« "Ken's wimmin" to be kicked out of City Hall | Main | People in Northern Ireland want a Conservative government »


My hope is that David Davis will return to the back benches as a powerful figure of serious public standing. From that enhanced position he will argue for the Conservative Party to be bold on tax, defence and Europe.

DD is a conservative and he is too big a beast not to have in the conservative tent. David Cameron must recognise the huge impact that DD has made on the political scene and, if he is kept on board, his influence could well increase our lead still further.

DD is much more punchy and down to earth than DC (and Osborne) and people are delighted to find a politician willing to make a stand on a - crucially important - point of principle. This cuts across the party system and I am delighted.

It is perhaps the hare and tortoise again. This time, I definitely go with the hare!

Back to the Tortoise and Hare Tim.

Well, okay lets think about what the implications of radical reduction in spending would be at a time when real inflation is very high, mortgages are costly and negative equity and repossessions are accelerating. Millions of public sector workers would (in the short term) face redundancy and the dole queue or massive reductions in real spending at a time when their homes would be under threat. In short, Tim, what you are advocating is a return to 1979. Britain today is very different to 1979 - most people do not live in council houses, work for nationalised industries or already are in chaos.

My belief (as you know) is that this line would prove disastrous electorally exactly because it would prove disastrous in practice for Britain. It would be highly irresponsible to pursue this agenda and a more measured balanced budget strategy would rectify the overspend problem without exposing a large section of our working citizens and their families to a bleak future.

I agree with you David Belchamber (09:19) but David Cameron shut the door to Davis coming back by immediately appointing Dominic Grieve to his old job. Cameron couldn't have been more ovbious with the speed of the appointment.

Oberon: I'm not proposing a radical reduction in spending but a slower growth path.

If the British economy is to recover post-Labour then tax cuts have to feature as the stimulus. Firstly, and most importantly tax cuts for business, it is business that will provide the jobs we need and the home-produced goods we now require in a world where imports are becoming ever more expensive. The benefits of tax cuts for the consumer are incalculable in terms of freeing up money to be spent, such cuts also carry the psychological message that government is on the people's side.

The money accrued by the state through taxation can only be applied to state projects and for this reason its usefulness is limited. However that same money freed up and in the hands of business and consumers can have a much greater impact in terms of job-creation and consumer spending.

The more money the state takes from people the more it takes money out of circulation and that money becomes limited, as it is only used once, its potential usage is curtailed. The fact that we can show Labour is wasting money is reason enough for cutting back state expenditure, this same money let loose and circulating in the shape of tax cuts can do far more good. Time to set the money free.

I am not the slightest bit surprised at the dinner party discussion which took place and have no doubt that DD has a "wider agenda" in mind. I hope that David Cameron will re-appoint him to the Shadow Cabinet following the By Election as this will achieve the two aims of nipping whatever the "wider agenda" may be firmly in the bud - AND bringing a Big Beast back into the Conservative Pride!

David Davis on the back benches will mean that he can exert far more pressure on Cameron to become much more radical. Being a member of the shadow cabinet ties Davis down too much.

Britain needs a strong and commited Tory on the back benches to make sure there is no back-sliding from Cameron, once he is in power. Otherwise, the fear is, as this article points out, Cameron will just coast along in power but not willing to make the changes neccessary.

The public mood is for radical measures, something Davis has cottoned on to, but Cameron has not.

If, as seems likely, Davis will have no serious opposition in Haltemprice & Howden, it will be important for him to achieve as high a turn-out as possible. (No mean challenge, given that the government will be spinning the whole event as a farce/charade etc.) Campaigning visits by Cameron and other Shadow Cabinet/Front Bench will therefore be essential ... unless, of course, one takes the cynical view that they might actually depress turn-out!

The most powerful Tory in the country, Boris the Bold, dismissed talk of his leadership potential as 'twaddle' this morning whilst David Davis' ultimate intentions are none too clear.

The view from the Shires is that leadership and direction is an issue and that the rather uncommitted support for Boris in the mayoral and the blunt and prompt elevation of Grieve indicates that David Cameron is not an advocate of succession planning.

The view from Westminster is?

"Millions of public sector workers would (in the short term) face redundancy and the dole queue or massive reductions in real spending at a time when their homes would be under threat."

