« David Davis' champagne moment | Main | “I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers” »


How much would it save if all public sector salaries over the overall national mean(thus avoiding the lowest earners) were cut by 5%?

A TPA guru must know the answer.

No jobs lost, just living within our means.

Why don't you away and ask Liam Fox who says Gidders slagged him off? After all, choosing between Mandelson and Osborne is pretty much the definition of louse & flea time. Still, it's an especially big tent M Dowing is erecting there. What with it having room for the leader loyalists - using their own names! - and those of us who, uh, don't think it's been the Tory Party's finest hour to support Labour's socialisation of British banking. Still, All Faith in the Leader! He Won't Steer Us Wrong!

Rather than the line "when the house is on fire, all man the hoses"; the libdem line was far better (although I think most people missed the barb at the time).

"When the ship is sinking, you all man the lifeboats, you don't look for THE MAN WHO STEERED THE SHIP ONTO THE ROCKS".

Everyone knows who that was, without having to name names or suggest that you are indulging in party politics...

Brown - the man who steered us onto the rocks - if his repairs have worked that is all very well, but we still have the bill to pay...


General Election November, 2008. Here we go again!!

Editor, I'd suggest taking a look at some IP addresses if you think that anti-Tories supporters posing as pro-Tories are screwing up your site.

Well, of course it is impossible to compete with the government for air time - they have suborned and now control the BBC.

However, this is I think the real strategy, and reflected in the reality that all of us - oh, sorry, that is, all of us, bar politicians and bankers, will be hurting baldy next year, if we aren't already.

Rather than the line "when the house is on fire, all man the hoses"; the libdem line was far better (although I think most people missed the barb at the time).

Exactly. For all their screaming the Dems haven't shifted at all in the polls. Why? Because the media narrative won't shift over the bank bailout yet.

The long-term economic problems offer much better ground.

"But the usual suspects on here cannot seem to comprehend that Osborne is someone that this Labour government fear, because all Brown has left to cling too is his claim of economic competence, no matter how untrue that is in reality."

ChrisD and Brown only has that to cling on to (and rebuild his PMship) because Osborne has serially failed to remove that support of being 'the best Chacellor ever'. You destroy that claim and you destroy Brown, trouble is Osborne isn't up to the job, as we have seen time and time again, and (before its claimed I'm some Labour stooge ) was one of main reasons why I resgined from the Conservative party more than a year ago.

I absolutely want to see Brown and his shambles of a government kicked out of office asap.

However, the day after the euphoria of election victory, the economy will need to be fixed. In these turbulent times, I would want to see someone with relevant experience as Chancellor, to calm the nerves and not make us think that we are taking an unnecessary gamble at such a critical time.

But if Brown calls the election tomorrow, I'll still want you to win, but could not vote for you.

Don't mistake strong criticism as a desire for you to fail, it is a desire for you to shape up for the challenges that Labour is incapable of solving.

Britain needs a change of direction, not just a change of management and on the economic front, Osborne is not offering that.

Seen the Dow and FTSE just now, ACT. HBOS share price? Numpties, all of you. Next weekend's press will be why has the bailout failed. Answer, when in enormous debt do not borrow anymore!

was one of main reasons why I resgined from the Conservative party more than a year ago

Before the Tory lead was well established? Obviously something had to have happened to Brown's reputation for that to happen.

Right, there's a lot of varying comment on this thread as to whether he should or should not SAY SOMETHING to strike at Brown's political misjudgements or whether back benchers should tip their hat into the ring.

Listen fellow Tories....the people want David Cameron to charge like a bull at PMQ's and narrow Brown into the corner.

Here's my tip for tomorrow Mr C !

1 - PRAISE Gordon for taking action to settle the markets and wish him luck that his judgement ( after discussing it with you last week ), still holds out but you're here if he needs you, then ask him when he plans to hold an enquiry into the fiasco to find out which part of government was to blame !

2 - Set up a Tory led enquiry immediately regardless of any government enquiry and tell Brown he is quite welcome to join in if he likes at some point if he ever manages to get his house in order !

3 - Stick your fingers up to Vince Cable and tell him to dry up with his whinging droning monotonous voice, OR think of a question yourself at this point if you wish to leave my third suggestion to on side.

"Former chancellor attacks 'pathetic' Brown

Former chancellor Ken Clarke has branded the prime minister as "pathetic" for claiming he is helping to solve the economic crisis when he was "panicked" into action."

