Two cheers for David Cameron's economic responsibility speech

David Cameron is scheduled to get to his feet at this time and deliver a major speech entitled The Conservative Plan for a Responsible Economy.  The speech begins with a strong declaration that the Conservative Party's support for bank recapitalisation was genuine but will not extend to other aspects of economic policy.  The speech lists existing Tory promises including a two-year council tax freeze, investment in high speed rail, tax simplification and investment in green technologies - but offers no new policies yet.  Instead Mr Cameron promises that "over the coming weeks and months we will set out many more ways to help families through the downturn."  What the speech lacks - and what we had hoped for - are ideas to help prevent "the downturn" being as serious as now seems likely.  As a long-term framework it is promising but there is not the sense of urgency that we have seen from, for example, Boris Johnson (calling for substantial infrastructure spending) and John Redwood (calling for large interest rate cuts).

So we give it two cheers: One for the analysis of Brown's mismanagement and one for the long-term vision of economic responsibility.  It disappoints on ideas to beat the looming recession.

The Tory leader will begin by repeating his Party Conference declaration that his Conservatism is about more than freedom: "Over the past decade, we have seen a total breakdown of economic responsibility. From the government, as it has spent and borrowed without restraint. And from our financial sector, which has taken decisions which have harmed the rest of our economy. So it is not more freedom that our economy needs; it is more responsibility. Just as this Party under my leadership has stood for social responsibility, now it must stand also for economic responsibility.  We’ve had irresponsible capitalism presided over by irresponsible government. Instead, what we need is responsible free enterprise, regulated and supported by responsible government."

And exactly as ConservativeHome predicted Mr Cameron is ready to style the Conservatives as the party of the real economy: "Because though Gordon Brown is trying to rescue the banks, we now need a plan to rescue the economy."

Mr Cameron will say that Labour excess has made Britain particularly vulnerable to the global crisis: "The Chancellor who prided himself on prudence came to believe that he uniquely in the history of economics had ended the trade cycle and abolished boom and bust. So he thought the good days would never end, and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, and racked up the biggest government deficit in the developed world.  And he stood aside as our households racked up over a trillion pounds of personal debt. So when the boom did turn to bust and the value of assets fell our financial system was hit harder than most. The Government couldn’t complain about financial institutions lending too much money because the Government itself was borrowing too much from them."

Gordon Brown ignored the debt and excesses of the City for too long: "Four years ago he was telling the city: “I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers”. Two years ago, he was dismissing calls for what he called a “regulatory crackdown” on the City.  And only last year, he was celebrating what he called a “golden age for the City of London"… Now he’s describing that very same time an “Age of Irresponsibility”.  “A Golden Age” to an “Age of Irresponsibility” – in less than a year."

Brown's policy mistakes have (1) left us in a deeper economic hole than competitor economies and (2) left us too indebted to easily reboot the economy: "Gordon Brown’s policies – his entire economic strategy - has fundamentally failed. The first result of this failure in domestic policy in the UK was a debt-induced asset bubble in the private sector that has now burst, generating both downturn and serious threats to the stability of our financial system. The second result of this failure in UK policy is that our Government – having spent all the money in the good years - is less able to help people in this country get through this downturn than the government of almost any other developed country."

Tory economic policy will have three pillars: "Fiscal responsibility - the Government must live within its means. Financial responsibility - you cannot build an economy on debt. And a balanced economy - as you cannot rely on unsustainable growth in a few areas to increase prosperity for everyone."

An extra levy on City firms to fund a higher quality of regulation: "For too long, City firms have been able to poach the best regulators.  So we will ensure that we get more good staff at the FSA, paid for by an increased levy on the City, and introduce a system similar to the Shareholder Executive so that banks send their best people to the FSA on secondment."

70% of Britain's economic growth has come from just three sectors: "Over the past decade, seventy percent of our economic growth has come from just three things. From housing – which is now declining. From the financial sector – now in turmoil. And from government spending – now slowing. And in addition, much of the growth has been driven by immigration – an unsustainable basis when you consider the impact on public services and our national infrastructure."

The Conservatives are developing a radical plan to rebalance the economy: "We have to broaden our economic base to include more science, more hi-tech services, more green technologies, more engineering and more high-value manufacturing, drawing upon a much wider range of industries, markets, people, towns and cities."

David Cameron's concluding remarks:

"We will only build an economy that is strong and there to last if we… apply the same philosophy as I have been advocating in the social sphere for the last three years… the philosophy of responsibility.  To repair the broken society, in the long-term, we need social responsibility.  And to repair the broken economy, in the long-term, we need economic responsibility.  That means… a responsible fiscal policy, bolstered by independent oversight… a responsible financial policy, bolstered by a renewed role for the Bank of England… and a responsible attitude to economic development, that fosters more balanced economic growth.  And today, it’s only the Conservative Party that is offering that change."

Download PDF of Conservative Plan For A Responsible Economy.

Comments

[Richard Calhoun]

It is relatively simple for Boris Johnson and John Redwood to expound their solutions to the oncoming recession, and very welcome it is.

However the Leader of the Opposition has to be a tad more careful. It would be useful to look at the books for one thing as this is no ordinary crisis.

I think Cameron is playing this right, you cannot expect him to announce 'policy' at this stage.

[On The Job- Evil un pc beast]

so far it is a good speech

[sally Roberts]

""Because though Gordon Brown is trying to rescue the banks, we now need a plan to rescue the economy.""

Correct and yes, like you Editor I would like to something more concrete set out - but don't forget if David Cameron came on barnstorming and in some way claimed to have "all the answers" his detractors would only shoot him down in flames for appearing arrogant!