Oberon Houston, the difficult decisions have to be made and a large public sector cannot be maintained by any government. Not only is it too expensive but the potential for conflict with public sector unions at a time of inflation could easily bring a government and the country to its knees.

Labour have been fortunate in that they have built up their huge public sector at a time of relatively low inflation, in the early years, but now they are sitting on a tinderbox of their own making. The public sector can never pay for better wages out of productivity so their wages will always lag behind the private sector, in a time of rising prices and inflation this becomes a nightmare scenario for any government.

Of course cutting back the public sector will mean job-losses but this has to be done in the national interest to prevent far greater problems in the long run. Government cannot afford a large public sector and certainly cannot keep up with wages for public sector workers in inflationary times.

The greatest argument against the public sector is wages.

Agreed. I understand the desire to avoid being radical for the sake of it, but this country really does need radical tax reform, radical reform of our public services and radical reform of our relationship with the EU amongst other things. The Conservatives will only have themselves to blame if voters still see them as being close to Labour on the big issues.

Dorian, I thin Labour have demonstrated why "succession planning" is a bad idea

Cameron must U-turn and invite DD back to the Shad Cab. DD will be ten times the Home Secretary that Grieve will be.

You can't have Shadow Cabinet Ministers going off on one.

The fact is that even if Davis a different emphasis in his wider personal agenda, he put himself up for a leadership elcetion and lost - rather convincingly.

Cameron has turned this parties fortunes around and deservaes a chance and some loyalty. The 'one final push' brigade need to accept the realities. Power requires compromise and discipline.

We shall never know the numbers, but it is likely that David Cameron`s statement about his MEPs leaving the federalist EPP played a significant part in his leadership victory. . He reneged on this promise which has disappointed many.

He is still refusing to promise a retrospective referendum on the Treaty. What is he afraid of?

Let's stop dancing to the journalists' tune, eh? Fraser Nelson is using second hand gossip to wind you all up. David Davis has made a decision on one area of principle - British liberty - that is more radical than David Cameron would have chosen. Err, that's it. The rest is speculation.

The idea of chucking vast numbers of public sector workers on the dole when the Tories come to power is a nice bit of traditional gung-ho rhetoric. However, it is neither electorally nor financially attractive.

You'll deter public sector voters, who would not opt for cutting their own throats, and you'll place a greater burden on the dole bill at the same time as losing tax income from their previous working income. Also, redundancy packages themselves do not come cheap and would take some while before the longer term saving overtook the short term cost.

No point in being radical if in fact it costs more than being rational!

If instead you announced a freeze on staff budget increases, then existing staff would not feel they would be torykeys voting for Christmas and subsequent staff natural wastage would steadily erode the numbers and even leave scope for the occasional salary rate increase, within that total frozen budget.

Of course there would also be the concomitant constraint on the government not to introduce legislation, etc, that necessitates additional public sector staff. If something new needs to be done, then repeal something else to make way for it within existing resources.

Editor: Slower growth in public spending is the official policy of the party just now - so what's the difficulty with it?

Hardly Oberon. Labour and Tories are both pledged to increase spending by 2%pa until 2011. I hope we can trim that to 1.5%pa or lower given that the real incomes of many households are in decline. As well as sharing the proceeds of growth there should be a sharing of the pain of tough times, too.

Well, something's gotta give! Cameron cannot go on pretending that nothing's changed in the world in the last 18 months.

For a start the economy is in crisis and taxation and spending HAS TO come down. There is no option.

Secondly to the fury of the British people (only 29% want to stay in the EU) Brown has ratified the treaty using his and the EU's placemen in the HoL to do so. The petition for non-ratification galloped ahead to 21,194 in 2 days . But Cameron / Hague still sit there immobile making disapproving noises and hoping the subject will go away. IT WON'T unless the Tory party makes it do so!

On both of these issues I - and many others - believe David Davis woulkd deliver and guarrantee beyond any doubt the return of a Tory government.

But if Cameron rabbits endlessly on about being Bluer than Green (or something similarly vacuous) he'll have many Tories scrambling up the nearest flagpole in despair and looking for someone else to vote for..

Paul D | June 19, 2008 at 09:55

Good point. My worry is that it looks like the boardroom self-preservation where the incumbents stomp on threats and promote the yes men, not the talent. The commercial director has a hissy fit and resigns over business strategy and the MD stomps in.

Notice that Alan Sugar’s key henchpersons on The Apprentice are both older than him and very much not the aspiring young Turks that he professes to select. Threat limitation in action.

Grieve: You’re Hired!

Tim, working from your 10.30 post, and assuming an election in May 2010, you're only talking about a 0.5% difference in the growth rate that you'd like to see for one year, 2010-2011. This is not a huge difference.

It also takes time to implement the decisions that will reduce spending, so even with the best will in the world and the most efficient approach (which no doubt we'll use) you'd probably find that we were starting 2011 before the changes we'd be wanting were starting to kick into the figures. Underneath it all, I don't think there's really much difference between what you want and what high command will want. However, there may be quite a difference in the words you/they are currently prepared to use.

Tim's piece is very well argued and puts the case for a reduction in public expenditure well.It is apparent that the long term health of any economy is dependant upon two key factors:

1 The skills and abilities of it's workforce
2 The liberty to take fiscal control of one's own life.

Achieveing these 2 goals should be at the core of a conservative project.The notion that the government, can be the only provider of life chances to great swathes of our fellow citizens, has led to a bloated and wasteful client state.

This pays little attention to those on the ground struggling ,many in the third sector,to improve the vibrancy and health of their communities.Supporting these individuals through targeted and significant tax breaks and reductions is both morally correct and socially produtive.

We must conduct nothing short of a root and branch examination of the cost of government.John Redwood's excellent paper points to significant regulatory economies-there must be more to be had!!

We must however go further pushing power downwards and making locally elected individuals responsible for both raising and spending their own revenue.This would increase a feeling of civic pride and ensure that those spending public are always held accountable for their actions.

Structural changes of this nature are the long term answer to the need to reduce the size, scope and cost of the state.Only this way can we achieve a "low tax opportunity" society.

"You'll deter public sector voters, who would not opt for cutting their own throats, and you'll place a greater burden on the dole bill at the same time as losing tax income from their previous working income."

Are smoking cessation officers and diversity co-ordinators really likely to vote Tory?

In addition to my last post, the dole money we're paying them will be less than the wages they're getting via the taxpayer!

A simple freeze in public sector recruitment will save hundreds of millions. Noone needs to be sacked.


And then come the publicly financed pensions. The NHS, for example, employs more people than the standing army of the People's Republic of China.

It is the biggest tax financed employer on the planet.

Oberon Houston and Tony Makara - It depends what you both mean by the 'public sector', in terms of wage control and/or staff cut-back.

Regarding staff cut-backs, both nurses and police actually need the reverse (more of both), and actually probably more teachers would be useful - BUT only properly trained and qualified teachers!

NOW a section that has been mentioned before, as possible to cutback by an in-coming Conservative government, is the hundreds of 'agencies', and many of the quangoes, if they were thinned out at the very least there would be a great deal more money to channel elsewhere.

Regarding the future ?partnership of the two Davids, I don't see the problems that some people seem to, as long as David Davis feels free to 'air' some of his concerns. They are both strong characters, but in entirely different ways, in fact I think that they are both very necessary to the Conservative team. Maybe if Davis was out of the Cabinet he might feel more relaxed. At the same time David Cameron - who has achieved so much with the party over the last two years, despite the arrows and venom directed at him, might also feel more relaxed if he had the weight of Davis in the Commons, which could provide a balanced strength!

We need to re-boot the economy. However we can't do that by cutting interest rates because that will weaken Sterling and push up the cost of imports even further. So the only way we can increase liquidity is through tax cuts for business and consumers. If this doesn't happen the economy is going to flatline and contract.

The Pound is going to go into a long period in the doldrums and believe me the worst is yet to come. Cutting interest rates just isn't an option for a country so heavily dependent on imports. Stimulus must come from tax cuts, it also has the advantage of kick-starting the economy without recourse to debt.

We all know that the Cameroons have studied the Labour playbook endlessly. Well its time for them to consider carefully just how things ended up for New Labour rather than just how things begun.

Of course we need to 'decontaminate' the brand, much as Labour did. Like Labour members before, the approach taken is often discomforting to rank and file Conservatives. The reward, of course, is power.

Labour members consoled themselves that for the price of socialism red in tooth and claw they would get a non-Tory 'progressive' government. Likewise 'traditional' Conservatives can accommodate a similar vein of thinking - for a while.

Where things go wrong is when the party loses completely its sense of values and purpose. There simply is no purpose to being a member of the Labour party anymore, unless you are seeking some sort of personal direct gain. Hence the parlous financial state of the Labour Party and its plummeting membership.

What the Conservative Leadership must avoid at all costs is the same ending. Of course we face challenges in government. But what the Leadership must accept, privately if not publicly is that there is no post Blair consensus on the size or purpose of the state. I wonder if they do?

For the Conservative Leadership simply to continue the Blair state in a slightly moderated trajectory as part of a 'progressive' consensus is to aim to fail. We must have more of a purpose when we enter government. It should be clearly Conservative and attract the continuing support of Conservatives across the Party.

David Davis may not see eye to eye with the Cameroons, though this is not his stated reason for doing what he is doing. What is more clear is that Davis is not of the same ilk as the Cameroons, though he has observed them close up. Clearly his decision to fight this by-election has something to do with the leadership of his Party.

We all need to practice discipline and focus on the prize of Government. But when we get there, we expect a good Conservative government that respects freedoms and limits the size of the state both in terms of powers and budget.

We do not need a continuation of the squanderous spending, chaotic management and dismemberment of the constitution. For that is what we are experiencing at the moment under this 'progressive' government and it is apalling. David Davis makes that absolutely clear in his actions.

The support he has received should be taken seriously by the Party leadership in the Westminster Village.

@ 11:02
"Are smoking cessation officers and diversity co-ordinators really likely to vote Tory?"
No, and I'd be glad to see the back of them but, annoying though they are, I suggest that they are the somewhat smaller proportion of the total public sector staff cost. There are many ordinary folk doing ordinary jobs that happen to be in the public sector; e.g. a building maintenance engineer isn't nasty because he/she happens to be servicing a Whitehall building rather than the Lloyds HQ. Other jobs have been created by government to implement legislation created by government, so you also have to think in terms of repealing the legislation that gave rise to them.

"In addition to my last post, the dole money we're paying them will be less than the wages they're getting via the taxpayer!"

I'm not sure you can generalise on that, giving the various benefits on top of basic dole! Despite all the headlines, most public staff are at the lower end of the national salary league. It also doesn't take into account the cost of redundancy compensation. You might rail against the generosity of that but it is nevertheless contractual for present staff. Some folk would also see any attempt to cut that unilaterally as a teensy bit unfair, considering the level of some payoffs for failed senior private sector executives!!

You're trying to win votes, remember!

Let's not lose sight of the subject of the thread. It is surely not beyond the imagination to create a new shadow cabinet role (whatever its label) with deregulation as its theme - deregulation of life as well as business - and to appoint DD to this role immediately upon his return, not only to show that he is still worthy of a high profile front bench post but also to demonstrate that "stop the erosion of freedom" is going to be one of our major selling points between now and the election.

DD could do immense good to David Cameron's cause over the next few weeks, if he can get maximum publicity for the debate on our civil liberties, because he could show Gordon Brown's actions for what they are - self-seeking and tawdry.

If he is not to have any opponents of substance, what about staging some public meetings on the lines of Question Time with high profile supporters of DD's initiative from other parties, as well as celebrities? They would be highly entertaining and such a breath of fresh air.

David Cameron could help by announcing some firm policies for countering terrorism and bearing down on violent crime to balance DD's defence of civil liberties.

The support that DD has garnered since dropping his bombshell is striking and must be making Mr. Cameron and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet uneasy, to say the least.

I suspect that DD will now feel more comfortable on the Back Benches for a spell from where he can properly operate as the voice of radical conservatism, if he so chooses. He will go there with the knowledge that he has struck a chord in the people of England that the leadership has thus far not managed to do.

Which leads me to congratulate TM on his fine article today.

"Conservatives should seize the moment and aim to become the party of the hard-working class."

This ought to be engraved and placed on the desk of every Tory MP and PPC. The "working class" implicitly works and ought to be rewarded for so doing. A unique moment is at hand when a radical Tory government, the friend, as you put it, of the 'hard working class' can decouple by bold tax policies the so-called 'working class' from Labour, permanently.

Make them richer and better rewarded first and tax cuts higher up the income scale will then be seen by them as fair and equitable.

Coming from a humble background DD might feel himself well-placed to champion a radical thrust of this kind.

And such a policy might then also contribute to, if not set off, a kickstart to the economy when it is in the doldrums.

if there is taking place, as I suspect there is, a sea-change in attitudes towards the traditional 'tax & spend' Labour approach, then what better moment can there be to seize this particular ground?

If DD were to return to the front bench, then why not have a Minister for the Small State, charged with stripping back central government, revivifying local government and trashing over-regulation?

Ken Stevens @ 11.50 - I am sure that nobody would argue that inflated 'pay-offs' to FAILED private sector, or indeed FAILED PUBLIC sector senior executives is fair!

David Belchamber @ 12.51 - I think that your first two paragraphs are really good ideas!

Patsy Sergeant @ 13:23
"I am sure that nobody would argue that inflated 'pay-offs' to FAILED private sector, or indeed FAILED PUBLIC sector senior executives is fair!"

I sure wouldn't!
- but I was making the comparison between the mass of ordinary public sector workers who might well be doing a good job (leaving aside that we dispute whether the government was right to have created & recruited for that job in the first place) and an enormous pay-off for failure of senior level positions , whether public or private. sector.

Interesting thread. Would be good to discuss this in some more detail going forward. How about a discussion on the first budget? What are 'good cuts' to make versus bad cuts (e.g. pet Labour project agencies v's defense spending).

I suspect most of us will fall into a similar area with the Editor and a few others wanting a more adventurous forward driven plan and some on the other side wanting to fund things up-front. Many aims would be similar - I'm all for reducing taxation on the working poor (and everyone else), making public services more efficient and customer focused and less self serving.

While I'm on a roll, I would also like to hear ideas about modernising the BBC discussed. Some % of the license fee given to others is one already mentioned, but how about allowing limited advertising, making news & current affairs a separately run department - allowing outside program makers to propose and / or bid for BBC programming contracts is a pet favorite of mine.

Back to DD - given the hopeful strength of a Tory win next time round and the amount of great ideas and opportunities for Conservative thought on policy, I'm sure he could have contributed to the debate if he had stayed in post.

Oberon Houston @ 14:13

I would find that very interesting, though as a separate topic, rather than buried within this one.

Presumably you political glitterati know how to inveigle Ed/Dep Ed into opening one on the subject?

Just been reading about Grieve in the Spectator. The article did nothing to quell my doubts. He comes over as naive and pedantic, easily swayed where he should be firm and sticking like a limpet to details which might be outdated. The smoothness with which Cameron responded to Davis's preposterous demarche might have disguised a bit of an own goal. First, he can't get Davis back. This means no strong voice barking at the Home Office when we need one and no five star Home Secretary if the Conservatives get in. Worse, it means a wounded big beast prowling around the backbenches. Most disastrously it allows an Human Rights supporting pedant - Grieve (I misgive we will) - to block the path out of the Human Rights swamp. If Davis went potty then Cameron - deep down - panicked. He may well rue the day that he allowed his fruitful truce with Davis to collapse.

Simon, politics at the top isn't easy, there are big personalities with ego's, a lot of it's about building alliances, brokering deals, influencing the agenda and intense diplomacy on many fronts - but most of all that requires an ability to cope with long periods of difficult circumstances, i.e. a stamina which is exceptional.

Disappointingly, it looks like David Davis wasn't able to do these things as successfully as he would have liked, and has therefore chosen to return to the back benches - I don't imagine that running the Home Office would have been any easier for him than the Shadow - so its a good decision for him to take. The issue over 42-days I suspect was a convenient vehicle to do this. Many will be annoyed by my comments - but its just what I honestly believe has happened here nothing more.

Everyone here goes on writing as though the political battle goes on as normal. The world has changed but Cameron hasn't noticed. Can he please stop talking Blue?green rubbish and deal with this and - for heaven's sake - disclose hois Plan B now that the Lisbon treaty has been ratified here. Otherwise he'll enter No:10 - perhaps - as the EU Governor of the English province.

The whole of the Bank of England’s forecasts assume, optimistically, that wage inflation will not take off. But we now learn not only that
“Shell tanker drivers won an inflation-busting pay rise after their four-day strike brought chaos to forecourts. The deal, which is worth at least 14 per cent over two years, will take their average salaries to nearly £42,000 a year.” ----
but also that
“PM tries to block pay rises for MPs” which would mean a rise of £10,000 over 3 years.
If those aren't going to be the yardstick for other wage claims then all the post-war history is ‘bunk’.

Then the Chancellor is going to claim that all inflation is due to world price rises. This is total bunkum too! Since last autumn when it was clear that the government had completely lost control of credit the pound has fallen against the euro by 14.9% . This means that anything that we import from the eurozone (our biggest supplier) is 14,9% more expensive regardless of world prices. [Paxman failed to get that across in last night’s Newsnight)

To counter that the value of the pound should rise and to make that happen Bank rate needs to rise sharply, which would curb inflation at the expense of jobs. WE MUST MAKE OUR CHOICE THERE!

The only palliative action in such a mess is to cut spending and taxes. That won't solve it but it will help!

But the government is engaged in a monstrous (and fiendishly clever) bit of spin to prove that it’s “not our fault - it’s them foreigners” . It’s entirely Gordon Brown's fault for mismanaging the economy in good times so that there's nothing in reserve when we need it. Darling claims “that the economic pain was likely to prove short-lived”. Wanna bet?

"This means that anything that we import from the eurozone (our biggest supplier) is 14,9% more expensive regardless of world prices. [Paxman failed to get that across in last night’s Newsnight)"

Christina Speight, very good point. Politicians don't like to admit that imports are only cheap if you have a strong currency and that cutting rates leaves a currency weaker and makes imports more expensive. So in a country highly dependent on imports, like Britain, we are forced to adopt relatively higher interest rates to support imports, this at the same time makes like very difficult for business that needs to borrow, the homeowner and exporters.

I wrote a piece about this earlier in the year (link below) which in part predicted the imported inflation that we are currently experiencing. I believe the need to accomodate cheap imports through higher interest rates is one of the major contributing factors to the boom/bust economics that we have suffered ever since the Pound was floated. Short of an international currency and uniform interest rates around the world, the answer is for Britain to become less dependent on imports and to supply its own market where possible.


Tony you are on your old hobby horse again :

The £ will weaken because our economy is borrowed up to the hilt due to enormous commitments to public spending by this government and they will go on increasing.

The only answer is not to raise interest rates, any fool can do that, but take the brave decision to DRAMATICALLY CUT PUBLIC SPENDING and REDUCE TAXES, the £ would respond by increasing in value and the economy would be given a huge boost.

The by-election is a complete charade, Davis must have realised that Labour would not contest it and make out that it is a sign of Tory division. I hope the real reason that Davis has resigned is not to push the party in a rightward direction advocating radical cuts in public spending and more euro-scepticism because that will undue all that the party has achieved in attracting new voters.

Richard, when it comes to straight politics and cutting spending/reducing taxes I agree with you fully. However I feel that Britain's problems run a lot deeper than that and need strategic planning from government to ensure long term British based supplies of fuel and food, to protect future generations from imported inflation. We need a big debate on this issue with senior politicians involved.

It will take a lot more than tax cuts to save the Pound. George Soros the world's undisputed expert in forex has predicted that the Pound is set for a fall that will eclipse that of the Dollar, so we can only imagine what the impact will be for imported inflation when Sterling really starts to sink.

I don't think it is fair for members to put pressure on cameron to bring back Davis. Cameron did not sack Davis, he chose to leave.

Developments are taking place everyday so you dont expect the shadow home secretary's post to be vacant or appoint someone temporarily because someone has chosen to leave without even informing his boss until the last minute.

Encourage the new Shadow home secretary instead of discouraging him.

Let someone answer this question: would David have resigned if he was Leader of the party?

George Soros the world's undisputed expert in forex has predicted that the Pound is set for a fall that will eclipse that of the Dollar, so we can only imagine what the impact will be for imported inflation when Sterling really starts to sink.
Posted by: Tony Makara | June 19, 2008 at 18:37

All the more reason to cut spending and taxes,and then you can leave the economy to the market which will be much more efficient and productive than any Government Planning.

Don @ 1910 "would David have resigned if he was Leader of the party?"

Of course not. He wouldn't have been answerable to a spineless wimp.

Of course not. He wouldn't have been answerable to a spineless wimp.