This was taken from an interview Ken Clarke gave to ePolitix.com. At least someone is out there taking the fight to the Government!

JC - I'm not 'stuck-up' as you put it. I'm telling the truth and you don't like it. You say there's plenty of ammo here to attack Brown wikth. YES and most people here are complaining it is not being used

"ChrisD "We have enjoyed the longest spell of polling success for over 15 years" AND Why didn't you think we've been out of office for 11 of them. Previously we won elections!

As someone who is anti-EU {NOT in UKIP!!!] i find Ken Clarke a puzzle. On any other subject I agree with him most of the time and his clunking fist is bigger and better aimed than Brown's. He was a damned good chancellor too. Just compare him with the pathetic lightweights we have as shadow chancellor and - I'm sorry to say - Leader.

But then the rot starts in CCHQ. I have just read a damning account of dealing with the kids there. I 'll post it separately.

Rugfish above @ 16.34 and London Tory @ 13.57 -

Please don't forget that we still have a partisan Labour Speaker of the House - another anachronism brought about as a deliberate policy to destroy proper democratic parliamentary procedure - by this Labour Government.

So don't expect David Cameron to be given much of a chance to SAY anything tomorrow.

And Malcolm the most cogent comment on this thread came from Jonathan Gray @ 13.32 - just after yours! He talks of the government 'pushing the line that City bankers CREATED the recession' - my capitals - because as he says Brown can then paint the Tory Party as natural allies of the wicked city bankers. And I bet Brown has already got THAT worked out!!!

Did I actually see Christina mention something unflattering about Brown, rather than Cameron and Osborne - amazing!

""ChrisD "We have enjoyed the longest spell of polling success for over 15 years" AND Why didn't you think we've been out of office for 11 of them. Previously we won elections!"

You just don't get it, just keeping shouting at anyone who does.

"but not offering any insights as to where it could be cut without putting off the voters."

Thee country is stuffed with quangos that could simply disappear, and no-one at all would notice. Some suggestions - The Potato Council, the government regional offices, the regional development agencies, the ludicrous "Cutture" quango - see here for an example /www.culturesouthwest.org.uk. Ask The Taxpayers Alliance for any number of others.

"I'm telling the truth and you don't like it."

"AND Why didn't you think we've been out of office for 11 of them. Previously we won elections!"

Christina, and why did the Tories lose elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005? What's the TRUTH behind that? Because a series of weak leaders couldn't shift the polls. They pushed anti-EU/immigrant policies, mixed with tax cuts, that voters weren't interested in.

Then Cameron came along and spent over a year (maybe two?) decontaminating a party that had made itself unable to win a majority. Then the polls went back up. The Tories now have the potential to win an election, and it is mostly down to Cameron and his team. Please explain why "real Conservative men" like Hague, IDS and Howard were unable to do what Cameron has done. Because I don't see any of Cameron's detractors acknowledging what he has done for his party, which makes me wonder if they want him to fail because they prefer a Tory party that follows their prejudices rather than go against them and win, or are just Labour trolls.

And you are criticising him (implicitly wanting him to go, maybe?) because the polls aren't as lofty as they were? Ridiculous!

Patsy - Don't be totally wrong please. Be rude if necessary but so crtassly wrong NO.

My opposition to socialism in general has lasted a very long time and this government in particular. This opposition is known well outside the confines of this blog. I have campaigning publicly under my own name since 1995 and the several hundred people who take my news service DAILY would wonder if you were compos mentis saying you were surprised to see me say I don't like Brown. I criticise the leadership because they are weak and ineffectual. They are likely to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, unless they are lucky. Then we'll get more Brown
Earlier I said "But then the rot starts in CCHQ. I have just read a damning account of dealing with the kids there. I 'll post it separately."

This is an account of a member having a serious - he thought - dialogue with CCHQ over Climate Change
"I'm sorry to tell you that all your efforts to contact Conservative Campaign Headquarters by 'phone Email or letter, has been a complete waste of time.
Mr. Mxxxxxxx who was CCH contact was an intern who has returned to Oxford University, and all the information he had, has fallen into a black hole.

The new CCH contact is another intern who is even more useless. I think they are known as Dave's boys !

Don't despair, Greg Clark is the new Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. His Email address is : [email protected]

Please contact him and make your feelings known.