Whether the answer is indeed to move George Osborne and replace him at the Treasury with a heavyweight - Ken Clarke perhaps? I don't know... but what is excellent about this speech is that it emphasises Conservative economic RESPONSIBILITY versus Labour's mismanagement which helped to create the mess in the first place!

[Felicity Mountjoy]

Cameron doesn't need to propose policies to beat the recession. It'll be eight months before we are in power. He is right to focus on Brown's faults and his long term plan.

[James Maskell]

Why would Gordon Brown call a General Election in the depths of a recession which we would surely be in 8 months time?

I would put hard cash down. No Election till Spring 2010. Dont believe those who say itll be earlier, it simply makes no sense. Look at QT last night and the slamming Labour had.

As for the speech, he must be careful about the use of language. He could well make (and perhaps already has) the mistake of speaking too much about kicking up regulation which while popular with the voters will actually cause more problems for the country. The people understand some things about the way the country is run but the vast majority of the country has no idea about the financial system and why certain solutions have been selected. Cameron has to make the right choices, not the most popular ones.

[bill]

What happened to sharing the proceeds of growth? Didn't the Tories see the economic tsunami heading our way. More platitudes from the Tories. And IMO the FSA does not need more money.

[On The Job]

"I would put hard cash down. No Election till Spring 2010. Dont believe those who say itll be earlier, it simply makes no sense. Look at QT last night and the slamming Labour had."

It depends i think how big the bounce is becasue of the action he took over the bank i would not be suprised to see him go next year ot possibly even this year although that would mean calling an electin next tuesday

[London Tory]

This comes very late in the day. Cameron has given Labour a free ride for weeks, aided and abetted by a supine and lightweight Shadow Cabinet.

Cameron has a clear message to learn from this- that even at times of 'national crisis', consensus politics does not work.

Turn the clock back 30 years- can you imagine Margaret Thatcher's response had this been Jim Callaghan's government ?

P.S: time to bring back the big beasts to the Shadow Cabinet.

[Alan S]

We are are on the verge of recession. . . perhaps depression. . . and Cameron promises a council tax freeze. Pathetic.

[Tony Makara]

"Over the past decade, seventy percent of our economic growth has come from just three things."

A very important point. Our economy has been unbalanced for a long time now with manufacturing and agriculture contracting as the size of our population increases. This makes us too depdendent on imports and too vulnerable to global recession. The development of manufacturing and agriculture are vital for national security and to provide the million plus jobs we need to end the crushing welfare burden on the taxpayer. David Cameron has highlighted a big problem, economic imbalance.

[David Belchamber]

Sally Roberts at 08.28:

"Whether the answer is indeed to move George Osborne and replace him at the Treasury with a heavyweight - Ken Clarke perhaps? I don't know... "

We must have a heavyweight chancellor. I wish that George Osborne would realise that he is not the person the country needs in that post and ask to be moved. I would put him in overall control of preparing the party for the election whenever it comes.

[sally Roberts]

"Didn't the Tories see the economic tsunami heading our way."

Yes, bill they did - but who's been in power since 1997? NOT the Tories I think you'll find....

[David Belchamber]

PS In case people think that I am unreasonable with my criticism of GO, please see what Jeff Randall has written today (quoted below).

[sally Roberts]

"possibly even this year although that would mean calling an electin next tuesday"

on the job, you are not the only person who thinks this might be possible - we should be ready to jump if called upon...!!

[David Cooper]

"We've had irresponsible capitalism"? Surely stealth socialism masquerading as responsible capitalism?

[gnosis]

I think that speach will go down like a lead balloon right now..wheres george o?

[James]

Have just heard Osborne on "Today". Once again, unable to offer a single policy as to what the Conservatives would do different. Why are the Conservatives so obsessed with matching Labour's spending proposals when it is blindingly clear to the whole nation that there is waste aplenty - databases spring to mind.

If the Tories have no policies at a time like this, they are as unfit for high office as the present incumbents.

[Westminster Wolf]

Cameron clearly had nothing new to say today and should have stayed quiet. Two cheers is far too generous ConHome. Stop the creeping and tell it straight.

[rugfish]

He should have added a call for an election so the people of this country could judge Brown's self proclaimed competence.

He doesn't need to give the FSA money he needs to send it packing. The finance industry is a collection of a myriad of different types of business and that is why experts in each field are needed, not a bureaucratic overlord which is asked to be a Jack of all trades. Shift this bureaucratic bottle neck ( another Brown incompetence ), back to whence it came and re-instal the RESPONSIBLE EXPERT REGULATORS back to how it was before Brown mucked it up otherwise there will be no revival !!!

Other than that I like his speech but I think he DOES need to set a policy agenda so people can imagine the difference under a Tory government.

For the tenth time, get Redwood, Davis and Fallon on to that front bench 'somewhere', and where is the call for a parliamentary enquiry into this disgrace of a government ?

[Norm Brainer]

The less that DC says on policy, the more chance of the bigger swing to brown, which gives the more chance of an election next year and the sooner Conservatives can get in and fix stuff.
A year later and labour have already "fixed" stuff badly with too much cheap red gaffer tape.
It's good that he is building the good foundation in speeches to place the blame on brown and howevermuch we want him to annouce radical policies to help, they would only be annoucements as he isn't PM, which has to be his primary ambition, leaving others (Boris/Redwood) to annouce their radical ideas to show that there are people with solutions in the party.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

Sorry James I meant 18 months before an election. I missed an important "1"!!!!

[Tony Makara]

The detractors above are being too hard on David Cameron, he has outlined several key economic areas that require analysis and policy development. This speech, the way I see it, is a general overview of what the problems are, the detailed solutions will come later. I like this speech and its good to see the Cameron/Brown honeymoon is over.

[sally Roberts]

"Once again, unable to offer a single policy as to what the Conservatives would do different."

Have a look, James:-

"That’s why we’ll freeze council tax for two years by reducing wasteful spending on
advertising and consultancy in central government"

Are Labour promising to do this?

"And we should immediately suspend the annuities rule, which forces people to buy an
annuity at retirement or at age 75."

Are Labour promising to do this?

"That is why we have already proposed to reform insolvency law, to give sound
companies breathing space when they face credit problems."

And this? - don't think so...

"We set out our plan for economic responsibility at conference."

Perhaps you weren't listening!

[James Maskell]

Ah, in that case we agree, Felicity.

[Umbrella man]

If recession isn't beaten then things will be so bad in eighteen months time Felicity that nothing else will matter. A responsible (seems to be the word of the day) opposition would be commending the ideas of an economist like Andrew Lilico. Without a fiscal stimulus we are all f***ed.

Sorry Editor.

[EML]

I think it's very hard for an opposition to say exactly what they would do NOW, for the looking recession.

They can't see the books, but at the same time they know their is no money available for big increases in spending or tax cuts.

Does anyone on here have any decent ideas?

We need a recession to re-balance the economy, its inevitable.

[RichardJ]

"What the speech lacks - and what we had hoped for - are ideas to help prevent "the downturn" being as serious as now seems likely."

Maybe because nothing can be done?

[Freddie Fencepost]

The way Cameron pronounces "Change" is now irritating me.

" We need CCccHhhhange"

It sounds as though he is slurping soup whilstspeaking!

Most annoying!

[RichardJ]

"Without a fiscal stimulus we are all f***ed."

If that fiscal stimulus comes from increased borrowing we will be even more, erm, effed. But from tax and spending cuts - good idea.

[David_at_Home]

"Yes, bill they did .."

No Sally they did not see the economic tsunami coming. Only last month the Tory leadership was still mouthing platitudes about "Sharing the proceeds of growth"!

You are right that George Osborne should go but he should take David Cameron with him. Your party needs to forget about sound bites and focus groups in favour of working up coherent strategies on the economy, on energy, on defence, on agriculture and on the EU. To succeed at this it needs new leadership.

There are still capable Tories around but they have been sidelined. Their country needs them.

[bill]

The Cameroons' strategy during the so called good times (which were in reality a Labour and debt crazed kamikaze mission)of not frightening the horses has left them ham strung and unable to effectively attack Labour now the ship is sinking.

[GB£.com]

There was no single, clear pledge in the speech that would really grab the attention of the worried person fearing the loss of their home by the scruff of the neck to leave them in no doubt that Cameron is the man to help him.

"We set out our plan for economic responsibility at conference. Perhaps you weren't listening!"
How many members of the public worried about their jobs and homes watched the Tory conference?

What did I want to see? A clear pledge to help people to not lose their homes. It must be the biggest fear right now, and a clear pledge could really have put the government under pressure now.

Who cares whose fault it is, or who will be in power in 18 months when you have the repossession letter in your hand today?

Sally,
Even Tim in the press today admits that the Tories did not think the economy would be a big issue in the next election. They even called an end to the 'econocentric paradigm' in May 2007, just a few weeks because the whole collapse started.

[geoff]

Osborne got completely creamed on today this morning.

Its a real train crash!

Great entertainment for all those thinking bring back a big beast like redwood or clarke.

[bill]

If your last para is so GB.com, it beggars belief.

[Matt Wright]

I think its a good speech that sets out the problems clearly and suggests a framework for the way ahead.

[GB£.com]

Bill,

"The Conservatives made a calculation 18 months ago that the economy was not going to be a big issue at the next election,'' said Tim Montgomerie"

On Bloomberg, earlier this morning.

[depressed]

This is really bad. He keeps on saying "let me say exactly what we'll do" and then just follows with generalities. This is another half-way house Cameron speech - too complex for ordinary people and not serious enough for the FT etc. Did he do it without notes?

[London Tory]

What continues to surprise me is that this most politically tuned in of leaderships- I am talking about the Cameron/Hilton/Coulson set up, is missing such a glaring, gaping, obvious weakness.

Namely that George Osborne is painfully out of his depth. How many more times does he need to flounder on the Today programme like he did AGAIN today ?

Thats not just the view of Simon Heffer, or Michael Portillo, or Jeff Randall, or Richard Littlejohn. Its increasingly the view of mainstream members like me, and more importantly the wider electorate- because it is just SO BLOODY OBVIOUS !!

[Rachel Joyce]

The great thing about this site is the fact that it is a FREE site - a very Conservative principle.

The annoying thing is that you have to put up with nonsense posts by Labour trolls such as Freddie Fencepost.

[GraemeArcher]

What London Tory said at 0908, except I think he's a bit unfair on the strength of this speech. I just wish he'd made it last week.

[David Cooper]

OK then, if DC's speech today was that of a PM in waiting, laying out the broad principles of what went wrong and what ought to be done, it ought to go in parallel with something more detailed from a Chancellor in waiting, perhaps focusing on the looming recession with some cogent analysis and precision. Oh good, I've found exactly that. And yet again the author is John Redwood.

[Freddie Fencepost]

@Rachel Joyce

"The great thing about this site is the fact that it is a FREE site - a very Conservative principle."

Errrrmmmm... no actually thats a socialist idea... free NHS, free roads, free education.

