consistently advocating sending troops into country`s. Being progressive is actually advocating that you talk to people to resolve problems and disagreements not send in the guys with guns!

Chad at 14.44: quite right.

About every other day some issue is raised that tax cutters see as an excuse to have a rant. Rarely does anyone do much else but demand "savings" or just cuts. This is a cop out and, as has been pointed out, Brown is already there quoting figures for "savings". Councils all over the country are engaged in assorted unpleasent activities to meet Brown's "saving targets". Of course it is now becoming clear that some, (note, some) Conservtive councils are really making progress. It would appear that there is a superb bit of publicity available for demonstrating that "safe" savings can be made and it is Conservatives who do it. But the point is not being made. Worse, Civil Service cuts are demonstrating foulups all around, lost discs for one, but no one is making the overall management of the service an issue, just scoring points when something happens.

I worry about the City, if all they are thinking about is tax when comparing the parties they are a pretty shallow lot. But, I don't remember non-doms threatening to leave when Osborne came up with his idea, it was only after Darling bungled his copy cat version. It seems so typical these days to try and blame the Tories for something Labour have done.

But, I note from all the comments I seem to have generated (sorry I had yo be a bit provocative) no ome has picked up on the elephant in the room, the largely dishonest myths that have built up about the 18 years. They should have bee rebutteted starting about 1996 and Labour still get off hooks by quoting the myths. So help me, it was Darling's main defence of his scruffy budget. At the last count the Conservative were ahead on economic competence but, Osborne or not, until the elephant in the room is addressed Labour are never going to be far behind.

David Sergeant, you are as thick as Jack Stone. High taxes and regulation are crippling British business. Our stock market is stuck at the same level that it was 10 years ago. That has dire consequences for pensions and savings. Like Boy George, you need to some lessons in economics and finance.

The reason why the non-doms said nothing about Boy George is that he has no power. He is an irrelevance.

Someone posted on a Telegraph thread last week that the amount spent on Quangos is roughly the same amount collected via income tax.

While we allow Labour to define every penny of government spending as a 'vital service' or for the 'vulnerable' we are going nowhere.

Time to get out of the trenches and attack.

TFA Tory and Mike Routhorn are right.

David – there is chronic, rising waste and overspend at every level whatever Brown says – central government, quangos, local government (with a few honourable Conservative exceptions), the NHS... That’s before we get to the EU with billions down the drain. And overspend blocks efficiency.

Mrs T used the analogy of the housewife. Some may not like it but it’s spot on. We cannot spend money we do not have and do not earn. But we are. Now comes the massive business downturn.

Yes the non doms started making a noise the moment Osborne came up with taxing them.

Piling on tax and regulation drives business out. It will flow to the lowest tax and least regulated places.

The City is on the verge of catching pneumonia: without the City and the financial sector this country will be in great trouble as Mark Hudson says. Who or what will fund the grotesque welfare state then?

There is only one route out – cut waste (Michael Howard made a great start), cut taxes, cut regulation – that means EU regulations too like the 48-hour week.

Set entrepreneurs and businessmen free.

TFA Tory, thank you for making the point that the stock market is at the same level as ten years ago. That is one hell of a critism of Labour, on it's own it should kill off any remaining idea that Brown was anything other than a disaster. But, you see, you are using the fact to attack Osborne not Brown and, I am afraid, there are so many people like you who, like teenagers, just want to have a tantrum rather than attack the real enemy. Thank you for confirming my point about the non-doms and, of course, at the time, Osborne was anything but an irrelevance or we wouldn't still be talking about it.

David Belchamber @ 12.31 - "sharing the proceeds of waste reduction" is an excellent formula - easily memorable, banging home the fact that the last 11 years have been blighted by waste, and possibly a good example of the And Theory too (we will reduce government waste AND we will ensure that you benefit from this). If only we would adopt it.

Trouble is, what would it take to abandon the intellectual dishonesty of "sharing the proceeds of growth", other than for a Paxman figure to ask for a straight answer to the question "what if there is no growth"? Replacing George Osborne with John Redwood or Michael Fallon is one possibility, of course.

David Sergeant and Jack Stone ( are you sure that this is not meant to be Straw?),

You seem to be advocating that any policy initiative (regardless if its relevance or merit) which might be, even remotely, unpopular with the lowest common denominator of potential voters, should either be dropped from Tory policy or relegated to a hidden agenda; for fear of "frightening the horses".

True, this worked brilliantly for Blair, but might not have done so well for Brown, had he had the guts to test the real public opinion.

I think that you underestimate the down to earth common sense of the phlegmatic average British voter, who may have been previously conned, more than once, by NuLab, but who has learned to recognise and despise 'politician speak'.

What you both advocate is telling the public what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. This is like a doctor telling a patient with terminal cancer " The results of your tests were fine, go ahead with buying your new house!" Instead of "I think you should put your affairs in order". The patient may not be around to complain, but his relatives certainly will.

The Conservatives should now concentrate upon becoming the image of "The Honest Party", prepared to admit and face unpleasant realities; accept that the remedies may sometimes unpleasant and unpopular, but determined to demonstrate that those remedies are workable and that they have both the will and the ability to apply them.

If the Tories had a leader with sufficient vision, courage and conviction to create and implement such a policy, I believe that they would be astounded by their success.

"David Sergeant and Jack Stone

You seem to be advocating that any policy initiative (regardless if its relevance or merit) which might be, even remotely, unpopular with the lowest common denominator of potential voters, should either be dropped from Tory policy"

David Parker, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that if you want to propose a policy which appears to be unpopular, e.g. cutting public services, you have to sell the idea not just insist that Cameron does it. Tax and public service cutters hardly try to sell the ideas on this site, they just rant demands.

As an offering may I draw attention to John Redwood's summary of his economics review which demonstrated you could have tax cuts and increased funding of public services. Few here wants to "sell" tax cuts to voters they just want to have rants and cut services. That's not courage that's childish.

Thank you David Cooper at 19.27. I agree totally with your last sentence but fear Cameron will never move Osborne (who could do a wonderful job for us elsewhere).

You are so right Mark Hudson @ 12.06 yesterday, I have only just managed to limp back to my PC with the aid of my sixteenth Zimmer frame, so what would I know about anything. Your cheap jibe shows more about YOUR lack of character than anything else.

What does man up mean? I thought this was man down? if you want to sack people. Fire more people well done. More unemployed people. Great idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker