Boris has announced a freeze in the Mayor's contribution to Londoners' council tax and George Osborne has announced his economic recovery plan. William Hague has given a typical barnstormer of a speech and David Cameron has overviewed the themes of the week. We'll cover these developments properly over the next few days but CCHQ have produced some great posters for the walls of the Conference centre. Here are five of them...
Old style posters. Interesting. One problem, a lot of new Tory policies actually dont follow some of those messages...
Posted by: James Maskell | September 28, 2008 at 17:33
I thought Freddy Forsyth's speech on the breaking of the military covenant by Labour was immense and demands to be heard by as many people as possible.
Posted by: Edison Smith | September 28, 2008 at 18:16
Brilliant!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | September 28, 2008 at 18:38
I think the red posters are definitely the most eye-catching, and the message is instant and unambiguous!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | September 28, 2008 at 18:41
Though unambiguous, this is all terribly FCS or YC sort of stuff. Does this presage some sort of radical libertarianism in a Tory Government first term, driven by the "small-state" dogma? That could prove very problematic.
Indeed it might prove problematic even getting to the first term, given that the principle of state intervention against market mechanisms is proving very popular after "the action of the market" (ie the greed of Masters of the Universe) may well have sent our economy down the pan.
Painful though it is to say it, Gordon may be onto something and we, once more, may just not have "got it". Familiar story in the last 11 years!
Posted by: WHS | September 28, 2008 at 19:36
Good choice on the style of posters, better than the faffy smiling models we tend to get.
Posted by: YMT | September 28, 2008 at 19:39
@WHS
'we'? as an attempt to masquerade as a conservative, that's feeble.
Posted by: James H | September 28, 2008 at 19:50
I don't think anyone's yet explained why Keynesianism was wrong yesterday but right today, as we and the yanks rush headlong into nationalising the banking sector.
This iss also part of a sinister plot to saddle the next Tory government with all the risky, unsustainable mortgages. This will allow Labour to point at the heartless Tory party using nationalised assets to evict the eponymous 'hard-working families' from their homes when they fall behind on their repayments due to the horrendous burdens of tax bequeathed by PFI-happy Gordon.
Posted by: Shaun Pilkington | September 28, 2008 at 19:56
Get them "out there"
Posted by: martin sewell | September 28, 2008 at 20:49
I assume it OK to copy these ...
Posted by: Man in a Shed | September 28, 2008 at 21:23
Fantastic posters, we've done a few good ones over the past few years.
Posted by: Michael Rutherford | September 28, 2008 at 23:07
oooh, I like those posters.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 29, 2008 at 00:02
Surely something more positive, such as cracking down on crime, making criminals suffer, strengthening the police and military and downsizing the economic and social functions of the state would be more positive.
People want to know that an alternative is going to be different from the current government, otherwise why vote for them - a dilute version of the same thing is not going to go down well.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 29, 2008 at 02:04
I like these posters. But I prefer the blue and green posters like NHYes etc. These poster won't really look right next to the blue I think.
Posted by: Matthew | September 29, 2008 at 07:11
If "big government" causes "big problems" can we expect to see a commitment to cut public expenditure? Or are the Tories committed to continuing the "problems" of "big government?
If Labour have been "wasting our money" by increasing NHS expenditure to the European average, introducing the minimum wage, giving tax credits to poorer people, increasing defence expenditure to unprecendented levels, and increasing education and police budgets, will the Tories commit to end this "waste"?
If signing up to the Human Rights Act, allowing gay people to enter into civil partnership and have sex at the same age everybody can be is "telling people what to do" will the Tories stop this?
If "we are all in this together" why is the Tory shadow cabinet the most privileged and wealthy since the mid-19th Century? I suppose it depends who you mean by "we."
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
It reminds me of Labour Isn't Working. I usually appreciate irony, but in this case, it's too bitter.
Posted by: passing leftie | September 29, 2008 at 09:40
If "we are all in this together" why is the Tory shadow cabinet the most privileged and wealthy since the mid-19th Century? I suppose it depends who you mean by "we."
What an obscure comment - could only be from a typical jelousy driven leftie.
Are you suggesting there should be some 'postitive' discrimination towards poor people to allow some into the shadow cabinet? and that those with inherited wealth aren't part of 'us'?
Surely those with personal wealth are good in the party as they have proved themselves in the real world, rather than those that have proved they can't.
Unless you self-answer 'no' to all your other questions, which have no official answer yet, you can't really say there is any hypocrisy either.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 29, 2008 at 09:51
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 29, 2008 at 09:51
Are you suggesting there should be some 'postitive' discrimination towards poor people to allow some into the shadow cabinet? and that those with inherited wealth aren't part of 'us'?
Through I've got nothing against positive discrimination, but no, I'm not making that point. I'm suggesting that that when the Tory party talks about "we" on a poster, you should think carefully about who constitues "we", when you look at the composition of their cabinet. Please don't change your cabinet on my behalf - it really helps the British public know what qualities you value - inexperience and inherited wealth. Still, if you've got to pick from a rump of Tory MPs, I don't envy your chances much.
Surely those with personal wealth are good in the party as they have proved themselves in the real world, rather than those that have proved they can't.
Quite the opposite. People with inherited wealth (your term) haven't proved anything except that they went through life with more opportunities and less need to work for what they've got than others. People with earned wealth have at least proved they have the ability to make money, which counts for something.
Unless you self-answer 'no' to all your other questions, which have no official answer yet, you can't really say there is any hypocrisy either.
Of course I can! The posters suggest big goverment is bad. If you have no policy to reduce goverment expenditure (in fact the opposite) then you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: passing leftie | September 29, 2008 at 12:09
Cracking posters - rightfully pointing out some of the many failures of the Labour government...
We need to have some alternatives though...the financial crisis is a real test for Osborne he needs to step up to the plate with some strong words and sound policy, at the moment Cable is the only voice worth listening to..
Posted by: Northern Tory | September 29, 2008 at 12:25
Quite the opposite. People with inherited wealth (your term) haven't proved anything except that they went through life with more opportunities and less need to work for what they've got than others.
I know that's my term.. isn't that what you meant by privileged?
Given society is so divided under labour, then wouldn't you want someone who has been privileged enough to have a good education?
I was referring to personally earned wealth, so not the opposite.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | September 29, 2008 at 12:49