Real Conservatism is about belief in the market principles (of which I am a true believer)[i.e. understand the cost of everything]

Sometimes I think people don't spot the irony!

[bill]

London Tory

Perhaps you have answered your own question. I am not in the least bit surprised by the Cameroons' weakness: they thought the rules had changed; well they hadn't. It may have taken a long time coming but it's the economy stupid not chocolate oranges or huggable hoodies or global warming. The Tories have been too clever by half.

[sally Roberts]

"How many members of the public worried about their jobs and homes watched the Tory conference? "

Probably more than you might think, GB£.com and there might even have been some in the hall - they would hardly be advertising their problems to all and sundry, now would they?!

" A clear pledge to help people to not lose their homes. It must be the biggest fear right now, and a clear pledge could really have put the government under pressure now."

Yes it would be wonderful if a magic wand could simply be waved - but the stark truth is that maybe it just can't be that simple...! Imagine if Cameron and Osborne blandly made promises they knew they couldn't keep? Imagine the betrayal that would be felt by the public then and imagine the deep hole we as a Party would have dug for ourselves!!

Your last point, GB£.com I accept!

[Northern Tory]

The next election is not going to be about the environment, social policies, immigration, etc.

It is going to be about the ECONOMY, sadly alot of people are going to have a very tough time over the next 18 months.

The spotlight will fall on the Shadow Chancellor - is Osborne up to it?

He is a great politician but his grasp of economics is limp! I would replace him with Hague or Clarke....

Let ditch the pee shooter & pop gun and bring in some big guns!

[Iain]

"Have just heard Osborne on "Today"."

Talking about burning houses and putting out the fire wasn't he?

I've long felt Osborne is useless as Shadow Chancellor, but these patronising LadyBird book explanation of economics he keeps coming up with are really irritating me. So when I thought I knew the extent of my misgivings I had about Osborne, he surprises me, for he's not just useless, he's irritatingly useless.

[London Tory]

I would urge every afficiando of Con Home [and Tim Montgomerie, for that matter] to read Jeff Randall's piece in today's Telegraph.

It is a truly devastating critique of Mr Osborne.

Commentating on G.O's role since the financial crash, Randall says;

"when the audience should have been cheering him, it could not hear him"

he goes on

"zero is the sum of his performance to date"

before concluding

"George, get your trousers up, liven up, your country needs you"

One can only ruefully concur with Mr Randall, and hope that Cameron does something about it.

Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind, John Redwood, Michael Fallon, even IDS, its time to get all of them in the Shadow Cabinet to replace the current kids and lightweights.

[GB£.com]

"Yes it would be wonderful if a magic wand could simply be waved "

Sally, no magic wand needed, just a simple call to allow those facing repossession to half their mortgage payment for three years (with the interest added to the loan, extend the term etc) coupled with a ban on the state owned banks repossessing homes if people stick to the reduced payment.

Cameron had a chance to stand up for the thousands facing losing their homes, to really pressure the government, but did not do so.

He could do it now. It requires no bail-out, no taxpayer funds, as it would simply a personal debt restructuring, but it would leverage the unique situation of the state owning a stake in the banks to force them to accept the plan.

[bill]

GB£.com

I guess that's what comes from using words like paradigm. Perhaps it will teach them a lesson; I wish I was insulated enough from the economy I could forget about it.

Iain
Whilst I am no fan of the Osborne, Ladybird books were and still are great: I particularly liked the I want to be a Soldier/Policeman/ Airman series. I don't recall there being one saying I want to be Chancellor though; but then the Ladybird people had a lot of common sense.

[Alec Y]

Cameron spoke and the market was up 4%, now it up less than 2%. Another dead cat bounce?

[Iain]

"One can only ruefully concur with Mr Randall, and hope that Cameron does something about it."

If he doesn't do something about it then Osbornes failure will become his failure. So for the good of his own poistion he has to cut Osborne loose, and replace him with someone with economic credibility, like Ken Clarke and an economic war Shadow Cabinet made up of the economic experience and talent the Conservative party has at its disposal.

[Tony Makara]

Bill, judging by your early reading I bet you were an avid read of the 'Commando' mini book series like me? We certainly now need the party leadership to be more combative on economic matters, because that is going to be the only issue in town from now on. The last couple of weeks has been chilling as the prospect of a fourth Labour term became a tangible possiblity. Let that be a warning to all of us. We must continue to demand more from the Conservative team but lets also get behind them too. I feel a lot better after reading today's speech, we are now reurning the serve!

[Rachel Joyce]

As I have just put on my blog in more detail (http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/2008/10/keynesian-economics-how-would.html):

Imagine you are the parent of a young adult who, for whatever reason, found themselves out of work. Imagine that you had the ability, if you wished, to employ them yourself for year or so. Imagine, that if you didn't employ them, you would have to pay for their food, drink, heating etc and a bit of pocket money.

Would you:
a. Leave them to sit at home and pay for their food, drink, heating etc, and a bit of pocket money
b. Employ them to do things that you don't really need doing, and that won't give them many skills for future "real jobs". (NB this will cost more in the short term than option a.)
c. Employ them to do a job that you have always wanted done or would help you, and at the same time give them "real world skills" so they could move on to long term employment afterwards, having left the family business/ home in a better state than it was before. (NB this will also cost more in the short term than option a.)

Labour have been doing a. and b. for the past 11 years. In times of recession, we need to invest in option c, so when the recession is over, they can look after themselves. The use of options a. and b. by Labour have left us in a terrible state.

[Gezmond007]

"Too little , too late " Labour have stolen the march and the message that this is just a gimmick is out on the radio and TV.