They either say goodbye to Ecotricity or goodbye to a large number of previously loyal Conservatives."

These work experience friends of friends are NOT how to run a serious political party.

Thanks Patsy, he gets time enough to prod the guy so he should prod him hard I think but also keep some praise in there.

There HAS to be an enquiry over this and we cannot permit the BBC to tell everyone it was "Der Banks and speculators Fault"....those quotes of Brown's on here are dynamite to throw his way too....Light touch, possibly even no regulation at all eh !??? Out of his very own gob that came.

Now then, back to winning votes here, as I say the mood of the nation wants someones throat for this....it should be those two who told the FSA to be light on it and took the Bank of England out of the equation...Brown is to blame for the mess and he took no decisive action....he even said he didn't want regulation so hit him with it before those quotes turn to old chip paper.

Get stuck in Mr Cameron Sir and I promise to clap loudly tomorrow.

Last week was torturous when Brown clipped you at the end and you had no retort time...get him first tomorrow, take some Pro-Plus or 'sumfink gov'nor', but get the jabs in. The country awaits this from you, I await it from you.

I hope I am not knee-jerking but has Mr Brown won the lottery?
He is beginning to look as if !
Your boss is in a difficult situation I know, but Gordon is in danger of being perceived as a saviour, by the Great British public, we are doomed...............
Tell me we are not........
I know there is some time to go for the next GE, but I have no doubt all this borrowed money slushing about and the PM's hand in the till, "lets spend it all again, as sweeteners."
What's a billion or two here or there on the National debt.
David C has really to keep him under pressure on all fronts, they (Nu Labour) are constantly clouding the water, as Ms Smith demonstrated yesterday accusing the Tory Lords alone of derailing the 42 day. Ms Cooper did similar in a reply to Ken Clarke on the Fiscal Debate, what a washout she is, her reply and use of grammer, was a disgrace to the institution.
Oh dear I hope this is me.

Like most people I am disappointed at the reaction of the party leadership. Brown had no option but to do what he did, it wasn't "brave", it was desperate. It wasn't his decision, it was banks and the B.o.E etc. Obviously it will not improve anything, it will (hopefully) stop something horrible happening and probably resulting in things getting worse than they are. Not only was Brown as responsible as anyone for this mess, his incompetant stewardship of the British economy will continue to bear down on people and businesses. People should be told that no problems have been solved with £500bil of tax payers money, just that that is the cost of saving Brown's ecomomy from getting far worse.

(Just a thought, when John Major saved the British economy by getting out of the ERM everyone attacked him, now Brown stops his economy from getting even worse by spending £500K of peoples money they praise him. May I suggest that this has more to do with the fact that Labour politicians are more loyal and stick together while Tory politicians only think of themselves.)

"Not exactly well received on the estates or the Unemployment hot spots what they want is Jobs not sound bites."
And are you expecting the estates to vote Tory in significant numbers in 2010? For the unemployed, they want work so they don't care about having to work to receive benefits.
. I know that there are a small minority of scroungers but this will do little to change that. It will be unpopular in areas that are genuine employment black spots. It seems to me that you are forgetting that to win this election we will need to become a one nation party again. There are already provisions in law to deal with the truly feckless. It is possible to prosecute a man for persistently failing to maintain himself. A dozen or so high profile prosecutions would have a greater effect per head than a scheme that will cost extra tax payers money, to punish people who in reality should be out looking for work and not joining in some waste of time and money scheme that hopes to exploit their labour. I am against all of this voluntary sector nonsense we need jobs and we need to find a way to generate jobs that get the work now done by volunteers recognised and paid for. We will not win this election without the votes of a large number of the underclass. Beside which we need a fair and just society not a prison state. Lets have the guts to think outside of the box.

I'm not a party member, but I won't be voting Labour at the next election.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that someone needs to challenge this orthadoxy that the most important thing monetary policy should do is to keep a CPI target, that everyone believes is bollocks, at 2%.

In terms of economic debate, the people that have been proved right about how bad the credit crunch would get, are still divided on the inflation/deflation argument.

Government have a printing press, control of monetary policy and control of fiscal policy. Whether we end up in an era of deflation or price/wage inflation depends on what government does.

As radical as this may sound, the Tories should be supporting the 6% pay rises demanded by the unions as a means of avoiding deflation, and sparking a bit of wage inflation against the backdrop of deleveraging.

Deleveraging against a backdrop of deflation will create more bad debt, more unemployment, more need for the government to print money to give to the banks and more voter resentment.

The whole idea that inflation is the ultimate evil is the bedrock of Browns economic philosophy and should be challenged, because when the deflation finally comes around it will not be popular.

Bravo to whoever pointed out that Labour would be tearing a Tory government's guts out were it presiding over a mess of such proportions.

Milky consensus mongering a la Dave is a turn off.

Blair - his model - opened his arms to everyone - even Mail readers and other rightists - but he was relentless in demonising "Toories" - even hapless members of the public on walkabout.

Blair was/is a sh*tty little bitch. Cambo doesn't need to go so far, but he must attack Brown.

Why the support? Why accept throwing our good tax money after bad debts? Why lose nerve and betray classical liberalism?

I want some answers from any authoritative Tory loyalist.

Banks opearate on the Principle of Fractional reserve banking.
They lend every depositors money out to ten other borrowers.
IE they lend out what they simply do not have, essentially it is thin air, certainly credit is, and as our money is no longer backed by gold, nor could it be since it was flogged off cheap, our money is not money, it is simply paper.
I think this has something to do with our problems.
IE The general public having to pay interest on borrowing thin air.
When they default, the Bank gets to reposess their Cars, their Homes and their businesses.
there is something intrinsically wrong in this.
This sort of thing is precisely what a Gold statndard was meant to prevent.
We need to go back to the Gold standard and teach our kids about money so they can not be ripped off like their parents have been by govt and the global banking system.

I have noticed that it is the same old faces having a go at Cameron.

Everytime they do this he pulls it out of the bag and I expect him to do so again.

There does need to be some understanding by the holier than though brigade of slavish Cameron worshippers, yes Sally, ChrisD et al I'm talking to you amongst others, that there is a considerable quiet dissatisfaction with Cameron and Osborne and in particular with their handling of the economic meltdown crisis. Just because you may think that Cameron walks on water doesn't mean that everyone in the Conservative party does.

I'll bet that you all tug your forelocks when the local Squire passes you by as well.

George Osborne should be replaced as Shadow Chancellor with immediate effect. He is completely out of his depth, looked like he was in a trance (mouth open - goldfish like) at PMQ's. Vince Cable has run rings round him and Darling is lauded all over Europe. Give a big job to a man of some stature please!

This just isn't good enough, I joined the party when they opposed IR35, I left it when they backed ID cards, and then joined again when they changed their minds on that and did something else right...

But if the front bench have nothing to say in these - some of the most challenging of recent times - then I am leaving again.

If the front bench can't figure out how conservative principals apply to this situation, and then explain it to the country then in what way are they conservatives?

Isn't there anyone in the party with the nouse to explain how things would be better based on tory principals?

Wait a second -- I assume there are people who beleive that things would be better based on tory principals... aren't there? or is it(/was it) just me?

In case anyone is struggling for tory narrative then start here:-


Brown is either a liar or delusional (or maybe both).

A line is going to be crossed - where Browns socialist experiment will have mortgaged our futures to such an extent that it stops making sense to even think about paying it back.

Many of the public already think like this (125% mortgages, house price crashes, unemployment etc) regarding their own personal finances.

The prudent among use need to be protected from the demands of the profligate.

For the conservative front bench not to challenge what is happening here is a complete derilection of duty - the pressure on brown should be greater than ever.

If they agree that this is madness, they need to say so -- if they don't think this is madness then what are they (and the official opposition) for??

Oops that link again...

Could the Pref Shares for the Gov in the bailout plan be a stealth tax? By adding 12% to some banks corp tax this should help plug some holes.

Sorry, but I disagree with the game plan. Only by hammering it in at every opportunity that it was Gordon Brown & his 'spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow more, up the taxes, spend, borrow even more' example of responsible economy handling??? plus his foolish lack of financial regulations (and the monitoring therof) who has brought this country to the edge of bankruptcy will the Torys keep it in voters' minds who is to blame for the state we are in. If the Torys leave it for 18 months down the road, voters will say - and rightly so - why weren't they saying this when it originally happened? They're only making excuses. The story has to be 24/7 that Gordon Brown through his complete & reckless incompetence has ruined the country. Yes, the Torys will help the country recover through working with him BUT IT IS ALL HIS FAULT.

Government policy was to do NOTHING !
That has been Brown's mantra for 11 years so it is his fault.

i.e. He did nothing to control the money supply ( DEBT ).

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past."
Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999

"Britain does not want a return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2000

"So our approach is to reject the old vicious circle of the...the old boom and bust."
Pre-Budget Report, 8 November 2000

"Mr Deputy Speaker we will not return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 7 March 2001

"As I have said before Mr Deputy Speaker: No return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 22 March 2006

"And we will never return to the old boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2007

Nothing to control trading in derivatives ( the parcelled up debts into instruments ), which restored the banks capital which allowed banks to leverage ( to print 10 times their capital and issue it as debt ).

Nothing to regulate the sale of the instruments of torture ( thin air ), which led to massive salaries and bonuses which promoted a housing boom in London and a knock on throughout the country which led to first time buyers being priced out of the market because houses are unaffordable.

Nothing to instruct the FSA in what they should have been doing.

Nothing to instruct the Bank of England to control the printing of money because he took their powers away.

The man is incompetent therefore and should be outed in the same way the heads of the three banks were which we taxpayers bought in to.

The actual debt above our cumulative heads is over 1,000 TRILLION.

To put that in perspective, 1 trillion would fill Tiananmen Square 14 foot high in US Dollars.

If debt was only reckoned as 1,000 times that then you have a pile of debt which would fill Tiananmen Square with dollars at a height of 14,000 feet which is 2.65 MILES high.

Then on top of that you can place £584 billion in Credit Default Swaps when the same banks cannot meet the liability because they have no capital, and when homes are repossessed and the instruments become worth less than NIL, and then you'll have a pile of dollars 2.65 miles high, falling on top of everyone and sinking us under its weight like a Tsunami !!!

It's the equivalent of an economic atom bomb waiting to explode over our heads and the only way to get from under it is to WRITE IT OFF and declare a new money system.

That new money system would have to take account of UNKNOWN debt as no one knows who owns the losses or how much they are. Hence there will now be a New World Order in banking because Gordon Brown thought it was a good idea to do NOTHING !!

By the way, the Asian Stock Markets have just crashed 10% this morning.

The DOW was down 9% last night and the FTSE 100 was down 7.16%.

The meeting in Brussels and all the taxpayers money ( which ruined jobs as it went to banks instead of businesses ), was caused by Gordon Brown and it was all a complete waste of time.
Brown accused of failing to end 'boom and bust' economics
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent Monday, 28 July 2003


Gordon Brown was accused yesterday of failing to meet the key economic goals he set when Labour came to power, including the promise to end the "boom and bust" cycle.

Gordon Brown was accused yesterday of failing to meet the key economic goals he set when Labour came to power, including the promise to end the "boom and bust" cycle.

A report examining Britain's economic performance since 1997 claims the Chancellor has squandered the favourable economic conditions inherited from the Tories and paved the way for raised taxes and drops in competitiveness and growth.

But the conclusions by the Centre for Policy Studies have been condemned as "grossly misleading" by the Treasury.

The right-of-centre think-tank's report, entitled "Gordon Brown and British Competitiveness", says taxes are up and income is dropping.

"Much of the golden economic legacy that Gordon Brown inherited in 1997 is in danger of being frittered away," said Keith Marsden, its author.

Mr Marsden, an economics consultant to several UN agenciesadded: "Growth is down - at a cost of income foregone of nearly £2,000 per household per year. Taxes are up by £4,000 per household per year. Savings, investment and productivity growth are all down. Regulations are damaging business, with the rate of start-ups now worryingly low. The balance of payments is deep in the red. Deflation is a real threat."

GDP growth in 2003 would fall well short of the 2-2.5 per cent predicted in the April Budget, he said, so it was "not surprising" Government members had hinted at tax rises.

But a Treasury spokesman criticised the report, saying: "There has been a difficult global environment, since 2001 particularly, but the UK and US led the G7 in growth in 2002 and outside forecasters expect that to be the case this year and next."

Tony Blair's close friend Lord Falconer dealt Mr Brown another blow when he said the Prime Minister was committed to serving a full third term.

Mr Brown's allies hoped he would take over as Prime Minister soon after the next election, but Lord Falconer said in The Sunday Telegraph there was "no doubt" the Chancellor would stay on for the duration of the next parliament.

Gordon Brown should resign !

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