Osborne: Britain won't be fooled by Brown's "tax cons"

George Osborne has just spoken to a private meeting of the parliamentary party.  He received a warm reception but one that was "far from ecstatic" according to one source and "conditional" according to another.

He said that the party needed to make it very clear that the economic crisis engulfing Britain was not imported from America but made in Britain.  America was not responsible for Britain's record private and public debt, he said.  America was not responsible for the fact that the UK's recession was likeliest to be the deepest of all major developed economies.

He went on to say that the British people would not be fooled by tax giveaways.  It was vital that the Tories presented the expected tax cuts in next week's Pre Budget Report as "tax cons".  The party needed to be super-disciplined, he said, in relentlessly driving home the message that Brown was - yet again - treating the British people as fools.

Earlier he received significant vindication from the Monetary Policy Committee for his view that fiscal irresponsibility could imperil an expansionary monetary policy.  James Forsyth has blogged that the MPC minutes reveal that deeper rate cuts are dependent upon announcements in the PBR.

Comments

[Votedave]

I agree with what George Osborne says. As long as this message - and it's a very good one - is hammered home constantly, perhaps now the media will give us a fair hearing instead of relentlessly promoting Gordon Brown's deeply flawed tax plans.

[ChrisD]

"He received a warm response but one that was "far from ecstatic" according to one source and "conditional" according to another"

Hmmm, usual sources, and usual suspects no doubt. And the fact that they have already rushed to brief you says in this way says it all really.

Luckily Obama had a much more loyal bunch in his team, they didn't panic at every bend in the road or rush to attack one of their own in this way.
It really does not show them in a good light, especially right now. Pompous and arrogant springs to mind. It always serves to remind me why we were seen as the most nasty and disloyal party by the electorate for so long.

They never fail to disappoint!

Never mind, A little bit of vindication for Osborne

James Forsyth at the Coffee House Blog reports that "A few weeks ago, George Osborne warned that excessive government borrowing would make it harder for the Bank of England to cut interest rates. Labour responded by calling him “out of his depth”. Now, we see from the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting that the Bank held off from a deeper cut in rates until it had seen the pre-Budget report—in other words, until it had seen how much more the government intends to borrow. So, Osborne was right after all."

[griswold]

Agree that UK public must be told the truth about the causes of the collapse. Most of them were involved anyway so they will know.

As important is setting out a coherent Recovery Plan that is based on a comprehensive understanding of the structural problems inherent in the UK plc body corporate.

The Conservatives should even consider writing off victory at next election in favour of being brutally honest with the electorate that the size of the state must be reduced, social welfare benefits curtailed, the NHS reformed and state school system completely revamped(vouchers). The policies will be shouted down. But given another 4/5 years of Brown's destruction of the UK it will be back to TINA. Deja Vu.

[Richard Carey]

"George Osborne has just spoken to a private meeting of the parliamentary party."

A pity that it didn't stay that way, then.

"He received a warm reception but one that was "far from ecstatic" according to one source and "conditional" according to another."

So that's at least two egotistical back-bench dud-heads who obviously fell asleep during the part that said

"The party needed to be super-disciplined..."

If this had happened in the Labour Party on Campbell's watch, they might have been found strung up by their fingernails in the morning! (That's a joke, for those without a sense of humour.) Certainly their actions are not appreciated by this volunteer.

And just to head off the predictable remarks about George Osborne and "private conversations" from some of our fellow travellers here, I'm quite happy that the new Business Secretary's views about our Prime Minister under whom he serves are now on the record - I think that is a matter of legitimate public interest. Better luck in nailing the slippery sod to the wall next time!

[Patsy Sergeant]

griswold @ 20.06 - 'Agree that the UK public must be told the truth about the causes of the collapse. Most of them were involved anyway so they will know.'

I am afraid 'griswold' I would disagree with the last sentence.

For a start I think that a large number of the 'British public' are political and economic innocents, indeed you may recollect that IDS was in the paper a couple of weeks ago suggesting that there should be classes in schools, for managing ones finances - which after all is a very basic economics.

Then on the subject of debt, it seems to me that some people (quite a few people in fact) have what can only be described as a very odd concept of plastic money (the credit card)! And that 'odd attitude' does NOT include worrying unduly about how to repay the money that they owe on the card! Some people really do seem to think that if they ignore the existence of the debt - which after all cannot be seen or touched, then it will 'go away', or doesn't really exist!