Why did it take so long ? Osborne out Redwood in !

[Lucy]

The speech was lame. We should be absolutely tearing apart NuLabour's false economic growth of the past decade. Cameron and Osborne quite obviously lack of confidence in their subject matter. And well they might.

[M Dowding]

The great thing about this site is the fact that it is a FREE site - a very Conservative principle.

The annoying thing is that you have to put up with nonsense posts by Labour trolls such as Freddie Fencepost.

Posted by: Rachel Joyce | October 17, 2008 at 10:02

Rachel, most, though not all of the negativity you mention is indeed Draper/Campbell rebuttall/propaganda unit.
It's typical Campbell methodology (when sober)with his chip on the shoulder nastiness to come on this site and sow unpleaseantness and foster dissent. Until a few weeks ago we had intelligent and valuable debate here always tempered with a deserved dose of careful optimism. Critique of our Shadow cabinet, genuine questioning at times and outright outrage where correct to display. This is beginning to fade under the relatively subtle assault of Cmpbell and I am sad that more effort is not being made to highlight this mendaciousness so beloved of NuLiebour. It carried "Mad Comic" Blair to 3 election victories which in turn has produced the worst economic mess since post world war two. Be warned!

[Rachel Joyce]

As I have just put on my blog in more detail (http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/2008/10/keynesian-economics-how-would.html):

Imagine you are the parent of a young adult who, for whatever reason, found themselves out of work. Imagine that you had the ability, if you wished, to employ them yourself for a year or so. Imagine, that if you didn't employ them, you would have to pay for their food, drink, heating etc and a bit of pocket money.

Would you:
a. Leave them to sit at home and pay for their food, drink, heating etc, and a bit of pocket money
b. Employ them to do things that you don't really need doing, and that won't give them many skills for future "real jobs". (NB this will cost more in the short term than option a.)
c. Employ them to do a job that you have always wanted done or would help you, and at the same time give them "real world skills" so they could move on to long term employment afterwards, having left the family business/ home in a better state than it was before. (NB this will also cost more in the short term than option a.)

Labour have been doing a and b for the past 11 years. In times of recession, we need to invest in option c, so when the recession is over, they can look after themselves. The use of options a and b by Labour have left us in a terrible state.

[Rachel Joyce]

M Dowding @11.04, I agree. Tim needs to have a think about how to best address this rude interruption of a Conservative debate.

[Terry]

Sally, I agree about there being no miracle cures. Some of the comments here don’t appreciate that there is no panacea to get out of the current predicament. Working on the reasonable assumption that every bust is roughly proportionate to the size of the excesses and imbalances which have accumulated during the prior boom, we are heading for a torrid time. We are right to concentrate on measures which ameliorate the situation: freezing council tax and altering the rules regarding annuities. I would also like to see measures to help with those affected by repossessions. Trying to wish it all the pain away, however, is not being honest with the electorate. The measures already taken to pump liquidity into the economy run the risk of causing future inflation and ill-considered, knee-jerk calls for tax cuts and even more government expenditure are likely to have a small immediate effect but disastrous long-term consequences. Cameron and Osborne need to be damning in their criticism of the government’s past actions, bold in their long-term solutions regarding regulation and supervision and the size of government debt, but measured in their response to the current crisis. They have a difficult job. The next few months will see if they are doing it well.

[Raj]

Rachel, I agree that Tim needs to do more to censor the trolls. It is clear that there are some people who criticise the Tory leadership because they have the best interests of the party at heart and some because that's what they're here to do and will never be happy (until Labour are well ahead).

[john]

Reading this site is rather like attending a football international at Wembley. Apart from the trolls, it's a magnet for the anti-Cameron and especially the anti-Osborne brigade.
Cheer on the lads? No, unles we're 10-nil up, they deserve to be booed.

[Iain]

"which in turn has produced the worst economic mess since post world war two. Be warned"

M Dowding, which begs the question why do the public view the Conservatives behind Labour in economic competence? There is a very simple answer, the failure of Osborne to do his job! Unfortunately people of the centre right only have one means to get rid of this Labour Government while we have the electoral system we do, i.e. vote in a Conservative Government, so while the Conservative Party is squatting in the political centre right territory we have to ensure it properly articulates the right arguments and policies, and ensure we have the best possible chance of getting rid of Labour, but with Osborne setting out Conservative economic policy that chance of getting rid of Labour is being compromised.

[Mike Thomas]

I agree john @ 11:19.

Cameron just had to stand up today and say "I know where it's gone wrong." and "I'm on your side."

And keep Brown hanging on the meat hook in the abbatoir as he's trying to escape.

No-one knows yet how this recession is going to manifest itself in the real economy.

Sure, jobs will go, but where?

We know Cameron and Osbourne are small government, lower spending, lower taxes. No point being a shill for it.

As Gordon hopelessly tries to inflate the economy through the public sector, Cameron will say "No."

If Brown does, this is the big government end game. Cameron knows this.

Cameron hopefully will achieve something not even the most fervent Thatcherite could manage.

The destruction of tax-and-spend.

Remember this is a long game, Cameron knows he's going to need 10 years to sort this mess out and build his vision.

He needs to destroy Brown's economic record and also the core of every single Labour economic strategy and every action Brown makes will not have a Tory policy suggestion to steal - just Tory opposition.

I thought today was fine.

[London Tory]

John- ridiculous remark, my membership goes back to the 80s, how about yours ?

Osborne was asked this morning on Radio 4 what he would differently.

His response;

"We need a long term plan for the economy".