Posted by: christina Speight | June 19, 2008 at

Christina, you will get banned again for not saying nice things about the Lord high and mighty, him who should be obeyed leader. And that would be a pity as you are a breath of fresh air to this site.
The difference between the two, Davies is a Conservative through and through, Cameron nobody knows what he is, neither does he for that matter, he changes his policy and mind as often as he changes the parting in his hair.
I do not think that is done to hide baldness I think it is done to hide his political nous.
The man is a sham through and through, another Anthony Blair.
Good talker, Good actor, fast on his feet, but never a doer, that is well beyong the realms of either possibility or probability. Take your pick.
last but not least as far removed from the reality of ever becoming PM in this Country. The sensible British people will sort that one out for sure.

Christina Spite- what do you mean?

Jim Mc Loud - What do you mean?

Having read Tim's article in the Telegraph it seems to me that we are in danger of submerging his main point in a customary Punch and Judy debate on tax cuts. Tim's main point related to cutting taxes on lower paid people who are also receiving benefits. This is the big one, that these people pay tax and then claim it back in benefits is madness.

As for cutting government spending, with the best will in the world it would take at least two years to turn round Gordon's tax and spend super tanker never mind all the government debts needing to be repaid including defence, PFIs, Railtrack etc. I suppose not being a spineless wimp is letting Ed Balls have fun calculating how many nurses you will sack - and remember, as soon as Balls gets going he will be followed by campaigns by nurses, teachers and politically motivated police; all in the past have been important in electing Labour. The British army used to be famous for holding its fire until they see the whites of their eyes. Now that's clever as well as gutsy.

It is interesting to note that Liam Fox was rolled out to brief against David Davis.

In matters of justice David Davis is a giant and Liam Fox is a very reliable hatchet man - with a proven track record.

Here in Arundel & South Downs we still remember Liam Fox's role, when Chairman, in the political "lynching" of Howard Flight.

After the 2005 General Election the 1922 committee investigated the matter and concluded that it should have been referred to the Ethics and Integrity Committee, that there was a denial of natural justice to Howard Flight and that the Chief Whip did not have the power to conclude that Howard Flight had brought the party into disrepute and withdraw the whip.

Liam Fox's role was to "encourage" local members to carry out what was clearly an unethical, immoral, unlawful and unconstitutional action. There still remains a big question as to whether the members were deliberately deceived.

The Conservative Party needs men like David Davis - a true champion of justice, and Liam Fox is an example of exactly why the party needs such a champion.

Yes Jim McLoud what on earth are you talking about? Don't bother Christina Speight, we are used to you just spraying insults about for the sake of it.

Chuckle Brother:

Let's not have any pretence that David Davis is some saint.

Hague, I D S, Howard and Cameron each have stories about his loyalty.

If you pay ex-public sector workers less dole than you gave them as salaries, then you have a tax saving. Simple.
Or perhaps we should save the economy by increasing tax to 100% and have everyone work for the government?

Oberon Houston @2019 - I don't answer questions from someone who deliberately and SPITEfully misspells my name. (and Jim McLeod's too) I've not been rude to you. I despite such cheap childish jibes.

I agree with Jim McLeod's description of the non-leader that the party is lumbered with.

Why won't he get with it and realise as few on this topic seem to do either that we are in a major financial crisis and matching Labour expenditure is merely matching failure - the very failure which has brought us where we are. Expenditure must be cut - there are billions straight off in ID cards (£5bn and counting) and the NHS computer system (est final cost £20 bn) and consultants.
Tax cuts for the economy's sake, but preferably targeted on the low paid, are are NECESSITY not a luxury.
And what is his plan now that the Lisbon treaty HAS been ratified. He can't go on hiding that promised answer. Or is he going to rat on THAT promise too? The public are angry and nobody but UKIP responds to that anger.

David Sergeant @2050 I don't "spray insults". I target them precisely - mostly on the wimp who is leader of a once great party and who can only show any interest in Greeny-Blue things.

It would be more appropriate if you and others actually answered what I wrote instead of merely "spraying insults"


You are mistaken - he is not even into bluey/green things.

Eco-Towns are a worldwide phenomenon - going ahead in Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, China, Abu Dhabi (a Lord Foster one).

The only people opposing Eco-Towns are the bluey/greens!

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