Rather like the student who, on BBC lunchtime news after the Chernobyl explosion and radiation leak, said that it was Western propaganda, BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING!! By the next news bulletin he was lost to history, so we never heard his possible reaction to the radiation sickness suffered by so many as a direct result of the 'accident'!!

[Tim Montgomerie]

Chris, Richard: Two Team Cameron members have also briefed me on the meeting this evening. Let's focus on the message that GO delivered - rather than how it got to ConHome.

[John Coles]

Pity that Mr Osborne cannot take the next step and point out that Brown is wasting money and that he would stop this by cutting the following projects/activities....well, I don't need to list them, most Conservative readers could put together a list in a few minutes that would potentially save tens of billions of pounds.

[The Bishop Swine]

"For a start I think that a large number of the 'British public' are political and economic innocents, indeed you may recollect that IDS was in the paper a couple of weeks ago suggesting that there should be classes in schools, for managing ones finances - which after all is a very basic economics."

Absolutely the right assessment. The need for lessons in reality has never been more pressing. Our children should leave school financially literate with at least a good grasp of such concepts as budgeting and basic bookkeeping.They should be taught about credit and mortgages and the basics about the stock market.The reason that these subjects are not taught has its roots in early 19th Century ideas about what the great unwashed should be taught.
The days when we wanted (or needed) cannon fodder and then later factory fodder, are well behind us. In this modern world the more people who can set their own course through life the better. So will we get this sort of reform? I hope so, but I do not expect much movement from the Labour party. After all a dependant voter is one who is far more likely to vote for Labour and big government. Not only is it essential that children leave school with a sound understanding of money, they should also be equipped and encouraged to become entrepreneurs. I would like to see these ideas framed in our next manifesto.

[Andrew Lilico]

Tim - have you read the MPC minutes that you refer to, or are you relying on Forsyth's interpretation or is this some kind of CCHQ spin that he's buying? Because you need to kill this *fast* or we are going to look ridiculous. Because the minutes are quite clear about what is meant (indeed, it's quite clear even from the Sky News article to which Forsyth links). The MPC regards fiscal stimulus as possible and a good idea (as explained by King at the press conference) and because of that (a line that is in flat contradiction to our Front Bench, not in "vindication" of them one tiny bit) the MPC thought it made sense to see how much fiscal stimulus there would be - if the fiscal stimulus is large, that will (in the MPC's view) be *helpful* and hence mean that interest rates don't *need* to be cut as fast to counter recession (*not*, contra Cameron, that they *can't* be cut as fast because of either inflation or the risk of sovereign default).

Forsyth is way off the mark here, and this needs to be nipped in the bud before we are made to look stupid.

[Clive]

Describing the upcoming tax cuts as "tax cons" seems to me to be unwise.
We should call then "short term bribes" and emphasise that people will be paying that money, and more, back to Brown's government later on.

Also I don't think we do ourselves any favours by calling it Brown's economic crisis and denying it was caused in America. Everybody is fully aware of the international nature of this problem. We should concentrate on emphasising how Brown's handling of the economy has put us in such a terrible position, in comparison to other countries, to recover from this crisis.
I just worry that we will be the ones who look as though we are treating the British people as fools.

[ChrisD]

"Tim - have you read the MPC minutes that you refer to, or are you relying on Forsyth's interpretation or is this some kind of CCHQ spin that he's buying?"

I am going to stick my neck out here, you are, I believe advocating a big bang tax cutting agenda?

Now, if I read this correctly, big tax cuts and slashing interests at the same time might not be a good thing with high borrowing levels. Quite simple, it might cause a real problem with Sterling. The BoE chose to wait until they saw what was in the PBR before they decided if further tax cuts were possible.

I think that both the Treasury and the BoE have a worried eye on the dramatic fall of Sterling and the message it sends out to Foreign investment, and that in turn has implications for our huge public debt in the short, medium and long term.

[ChrisD]

"tax cuts" with regard the BoE should have been interest rate cuts.

[Another Richard]

"He said that the party needed to make it very clear that the economic crisis engulfing Britain was not imported from America but made in Britain. America was not responsible for Britain's record private and public debt, he said. America was not responsible for the fact that the UK's recession was likeliest to be the deepest of all major developed economies."

All very true.

So why hasn't he and the rest of the party leadership been pointing this out over the last year? Instead the Conservative economic policy was to continue Labour's economic policy.

With the serious threat of a spring election perhaps Osborne and the others will make up for their complacency with some proper campaigning over the next few months. No foreign holidays over Christmas for them would help.

[michael m]

Cameron's and Osborne's task is to burst the myth that Brown has the track record to lead the country

The slogan should be "This is no time for a serial and proven failure"

This should be hammered home at every opportunity as Brown/Blair used the 20 Tax Rises in 1994/7

Easy, but Cameron and Osborne make it seem so hard

[pp]

I think budgeting is certainly something that should be taught to children - but budgeting when people have credit cards and direct debits etc is *not* simple.

Student loans have softened up an entire generation to living off debt - it undermines all concept of saving to spend.

Cash is a great tool for managing finances (what you see is what you have got) a return to cash for everyday expenses should be encouraged.

[TomTom]

Cash is a great tool for managing finances (what you see is what you have got) a return to cash for everyday expenses should be encouraged.

Yes the banks should get more Cash - perhaps by foreclosing on borrowers and selling their houses off cheaply ?

[TomTom]

Cash is a great tool for managing finances (what you see is what you have got) a return to cash for everyday expenses should be encouraged.

Yes the banks should get more Cash - perhaps by foreclosing on borrowers and selling their houses off cheaply ?

[John Moss]

The key message remains that Gordon Brown has not balanced a busget since 2002 and borrowing another £200bn on top of the £200bn he has borrowed while in power is going to mean higher taxes in the future.

"Tax cut = tax con" doesn't play for me, because the first bit allows people to think they are going to get something now and hope that they won't be bothered or can get out of paying the tax later.

Brown's tax bombshell works for me.

[Norm Brainer]

Cash makes things harder to work out.... if everything was done on cards then there stands a chance of getting a computer to work out your budget... but it's all just numbers flying around really, money doesn't exist anyway and if their debt is unsecured and they don't have a house then you don't have to pay it back as you can write letters to get out of it or go bankrupt - there's no chance of getting beaten up or made to sleep with the fishies.... and hey, you might have won the lottery by the time the bill comes.

So yes, the thought of having to pay later doesn't bother people, but the "tax con" still works, I think.

[Iain]

"He said that the party needed to make it very clear that the economic crisis engulfing Britain was not imported from America but made in Britain."

Well as Shadow Chancellor how about Osborne doing his job and putting the blame where it belongs, unfortunately Osborne has been AWOL as Shadow Chancellor.

[ChrisD]

"Well as Shadow Chancellor how about Osborne doing his job and putting the blame where it belongs, unfortunately Osborne has been AWOL as Shadow Chancellor."

Err, no he has not. But don't let that get in the way of your usual daily diatribe.

Clarke hits out at dirty tricks campaign to oust Osbourne

"Kenneth Clarke threw his weight behind George Osborne last night as he sensationally claimed his name was being used in a dirty tricks campaign against the Shadow Chancellor.

The Tory bruiser dismissed speculation he could be brought in to replace Mr Osborne in a move designed to undermine the party leadership.

In an interview with the Daily Mail he said Mr Osborne was being 'targeted in a personalised political campaign'.

He added: 'I think my name is being used as part of this attempt to undermine George.'

His allegation will be seen as a thinly veiled dig at Right-wingers in the party who have been calling privately for Mr Osborne to be sacked.

They claim he has been left flatfooted by the economic crisis and allowed Gordon Brown to slash the Tory lead in the polls to just three points.

But Mr Clarke warned: 'I think for David Cameron to replace George Osborne with me or anyone else would be a serious political mistake. The impression it would give of self doubt, division and sudden loss of confidence in what we have been saying would be catastrophic. It would be a tritheumph for opponents of the Conservative Party.'"

That is where any real damage is/will be done to the party, usual suspects behaving in their usual manner!

[Iain]

"That is where any real damage is/will be done to the party, usual suspects behaving in their usual manner!"

The damage done to the Conservative prospects hasn't been done by people like me who have been calling for a more effective attack on Labour economic policies for several years now, but by the person who has failed in his job to take that attack to Labour, one George Osborne. As such its a bit rich that having been decried in our efforts to get the Conservatives to raise their game over economic matters, now that Conservative policy weakness has been found out by the electorate, to be told that we should shut up and its all our fault.

Sorry, the reason the Conservatives have slumped in the polls is because they have been muddled and confused over the economy, that is due to the ineffectiveness of Osborne, and to sort this problem out Cameron needs to get rid of him as Shadow Chancellor!

[GB£.com]

ChrisD/Iain,
If the 'right-wingers' are to blame for the fall in the polls, then they must equally be credited with saving the party last year by putting pressure on Osborne, resulting in the IHT cut announcement, that many were calling for before Osborne announced it.

If you want to take the credit for the poll rises, you cannot escape the blame for the bad.

So having saved the Tory party once, is that not exactly what the 'right' are doing once again?

How long have we been calling for a focus on public sector waste, an approach rejected by Cameron in May and now warmly embraced. Funny that.

Typical roons, they blame anyone but themselves for their incompetence.

[Alan S]

If Cameroons blame The Right for our slippage in the polls we are in real trouble. I don't believe they do. The reason is 80% Brown and 20% uncertainty in the Tory message.

[Ian Bennett]

Tim

There is growing resentment believe me about Osbourne and his ability,or rather lack of it,politically and economically.

It is frankly outrageous that we should not only be allowing the Government to drive this debate,but to win it.

DC is not going to get rid of GO unless someone has the guts to stand up to him and tell him how it is.I genuinely believe that the majority of the grass-roots certainly here in the midlands and in the North are desperate for change.

It is NOT a sign of weakness to reshuffle and to bring in a genuine heavy-weight - Clarke would be my first choice but Davis could do an equally devastating job - we have the message - we desperately NEED to get it accross with more humility,style,panache and experience.

Could we have an on line poll of say the obvious contenders - to be left on site for a week and then handed to DC for his perusal...

PLEASE....before it is too late!

[Raj]

It is NOT a sign of weakness to reshuffle

It will be in the public and media's eye. As much as you think it SHOULDN'T be a sign of weakness it will be interpreted as one.

Clarke would be my first choice but Davis could do an equally devastating job

Clarke has refused to replace Osbourne and has backed him - he has ruled himself out. Davis was good on Home affairs but that's because he cares about justice. I don't think he cares about money nearly as much.

Could we have an on line poll of say the obvious contenders - to be left on site for a week and then handed to DC for his perusal...

I strongly disagree with this. Conservativehome does not make policy. If you have a concern you and others can write to Cameron with your names, addresses and membership numbers. Or you can continue to write here.

If Davis becomes Shadow Chancellor and the polls don't rebound and stay up what's next - another poll demanding another replacement and another and another?

[Michael McGowan]

Judging by some of the postings in this thread, certain Cameroons would rather froth at the mouth about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against George Osborne rather than provide a clear critique of Labour and a credible alternative to Brown's utterly failed policies. Is it any surprise that Labour are catching up in the polls? Osborne is simply not up to the task. Clarke, for all his faults, has been landing the punches that matter.

[Ian Bennett]

Raj

Ken Clarke is too wise and too loyal to publically say he wants the job.

Of course he will offer his public support to Osborne when asked - he would be a fool not to.

Please dont offend anyone's intellegence by suggesting that if the men in grey coats approached him he would'nt in confidence jump at the chance!

[ChrisD]

"Judging by some of the postings in this thread, certain Cameroons would rather froth at the mouth about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against George Osborne rather than provide a clear critique of Labour and a credible alternative to Brown's utterly failed policies."

That comment is absolutely beyond parody!

You lot wouldn't be here if you couldn't this forum to b*tch about the Conservative party.

[Iain]

Raj, isn't Cameron relling us change is good?

[ChrisD]

"Please dont offend anyone's intellegence by suggesting that if the men in grey coats approached him he would'nt in confidence jump at the chance!"

No, don't offend my intelligence by thinking that some of our most successful and cleverest senior Conservatives don't know about politics.

Read Ken Clark's article, he is telling you that its bad politics!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Come on people! We can afford to indulge in introspection either after an election or when we have a massive opinion poll lead. At the moment we have neither so it up to those people who genuinely believe as I do that a Conservative government will be far better for Britain than this one to pull together.

[Raj]

Ian B

Please dont offend anyone's intellegence by suggesting that if the men in grey coats approached him he would'nt in confidence jump at the chance!

As ChrisD says, don't second-guess him. If he says he is backing Osbourne because it's the best thing, that's what he means.

Or are you saying that Clarke is two-faced, dishonest and power-hungry? If so I don't want him on the front-bench because soon enough he'd turn the Tories in on themselves to forward his own career.