L.O.L

[Derek Johnson]

Another patient and carefully targetted critique from Cameron. One knew it had hit the spot by the immediate reaction of whoever was editing Sky News this morning. No sooner had he sat down, Sky were asking whether Cameron was making political capital out of our economic difficulties. I haven't seen anything from the BBC, although I expect their slant to be much the same or worse.

Constructive opposition. That's all you can ask.

[Terry]

Raj, don’t worry about the trolls. They are usually obvious and a small price to pay for freedom. Also, I find it useful to know the sort of arguments likely to be deployed by our opponents, the better to refute them if we ever hear them repeated on the doorstep.

[a-tracy]

Freddie F "Errrrmmmm... no actually thats a socialist idea... free NHS, free roads, free education."

Errmmm - Q who introduced the dental contracts into this country that resulted in thousands of people losing access to an NHS dentist and being forced to pay dental insurance annual plans? A. New Labour.
Q who introduced congestion charging and thus made the roads in London no longer free to use? A. New Labour. Q. Who is trying to do the same in Manchester? A. New Labour. Q. Who introduced top up fees for university students to pay ending their free education A. New Labour.

[Tony Makara]

One has to wonder how much orchestrated rollism there is? The Labour strategists know that the big wigs in the media read this site and that a few unsubstantial attacks ends up being portrayed as 'Conservative grassroot support attacks party leadership' Its a simple strategy, one that creates the wrong impression in the print media.

[sally Roberts]

"Sally, no magic wand needed, just a simple call to allow those facing repossession to half their mortgage payment for three years (with the interest added to the loan, extend the term etc) coupled with a ban on the state owned banks repossessing homes if people stick to the reduced payment."

You may well be right, GB£.com and George Soros in his recent book has argued, in the American scenario, for much the same!

I suspect this is the first speech of several by David Cameron and it may well be that we simply need to Watch This Space!

[sally Roberts]

Thank you, Terry @ 11:09 for backing up my argument! There IS some common sense on here this morning despite the Football International atmosphere!!

[David Belchamber]

London Tory at 10:22

"Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind, John Redwood, Michael Fallon, even IDS, its time to get all of them in the Shadow Cabinet to replace the current kids and lightweights".

Tim specifically asked a question in the last Survey about George Osborne's perceived competence as the potential chancellor and I was amazed at the percentage of people who thought he would do it well.

Today's post (and Simon Heffer's remarks yesterday and Jeff Randall today) confirms my view that he has neither the formal qualifications nor the practical experience to begin to do the job properly. I wish those who support his credentials here would actually demonstrate to our satisfaction that his grasp of the job is sufficient.

The thoroughly annoying thing is that there are several current tory MPs who I believe would cope excellently with this crucially important post and to appoint one of these now as shadow chancellor would lift our standing immediately.

GO is an extremely capable MP and he could play a huge part in winning the election for us - but he could also contribute to our losing it if he does not move over - and soon.

[John Broughton]

Judging by the BBC midday news (R4) DC must have rattled labour and the libdemented.

I just hope he and Osborne will continue to expose Brown's financial incompetence.

John Redwood has a part to play, please, DC, give him a special role - he will be a great asset in demonstrating financial competence.

[michael mcgough]

Can we any longer afford to be in the EU?

[London Tory- Not A Troll]

The fact remains that our most credible contributions on the financial crash have come from;

1. John Redwood MP
2. Michael Fallon MP

Osborne has not been sighted.

[ACT]

Pathetic and useless. And here's the nadir: "We’ve had irresponsible capitalism presided over by irresponsible government. Instead, what we need is responsible free enterprise, regulated and supported by responsible government". No, no, no! We had capitalism, which up to a fortnight ago was entirely responsible. It was responsible to its customers, it was responsible to its shareholders, it was responsible to its bottom line and the marketplace it operated in. And now it's - entirely supported by Cameron and the wretched Osborne - responsible to the public purse. That's the fatal thing that has happened in the last fortnight: not that private individuals borrowed too much, nor that banks lent too much, nor even that people and business were going to go bankrupt. But that now - entirely supported by Cameron and the wretched Osborne - those private individuals and companies aren't responsible anymore for their actions. We are. And that's madness.

No one who has criticised Cameron's explicitly anti-Thatcherite course these last three years can be surprised by his hand in helping Labour tear up her economic settlement. And no one save Dave and his tiny, much shouted at this last fortnight, clique will be surprised when right wing voters do at the next election what they last did in 1997: stay at home because the 'Conservative' Party plainly isn't.

[Freddie Fencepost]

@a-tracy

NuLabour....errrmmm actually since when has NuLabour been a socialist Party?

Many would say NuLabour are the best Conservative Government has ever had!

[GB£.com]

I hope so Sally. It would be great to see the Tories burying the ghost of the old Labour "I'll never forget repossession" posters.

The real problem seems to be that Team Cameron is struggling with the rapid pace of change right now. By the time they come up with an idea, it may well already have been suggested, then they will appear to piggybacking again.

Come on Cameron, less caution, come out to keep people in their homes! It will be good for families and good for the taxbuyer (no need to pay to rehouse them).

I've got to say, even with my thick skin, it broke my heart so see that poor woman on the TV today facing repossession by NR. She is no slacker, has taken a higher paid job further from home to cope but still the faces threats from state-owned NR.

It seems perverse that actually taking these banks under state control has made them more aggressive, as they seek to pay off their debt asap.

[Malcolm Dunn]

A very predictable post ACT. What would you suggest Cameron does?

[resident leftie]

Please replace Osborne with Redwood. Please, please, please!

Osborne is likeable enough, and really doesn't have to do much to get into power. Just not screw up too badly, and criticise the government.

