Cameron takes on Brown over the economy at PMQ

Jonathan Isaby's verdict: A far calmer session than last week, and no surprise that David Cameron went on the economy. No knockouts on either side - a score draw in my view.

12.30pm Final question is from Jamie Reed (Lab, Copeland) who merely asks whether the spending plans from the Tories would be bad for the country. The Speaker should have ruled it out of order, but doesn't.

12.29pm Mark Durkan of the SDLP asks about pensioners suffering in these difficult economic times and Brown suggests that extra resources are needed to help them and that the Tories are unwilling to do so.

12.26pm Tory Andrew Selous points out that whilst employment of British workers has reduced by 300,000, employment of migrant workers has gone up by 900,000.   

12.22pm Alistair Burt doesn't hear the Speaker calling him and has to be prompted for a second time to ask his question.

12.21pm Patsy question of the day is from Labour's Anne Begg, who congratulates the PM on the recent announcement on the post office card account.

12.18pm Brown says it is, but Clegg, unconvinced, asks for ways of lending more serious money to businesses.

12.16pm Nick Clegg has had a haircut. He asks if the bank bail-out is working.

12.14pm Brown repeats the suggestion that Labour wants to help people through the economic difficulties and the Conservatives do not. 

12.12pm Brown suggests that Tory plans will hamper people trying to cope in the difficult economic circumstances. Cameron quotes former government economic adviser Derek Scott as having said that it was "drivel" that the recession was not the Government's making.

12.10pm No answer forthcoming from Brown, Cameron tells the House that Brown "loves to lecture on economics, but it's all about the politics". he adds that the Tory plans for spending restraint are the right thing to do.

12.09pm Cameron then suggests that it is clear the Government wants to go on a "borrowing binge". He asks Brown if taxes will have to rise.

12.07pm Brown says he will look into any individual cases of which Cameron has knowledge, but in general will do all he can to help companies get loan capital. Cameron accuses him of not answering his question.

12.05pm Cameron then raises concerns coming from small businesses about being charged exorbitant amounts for overdraft facilities or losing them altogether.

12.03pm David Cameron thanks Brown for giving him the inquiry he asked for into Baby P.

12.01pm In answer to a question from Tory Philip Dunne about the devaluation of the pound, Brown prays in aid the advice of Margaret Thatcher, saying that she said that it was "un-British" to talk down the pound.

---

Last week David Cameron used all six questions on the issue of Baby P and the failures of Haringey children's services.

In the wake of his latest pronouncements on spending and taxation, one might expect him to tackle the economy today.

We'll be live-blogging today's encounter at noon.

Comments

[Wearside Tory]

Let's hope DC gets stuck into Brown about the perilous state of the economy..

Good news yesterday but I thought DC was a bit nervous in tv interviews - as if he realise how big the stakes were around this announcement...

My advice - seize the day and go for the throat!

[gezmond007]

Mistake Dave to take on Brown on the economy , you can see him reading the questions , Brown has all the answers Cameron has none , where's Osborne sitting to the right !

Funny that William Hague is sitting next to Cameron , maybe thats the future . Brown is making mincemeat of Cameron , I am writing this as I am watching .

Cameron has walked into a minefield !

[David (One of many)]

Is Brown actually suffering from some sort of psychological illness? In one 'answer' he's quoting Thatcher's wisdom, in another he's slagging her off.

"Brown is making mincemeat of Cameron."

Of course he is, in your world. Six questions, not one answer. Sounds about par.

Quite liked the notion of Brown not agreeing with himself.

[Norm Brainer]

Brown seemed to be winning but Cameron pulled it back on the last one, I think, making brown's attack just seem weak (and pre-rehearsed)

[Raj]

Brown has all the answers Cameron has none

This is Prime Minister's Question Time, not Opposition Leader's Question Time - Cameron asks the questions and Brown is supposed to answer them. But if the PM has the answers, he didn't give any. All we heard from him was "four legs good, two legs bad".

Thought Cameron did well in asking his questions on the economy and raising the issue of probable tax rises as a result of the spending binge.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Courtesy of Brown - 'the Tories do NOT want to help people through the economic difficulties!'

Errr, Mr. Brown WHY would the Tories WANT to see people suffer, they aim to WIN the next General Election not lose it.

YOU Mr. Brown are causing people to suffer - more and more people, and as that happens, so your chances of winning the next GE will diminish!!