Redwood is talented and principaled unlike Cameron and Osborne, but stick him in front of the electorate, and all they'll see is the alien who didn't bother to learn the Welsh national anthem.

Cameron and Osborne are blank slates onto which the electorate can write any personality or policy they want enouraged by annoyance with Labour. Their speeches follow the same model - opportunistic platitudes which reflect annoyance with the goverment while leaving the policies as vague as possible.

[alan]

Too little too late. I am afraid he sounded like a young vicar, reading his sermon, hastily put together in between all the other exciting things he had to do!

George Osborne (boy george) was a total disaster on the Today programme and Cameron MUST remove him immediately and replace him with Ken Clarke and John Redwood. They would kick the ..... out of the Labour Treasury team.

Indeed Cameron had better realise that he is now going to have to really fight this rejuvenated Labour Party. With them bringing back the old media manipulators it is going to get very, very dirty and David Cameron will need all the fighters he can get.

Just recall Lord Heseltine and the mace...he got told off but what a fighter..remember Lord Tebbit..what a fighter.

Come on Cameron. Time to take those velvet gloves off and prepare for a bare knuckle fight!

[John Broughton]

Freddie F

The many who might say that nuLab in any way resemble a conservative governemnt never mind the best are blimkered in their vision.

Nu Lab have been extremely left wing and redistributed billions to their client state most at the expense of people on relatively modest incomes.

[Freddie Fencepost]

Have to agree with many of the posts on here. Redwood is a very convincing and talented politician.

I would even go as far as to say his recent appearances on television have been out of this world.

[London Tory]

# Malcolm Dunn- what do you suggest Cameron does? #

Where to start Malcolm ?

1.Mandelson has greased his way back into the Cabinet in the last week and only the Mail and Telegraph have challenged it.

2.42 days collapsed, and from little Grieve, hardly a word.

3.Northern Rock- which WE OWN thanks to Labour, are screwing their defaulters at a rate that even Fagin would be ashamed of.

And thats just a week in life of a Labour Government !

It was the same the week before too, with the Gurkhas. Perhaps we should get Joanna Lumley in the Shadow Cabinet ?

[Malcolm Dunn]

I'm aware of all that London Tory so what do you suggest we do? Question still applies to ACT too.
Freddie and Resident Leftie made me smile with their fervent calls for John Redwood to replace Osborne. Now why would they want that? I'd be careful what you wish for lefties! And I'd be more concerned about the lamentable current incumbent of the office of Chancellor if I were you.

[sally Roberts]

I have often wondered what "ACT" stood for...I think I may have found the answer....

Alistair Campbell Troll?

[David Cooper]

London Tory @ 12.12: "The fact remains that our most credible contributions on the financial crash have come from; 1. John Redwood MP 2. Michael Fallon MP". Quite, and if they were appointed Shadow Chancellor and Secretary to the Treasury, with official non-Parliamentary support from Jeff Randall and Ruth Lea, Labour would deservedly have the living daylights kicked out of them.

Out of interest, as I mentioned on another thread earlier this week, the Shadow Treasury Team (apart from George Osborne) comprises Philip Hammond as Secretary to the Treasury, Baroness Noakes in the Lords, and David Gauke, Justine Greening and Mark Hoban on the front bench, according to the party site. Just in case anyone was unaware.

[bill]

ACT writes much sense. Labelling ACT a troll is pathetic.

[Yet Another Anon]

An extra levy on City firms to fund a higher quality of regulation
Why exactly when they already pay taxes, what is this extra regulation being proposed anyway, and can't it be funded by de-regulation elsewhere?

[bill]

"An extra levy on City firms to fund a higher quality of regulation": anyone proposing such an idea simply illustrates their relative ignorance.

[Yet Another Anon]

As Gordon hopelessly tries to inflate the economy through the public sector, Cameron will say "No."
He needs to say what he is going to do differently, and not do though, and a lot of his time so far has been about pledging more spending and pledging to meet Labour's spending plans, he says that Labour's fiscal policies have been radically wrong, not unsurprisingly people will expect him to come out with radically different policies, or what he is saying is that he is just slightly less radically wrong than the government.

[ACT]

I trust that irony of one of Dave's defenders taking someone else to task for offering a distinct lack of specifics is, after this morning's specious waste of a speech, lost on no one?

Here's the thing - the truly disastrous and telling thing as far as the 'Roons themselves are concerned (and has anyone who has heard Dave's shouting fits this last fortnight can confirm - it's something the Roons themselves are are all too well aware of). What does this crisis actually illustrate? It shows all too tellingly quite how far Cameron is from being able to emulate his role model, Blair. An almighty economic disaster has happened. It was not merely unopposed by Cameron, but as every prosperity/lifestyle/green piece of garbage he and Olive came out with demonstrated, entirely unanticipated. Now that crisis has struck, Dave (and the mewling Gidders) have *nothing* to offer by way of a counter-recessionary strategy. Nothing. But that's not the political problem.

The true scale of Cameron's political failure, in explicit contrast to how Blair would have handled it in opposition, has been the impulse of the public. For what have they done? Have they acted as they did towards Major, when Blair opposed, over matters petty or profound? Has the opposition's poll rating - the only test of merit Cameron has, as patently one can hardly credit the opponent of 'irresponsible capitalism' with Conservatism - soared in the manner Labour's did 94-97? No, the reverse has happened: so profoundly unconvinced are the public by "Cameron's Conservatives" that when what should have been a felling blow strikes the government, they actually turn to it, as a source of strength, and as a shield. This popular response at a time of acute political crisis demonstrates that far from having 'decontaminated' the brand, Cameron's appeal is the brittle consequence of public disenchantment with Labour, not popular endorsement of Dave.

[Edison Smith]

No coverage on the BBC, but a very positive response from comments on the BBC website.

[Paul Owen]

The simplest proposal that the Tories could make would be to propose an alteration to the remit of the Bank of England's MPC which sets interest rates. It needs to be more sophisticated than merely focusing on inflation. By taking this easy step they would free the B of E to cut interest rates in the way that the Fed in America has been able to do. They should also announce that they will take an axe to the proliferation of quangos and non jobs under Labour which cost hundreds of millions if not billions. They could start by simplifying bank regulation and handing it back to the Bank of England and either abolishing or cutting the size of the FSA.

They should be questioning why the government still needs to force through the Lloyds TSB/ HBOS merger creating a superbank and destroying shareholder value in Lloyds which is supposed to be strong and stable and a model of the way banks should be run.

And Cameron should show some steel and ruthlessness and move George Osborne to a different job and get in a big hitter for the vital shadow chancellor role. Osborne just doesn't cut it. He has missed several open goals this last week which someone like William Hague or David Davis would have done wonders with.

[Malcolm Dunn]

As expected no answer from ACT. Just the usual diadribe on how useless ACT thinks Cameron is. Yawn.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Edison Smith | October 17, 2008 at 13:38

No coverage on the BBC, but a very positive response from comments on the BBC website.

It's the leading story.

[David]

What to do?

1. Control of interest rates returned to the government.

2. Cancel subscription to the EU.

[London Tory Not A Troll]

ACT - very good summary, sadly.

Had this happened in 1994, not 2008, this is what would have happened.

Blair would have called Campbell, Mandelson, Brown [yes, that one] and his pollster Philip Gould straight to Millbank. They would have quickly settled on a simple, lethal one liner linking the *Governing Party* to the crash. They would have then briefed it rigourously both to their PLP, and through Campbell and Charlie Whelan to the media. They would then have repeated it day in, day out. It would not be fair. It would not be honest. It would not survive much scrutiny. But it would do the damage- and resonate with the electorate.

Just look at the way Blair capitalised on the murder of Jamie Bulger, for example.

1. "This is a hammer blow to the sleeping conscience of this nation".

2. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

Result in 1997= 179 Labour majority.

Now fast forward 11 years. Banks are being nationalised. Pension funds are being decimated. Borrowing exceeds our GDP. And what is our considered response..........

errr....Oliver Letwin telling Andrew Neil that we should have fixed the roof when the sun was shining...............err.....George Osborne saying we need a long term plan.

And that is the difference.

1994- hungry, serious, ruthless Opposition politicians.

2008- anything but.

[Stephen]

ACT & London Tory - Agree with you completely. The simple truth is that many Conservatives took the public's unpopularity with Labour to be a reflection of their love of Cameron and the Social Justice agenda (people I talk to are starting to become concerned about the potential for civil unrest in 12 months time resulting from this economic crisis). Fast forward to an economic crisis (of Brown's making) and what do we have to say about it... Nothing, some platitudes about additional regulation (which incidentally happens to be one of the causes of the direct causes of all this as banks sought to move their riskier assets off balance sheet due to the ever increasing regulatory overheads associated with them). Nothing mentioned on the fact that by increasing the Tier 1 Capital requirements Gordo is exacerbating the situation as banks horde cash to meet the new requirements. Nothing on the fact that this has been coming for 11 years now.

We criticise Brown for not mending the roof while the sun shone, yet ignore the fact that we were complicit in focusing on choosing new wallpaper instead of the pointing out the rising damp.

[B.Garvie]

Factually Brown has contributed to this recession within the UK and must accept full responsibility. Although a global crisis, he is responsible for the UK and must face the consequences. For the past 11 years, he was responsible for our economy and falsely boasted an end to boom & bust.
When Chancellor, his soft touch approach towards the City allowed to develop irresponsible and uncontrolled risk using financial instruments. He removed The Bank of England’s regulatory powers of authority thus preventing their timely intervention. Wholesale Credit Default Swaps were regularly cut, packaged and sold off-balance sheet to the highest bidder and nobody, including the FSA, could estimate or understand the liabilities involved. Being based on the housing bubble, CDS insurance soon defaulted.
It was right for Cameron to support the "bail out" strategy underpinning our banks. But now it is time for a forensic audit trail of events. Brown must be exposed so as to confront his malfeasance in allowing this crisis to develop.
It would be wrong for Brown to remain unchallenged. He has continued to ‘spin’ his position and hide his mistakes. The Belgian Chief of the Euro Zone Committee criticised Brown for begging to be invited to the European Conference last week so as to appear politically influential.
Brown can no longer hide behind financial instruments and blame others. For the sake of our country, he must be brought to book and not allowed to 'pass the parcel' any further.

[Iain]

"ACT & London Tory - Agree with you completely."

You can add my agreement as well. Some of us have been banging on about the Conservatives failing to put down any economic markers for a few years, and been tearing our hair out in exasperation at the failure of the Conservatives to ruthlessly tear into the Government.

Recent events have shown this very clearly, within days of the banking meltdown Labour were misquoting from John Redwoods economic policy document claiming it was Conservative policy, but weeks on the Conservative party haven't bothered to draw the publics attention to, not only quotes of Gordon Brown, but what he has done. It would seem that either the CCHQ are a bunch of amateurs, or Conservative MP's just can't be bothered to do the dirty work of politics, and even after 10 years in opposition Labour are more hungry to cling onto power than Conservative MP’s, ambitionless, who’ve contented themselves with an easy life in opposition.