[gezmond007]

Brown 5 - 1 Cameron bad defeat for Dave . It,s now we all see it it's how the public see it on the news . Watch BBC at one and ITV at !.30

[Elaina Brier]

OK ... Brown is now looking more and more relaxed and statesman like.

We are now being portrayed as the enemy of Small Business and the family.

Are we sure we don't wish to join a fiscal stimulus at this time?

I fear we will look like the enemy of the people... no wonder we have lost a 20% lead!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Brown has all the answers. You're turning into a joke Gezmond.You pop up every Wednesday to tell us how bad Cameron has been at PMQ's and pretty every week you're wrong.

[Conand]

With their jeering cries of 'cuts' (when referring to a slower rate of increase) Labour MPs seem to be preparing for their tired old election strategy.
Of course 'cuts' has an accompanying hand gesture. This is also a well worn road: Waving a little red book, the Nazi salute.
Goebbels would have loved it really, a lie with an accompanying hand gesture.
I do want a dramatic and permanent real terms cut, in the number of Labour MPs.

[David (One of many)]

"Brown is now looking more and more relaxed and statesman like."

Statesmen take responsibility for their actions, answer questions and act like leaders. They don't turn every answer into an opportunity to bash their opponents or blame everything on everyone else. Read the editorial in the Sun today, it might show you what working people are actually concerned about. And there's no way you're a Tory.

[Mike]

gezmond007, we obviously didn't watch the same PMQs unless you think that never answering a question and saying 'businesses and families' over and over again is 'winning'.

[gezmond007]

Malcolm I do beleive that you turn up every week to worship at the altar of St Dave and do the opposite to me .

I don't dislike Cameron as a person I just think he is not a good Tory leader which is what people are now seeing.

When you say that pretty every Wednesday I am wrong are you admiting that Brown wiped the floor with him today ?

[gezmond007]

gezmond007, we obviously didn't watch the same PMQs unless you think that never answering a question and saying 'businesses and families' over and over again is 'winning'.

Posted by: Mike | November 19, 2008 at 12:29

Mike I think your in denial !

[David]

"Malcolm I do beleive that you turn up every week to worship at the altar of St Dave and do the opposite to me."

And you turn up every week to pretend you are a Conservative. It gets very boring.

[Wearside Tory]

Not a good say for DC - I think he is more effective when he is passionate...

Couldn't help noticing Osborne edging himself out of the naughty chair and virtually sitting on Hague's knee...

I hope that means he is eager to join the fight and savage Brown about the plight of the economy...as people said earlier we need to strongly fight the negative spinning of our policy line (quickly)

[gezmond007]

David

I am not a Conservative and never said I was nor am I a supporter of any one party , I am a concerned member of the public who is worried about his business and his family.

I think the Tories are turning into a weak opposition with a weak leader . Shame as they started so well.

[resident leftie]

It was rather dull this week - no headlines. I suspect that Cameron will have another try at righteous indignation next week - it worked last time.

[michael m]

I just wish DC would be angry- the Recession has been caused by Brown
He encouraged the credit binge
He failed to regulate the Banks
He sold the gold reserves at the bottom of the market
He said the UK was best placed to deal with a recession
How can anyone trust this man and say his track record is a testament for the future?

The punch line should be " this is no time for a failure!"

[Raj]

I am not a Conservative and never said I was nor am I a supporter of any one party

Strange then how you only have criticism for the Tories and only praise for Brown. You keep saying he's doing good things for you/your friends, yet you keep ignoring the point that Labour have admitted taxes will go up later.

So does this mean you fall into some special group that has been exempted from tax rises, or you're lying?

[Susan]

PMQs is always a struggle because when Brown is asked a question, he hears something else entirely and proceeds to answer that. Cameron has been doing very well lately but it's tough to plant a winning blow on Scotch Mist. Brown is a disgrace (am I allowed to say that?)

[David (One of many)]

Gezmond007 23rd September 2008:

"As I've said before we need a leader with Substance not just a salesman! Bring back John Redwood or Ken Clarke men of substance."

13th October 2008:

"No wonder people keep going back to calling us the "Nasty Party " with comments like yours."

You're a troll, and not even a very good one. One week it's this 'we' line, then you refer to 'you lot' the week afterwards. Just give up.

[2020]

Gordon Brown's Recession is irrecoverable in terms of his own image, no matter what damage limitation strategy he chooses to portray.

[michael m]

I just wish DC would be angry- the Recession has been caused by Brown
He encouraged the credit binge
He failed to regulate the Banks
He sold the gold reserves at the bottom of the market
He said the UK was best placed to deal with a recession
How can anyone trust this man and say his track record is a testament for the future?

The punch line should be " this is no time for a failure!"

[cornyborny]

gezmond007: you're patently a Labour troll with no capacity for independent thought. Just like all the others in that eerily brainwashed horde.

And if you run a business, I'm the reincarnation of Eusebio Kino.

[gezmond007]

Strange then how you only have criticism for the Tories and only praise for Brown. You keep saying he's doing good things for you/your friends, yet you keep ignoring the point that Labour have admitted taxes will go up later.

So does this mean you fall into some special group that has been exempted from tax rises, or you're lying?

Posted by: Raj | November 19, 2008 at 12:46

No Raj I criticisie Cameron and Osborne because I think theyr'e weak and have no ideas in how to help with the present problems.

Regarding tax rises and my special group I am a member of a special group , a businessman who is very worried about going under and at present only Labour are offering policies that are helpful to keep the economy going. Tory policy is as John Maples said two days ago is to let the the recession take it,s course .

Thats just not good enough Raj.

[gezmond007]

David when I say "we" I mean we the people of the country . as Lady Thatcher Margaret said " we are not amused "

[Malcolm Dunn]

Which policies are Labour offering that are helpful to keep the economy going Gezmond?

[Alistair Burt MP]

Just to comment on that missed question. I was not sitting where I usually sit, and when the Speaker called me he was looking there rather than the other end of the chamber! And I didn't hear. Doh!
But the serious point is that I asked the PM again to explain if everything in his economy is just dandy as we head into recession, as he claims, why our currency has fallen so far and so fast? He did not answer the first question on this subject from Philip Dunne, and did not answer me either. He does not like this question, and it should be asked again, preferably by someone sitting in the right place with his hearing aid on!

[gezmond007]

Which policies are Labour offering that are helpful to keep the economy going Gezmond?

Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 19, 2008 at 13:05

Malcolm if you don't keep up with events it,s understandable why you don't look at what's happening in the real world .

[Mark M]

I have to agree with those who criticise Brown's failure to answer a single question. Based on what is reported here it seems to me that Cameron had the edge. But maybe seeing it on TV will change my mind.

Did Thatch really say that to criticise sterling's performance on the markets was unpatriotic? That has to be Mandy or Campbell who came up with that - I can't see Brown having the wit or intelligence for it. Can't sbdy throw the response of the Labour leadership at the time back at Brown when he says things like that? Seems valid to me.

[Mark Fulford]

No Raj I criticisie Cameron and Osborne because I think theyr'e weak and have no ideas in how to help with the present problems.

Gezmond007 and Jack Stone must be related.

Tim and Jonathan, I don't know how you resist the urge to use IP addresses to "out" trolls.

Alistair Burt, perhaps Conservative MPs should boycott PMQs on the basis that, without any answers, there’s no point in them. How would that play out in the media?

[GB£.com]

I agree with Alistair @ 13:06.

Cameron should have seen the 'unBritish' comment coming and asked Brown that if it is unBritish to highlight the collapse of the pound, how would the PM describe someone whose policies actually caused it to collapse.

[pp]

gezmond007 - you don't have a daughter whos name starts with L and is into owl's do you?

As it happnes I think the lib dems are hopeless, and Labour are very dangerous, but I don't spend time on lib-dem blogs saying so... What would be the point of that? The lib-dems already know they are hopeless (and like it that way) and everyone knows that Labour are dangeous (although it is probably only brown who likes it that way)...

If I think there are flaws with the tories, I'll say why and what I think should be done about it -- maybe once or twice, no point in wasting peoples time by repeating stuff over and over is there...

[Raj]

Regarding tax rises and my special group I am a member of a special group , a businessman who is very worried about going under and at present only Labour are offering policies that are helpful to keep the economy going

How would a big tax rise after the next general election keep you from going under?

Sorry, your lies are so obvious...

[Iain]

I thought the most damaging point Cameron made was pointing out that Brown didn't seem to understand the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy, a point which probably went over peoples heads, and a point that Cameron didn't fully exploit.

[gezmond007]

PP the answer is no , a very strange question ! Raj your Blue Mist is down again !

[onemarcus]

Labour are turning us back to the 1970's when it was thought that you could spend your way out of a economic crisis, that never worked then and it won't work now.

Even Brown said in 1997 you can't spend your way out of a crisis and now he is disagreeing with himself.

And lets face this extra spending that he is planning to make is coming from extra borrowing against my money and your money Gezmond as a business man you know that eventually you have to pay for that lending and we will pay with vastly increased taxes. How will that help the economy how will that help the pound, how will that help your business, how will that help employment? it won't it will damage all of them as it did in the 1970's.

Statesmen stick to what they say they belive in, they don't make u turns, to say you can't spend your way out of a crisis one year and then say you will in another is not the actions of any statesmen.

[Louise]

Mark - because it would stifle debate? Perhaps you would prefer it if this became a board where people were only allowed to praise Cameron and demonise Brown. Personally I think DC should be calmer at PMQs, all he does to me is come across like Donald Duck in an eiderdown factory. I know people who were turned off by his Baby P behaviour last week.

I didn't see PMQs, sounds pretty ordinary, not going to get into a slanging match; Brown still doesn't answer the question but Blair never did, so nothing new there. But people must understand that there are other points of view to fanatical loyalty out there. If Cameron was worth praising, I'd do so, but I'm here really to discuss the issues I have with things he does. It would be a waste of my time to sing the Hallelujah chorus every time I came here. I think we should be happy Gez as a non-partisan person comes here and tells us what's wrong.

If it helps I've declared my past membership of the Labour Party but I'd never go back. When I joined the Tories I felt the level of debate and the accommodation of different viewpoints refreshing from the heavy-handed Labour enforcement of conformism. I left my ex-boyfriend - solid Labour activist - because he wanted to come incognito to Tory events and "laugh at the opposition". Evidently we've learned a lot from them if we can't be grown up enough to accept there are other points of view.

[GB£.com]

"How would a big tax rise after the next general election keep you from going under?

Immediate tax cuts could counter the failure of banks to increase lending.

It could provide the vital difference to whether a company even lasts until after the next election.

[James]

Friends,

I am afraid that Simon Heffer got it right in his commentary today 'The Conservatives will not win the next election, Labour will get an undeserved fourth term in power' and he is right. The party put all of the good work that was done by David in the bin.Yesterdays announcement was silly. All people are talking about today is how we will cut spending on hospitals and schools. These are real people in coffee bars and waiting for trains. A chap who I chat to at my local station and who is an elderly party member says that our time has gone once again. You see, people do not care what things will cost them in the future, how do you think we got into this mess to start with? so all they will see is there mortgage being reduced and their taxes being cut, they will not care what the long term affect will be.

It is with the above in mind that action needs to be taken. But what action? Does 'Osborne' have to go? well that would play right into Labours hands. You can only imagine the headlines. The answer is that David needs to get strong. He lost PMQ'S again today, it pains me to say it, but he did. He comes across as weak. And when 'Broon' opens his mouth and starts with 'I will tell teh leader of the opposition the difference......' then it becomes embarrassing. It is like a naughty little school boy being chastised by his teacher.

Friends...Something needs to change or we will be crying into our glasses of Chablis the morning after the next election.

[Peter Buss]

One of the many successes of Cameron has been in changing the perception of the Toy Party from an uncaring rabble to a Party concerned for all,including the less well off and public services.In so doing he has attracted the swing voter and people like me who used to vote Tory until 1997.
I believe he now stands in great danger of putting all that at risk.Browns refrain that the Tories are not interested in helping people through these "difficult times" (wretched over used phrase though that is) has the potential to have very great traction with the voters.
I think Cameron has to be very, very careful in how he responds to the PBR Statement.For example does he really want to stand opposed to an increase in the fuel allowances for pensioners !!Politically and morally disastrous in my view. My worry is that by satisfying the core vote, thats all he will now get in the opinion polls.We're back to 2001 and 2005.
The other problem I have is what is so awful about a fiscal stimulus which even the IOD are backing - they are not known for fiscal recklesness for goodness sake.
Voters may well partially blame Brown for this lot, but will now judge on who is best to get us out of the mess.Voters partially blamed Maggie for the Falklands invasion but were far more comncened in getting them back.Surely the same situation.
I remain a great admirer of Cameron but I worry that he is being pushed back to the old ground.

[Norm Brainer]

It is like a naughty little school boy being chastised by his teacher.

Near the start of the questionning I would say that Cameron wasn't strong, but definatley when brown was "answering" the last one he sounded more like a snivelling child.... "but but but...you smell"

[harris]

Another dismal performance by Mister Cameron. His quoting of Derek Scott was pathetic point-scoring. I predict Labour leading in the polls taking immediately after the Pre Budget Report, but a lot depends on Osborne´s performance of course. If he comes across as badly as usual, its curtains for him - and probably for Cameron as well.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark - because it would stifle debate?

Louise, by definition trolls don't add to the debate. Until now it hadn't occurred to me that you'd be affected by them being outed. Should we take it as an admission?

[Michael McGowan]

Peter Buss, you might care to think a bit harder about the consequences of Brown throwing yet more borrowed money around. He will direct any tax cuts at Labour's client constituencies. The bill for those cuts (i.e. more borrowing and higher taxes) will then be handed to the middle classes and above all the young. Thanks to university tuition fees, high house prices and the destruction of the pension system since 1997, those under 35 are being taxed as never before, not least to pay for public sector final salary pensions to which they will never be entitled. So Cameron is in fact being entirely fair in opposing Brown's crude attempt to bribe Labour's core vote. You should also bear in mind that slashing interest rates is destroying the incomes of those who live on savings: notably, the pensioners whom you claim to care about. If you like what Brown is doing, then of course you should carry on voting for him. Just don't blame if you and your children get lousy rationed healthcare, very poor state schools, spiralling violent crime and your pension continues to shrink. You will have brought it on yourself.

[Mark M]

To Peter Buss at 14:05, 19/11/08:

Nick Robinson (!!) has already started to put the boot in on this via his blog on the BBC website: He's asking what services the Tories will cut if they are not going to match Labour's spending plans.

Its a fair point and I expect the Tory front bench to have an answer. That said, while Robinson is very keen to analyse the finer points of Tory policy statements such as this I don't see him doing the same with Labour's policy pronouncements. By and large Robinson seems to accept without challenge the Labour line that their spending and fiscal plans are "the right thing to do" - if only because all other industrialised countries are doing sthg similar.

Oh to have a BBC political correspondence that could, on occasion, think such things through. And be impartial ofcourse.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Malcolm Dunn @ 12.28 - PMQ's isn't the only thread that gezmond00? graces with his ?wit.

Louise @ 13.34 - 'People must understand there are other points of view to fanatical loyalty out there.' There are also other points of view than fanatical and persistent criticism, AND people who don't necessarily criticise non-stop do NOT necessarily praise all the time either!

By the way the Hallelujah chorus is succinct and concise.

[Peter Buss]

Mark M - cheers and thanks for that. I agree with you about Nick R., but would now include Sky whose reporting over the weekend of Osbourne's comments was frankly disgracefully partisan.

Michael McGowan. Thanks for your reply - patronising though it was !!
I was only trying to be helpful to the Cause.You don't have to bother to listen but there are millions of voters like me who used to vote Tory for yonks and then found the Party "not fit for pupose" until Cameron came along.I have no time for Brown whatsoever but should the Tories lurch back to what they were before Cameron then I (and loads of others) would say a "plague on your house" as we did in 2001 and 2005. I am still hoping and believing that Cameron will stay true to his prinicples and not give in to those in the Party who probably think it was the electorate who needed to change and not them.If he does then sadly you will get the same result in the next election as the previous 3.
My point is simply this, that for the Tories (and I am one!!) to give any hostage to fortune of being the same "old uncaring Tories " would be fatal.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Mark M | November 19, 2008 at 14:27

By and large Robinson seems to accept without challenge the Labour line that their spending and fiscal plans are "the right thing to do" - if only because all other industrialised countries are doing sthg similar.

Oh, and the IoD and the CBI and the IMF...

And in fairness, when Robinson asked about cuts:

ROBINSON: Is it your plan to cut spending so that taxes don't have to go up under a Conservative government?

CAMERON: Basically yes.

He could have said, no, we just won't increase spending by as much (which appears to be the policy). He later clarifies this, but that's not the impression he is giving. It's hardly surprising the media is in a muddle.

Robinson adds:

So, to avoid tax rises after the next election is David Cameron saying that public spending will have to rise by around £15bn less than under Labour?

P.S. Before anyone writes in to point out the difference between a cut and a slower rate of increase in public spending, I do know the difference. Indeed, I once had a rather memorable exchange with Tony Blair about just that distinction when during the 2005 election campaign he unveiled a poster claiming that the Conservative Party would initiate cuts of £35bn.

[Ian Bennett]

I cannot hold on to my temper any longer.

As a Tory voter for over 50 years,I have never seen such an inept pair of charlies leading our great Party.

Yesterdays announcement and the corner Cameron has now put himself in to,effectively,as others have said making him look like he is anti-pensioner,anti low paid will lose us the next election,then what?

Grandiose and pathetic gestures like yesterday defy all logic - if Cameron wanted to de-associate himself from Labour spending plans in 2010-2011 what better time than in an all guns blazing retually of the Pre Budget report,after it had happened with a point by point outlined view of exatly what we would do NOW! NOT IN 2011 - followed by an assertion that in due course we would announce our future plans.

Cameron and Osborne SIMPLY HAVE TO GO NOW! - Davis and Clarke are the DREAM TICKET

PLEASE LET US HAVE A VOTE ON HERE ON IT - Dont supress the angst of the growing grass roots revolt any longer!

[Michael McGowan]

Peter Buss, if you think that placing some modest restraints on Brown's planned explosion of unfunded public spending is being an "uncaring" Tory, then you should carry on voting as you have done since 1997. Much good it has done you (or anyone else) so far. Not being a chancer running for office, I don't have to subscribe to the fiction that the electorate is always right and doesn't have to change. All those fools who voted for the new dawn in 1997, as well as many innocents, are in for a very rough ride as some very nasty financial changes are imposed on them. However, they made their own NuLabour bed. Now they will have to lie in it.

[Mike]

Ian,

Back to the future will not work.

As for yesterday's announcement, the figures on Brown's spending for 2010 & 2011 are completely unsustainable.

He will either have to borrow another £200bn over the next three years or slowdown spending.

This is another 1978 moment in the making. What happened yesterday is the Tories being far, far more responsible.

I played around with the numbers, allowing spending to increase by 1%GDP year-on-year rather than Brown's splurge would reduce the borrowing requirement by £70bn.

There would still be growth in spending, just not as much.

All us Tories can do, is recommend an alternative course of action, that is all.

As for those that think a tax cut now is going to win popularity, I believe the 'unaffordable' message has sunk in.

Feel-good factors are not switched on and off like a light-bulb.

[David Belchamber]

"Cameron quotes former government economic adviser Derek Scott as having said that it was "drivel" that the recession was not the Government's making".

That really is not nearly enough; of course it is correct but in PMQs you do not have time to argue a point fully. The background to "Brown's Recession" needs articles in the paper (like John Major's), speeches based on John Redwood's blogs, the wider publication of Howard Flight's pamphlet "From Boom to Bust" etc.

The background to this picture has never been painted in at the proper time, which was a long time ago. It still isn't too late to do it, but the party better get on with it fast.

What can be stated succinctly at PMQs is that all Labour governments end up with boom and bust; in 1968 the government also had to devalue and cut public spending, in 1976, the government had to go cap in hand to the IMF, who made it cut spending and this time Brown has managed to turn a golden legacy into the largest burden of debt of EU countries, which he intends to increase still more.

We haven't even been able to nail Brown about what percentage of GDP government debt actually is, so he always wriggles off the hook.

Whoever is overall responsible for promoting the conservative's assessment of Brown's stewardship of the economy should be woken up.

[Justine Brown]

Why can't they take Labour on over crime, and law and order more? It's not just the economy.

Those of us who are worried about crime aren't getting a look-in.

We have to bring back the stocks, and leave people in there to rot, in public.

[johnC]

We were absolutely right to drop our commitment to match Labour's absurd spending plans. Now we need to keep our nerve and to the question 'what services will you cut ?' answer: 'none, but we will cut a lot of unnecessary waste and ensure good value for money.'
As for fiscal stimulus, there is the world of difference between tax cuts funded by savings in public expenditure and tax cuts funded by yet more unaffordable government borrowing.

[Susan]

Davis and Clarke are not "the dream ticket". Everyone knows that whether they are Conservative voters or not. That day, if ever it was, has long gone and to my mind it was never a proposition.

John C above has it - we need to be strong and steady and outline to the public the areas where we feel cutbacks can be made. Unfortunately, there are now almost 7m people employed by the State and 2m on benefits and that's a hefty proportion of the electorate.

Why can't the the tax threshold be raised to 10-15k a year and so abolish all the concomitant costs that go with administering tax credits? What's needed is a simple guide to what the Conservative Party will do if elected to office - not a Blair-like 'pledge card' which was insulting nonsense and aimed at 'the thick proles' Labour thought it had identified. The British electorate are not innately stupid and this will be a major cause of Labour's downfall.