[Raj]

At the moment we have neither so it up to those people who genuinely believe as I do that a Conservative government will be far better for Britain than this one to pull together.

Malcolm, you fail to realise that some "Tories" would prefer to see their party crash and burn at the next election than win it under Cameron. To them Cameron is everything they hate - they will not be satisfied until a right-wing, big tax-cutting/spending-slashing leader is elected.

Yes, they tried right-wing with Hague, IDS and Howard and it got them nowhere. But they are so stubborn they will never learn.

[GB£.com]

"I don't want him on the front-bench because soon enough he'd turn the Tories in on themselves to forward his own career."

Exactly what is happening now over Osborne's desire to remain Shadow Chancellor in the face of growing calls for change.

[Michael McGowan]

OK ChrisD, if you have all the answers, show me the steady systematic attempts by the Opposition over the last 12 months to shred Brown's faux-credibility as an economic genius?? This man has sailed the Titanic at full speed into the iceberg and is now proclaiming that all will be well if Happy Hour is extended in the first class bar. Yet until 72 hours ago, the Tories were promising to spend as much as Labour, whatever number that happened to be, regardless of circumstances.

And by the way, when it comes to bitching and backstabbing, none of us need lectures from the Modernisers....who could give the Borgias a run for their money on that score.

[GB£.com]

Cameron from May 19th 2008, just 6 months ago on finding public sector waste savings:

"But I do not believe in simplistic lists of cuts. In naïve over-estimations of potential savings. Or in cobbling together a big number in order to get a good headline."

OK, that is clear. Cameron did not believe in finding a list of potential savings. He didn't say that this wasn't the time to find savings, but that he does not believe in the idea of finding a list of cuts. But now he does.

It is not simply about coming up with an eye-catching policy today and expecting an instant poll bounce, but believing in something, working hard to communicate that belief over time, then introducing the policy that compliments those beliefs.

How is Cameron going to find a list of waste savings for 'funded tax cuts' if he doesn't believe in the idea of finding those savings?

And you wonder why people are confused and thus turning against the roonies.

[Raj]

How is Cameron going to find a list of waste savings for 'funded tax cuts' if he doesn't believe in the idea of finding those savings?

I think you're misrepresenting his comments. He didn't say he was opposed to cuts in spending, he was saying he didn't believe in simply listing things that could be cut as if that would instantly provide all the revenue required.

[Raj]

Exactly what is happening now over Osborne's desire to remain Shadow Chancellor in the face of growing calls for change.

That is ridiculous. He was put into the position and the leader wants him to stay. If people like Clarke are lining up behind him and he thinks he can do the job, why should he go? Conservativehome is a place to voice opinions, not dictate what happens in the Conservative Party.

+++

And by the way, when it comes to bitching and backstabbing, none of us need lectures from the Modernisers....

Michael, when did any modernisers stab previous leaders in the back? They may have pushed for someone else, but they didn't bring them down prematurely - IDS was forced out by just about everyone. Yet once again when the stick-in-the-muds are not controlling things they bring the knives out at the first sign of trouble.

If things carry on like this I don't think the Tories deserve to form the next government. Why vote for people who turn on each other whenever there's a challenge to face? Nothing would ever get done, it would just be people pushing their own petty agendas.

[Ian Bennett]

Raj

I did NOT vote for Cameron,I voted for DD.

I feel totally vindicated and whats more I know a sizeable majority of my local party,most of whom voted for Cameron,feel exactly the same way as I do.

He is opposed by the most unpopular,disgusting,awful,inept Government this Country has ever seen.He basked in a false opinion poll lead and whilst he should have been meticulously planning for the future and the reality of modern day Tory politics,a lead of around 6-8% on the ground not the 25% his inflated ego believes,the shrewdest,dirtiest,most opportune political beast of our generation i.e Broon - moved against him.Cameron is weak and nieve,he did'nt see it coming- in response the tone is shrill and flustered,the response ill thought out and weak and the opportunity is slipping not form his grasp - but from ours.

I ask myself where did this clown come from??...a 30 minute standup routine to rouse the Tory ladies conference - thats what he did at annual conference 3 years ago - and a slick salesmans pitch a year ago when he started with the immortal and only true words spoken that day "I am going to speak without me,but its all me,no notes,so it might not be very good" - do not hide the fact,he is OUT of his political depth.

We gavce him the job 10 years too soon - we should have given the job to DD - we MUST not back a dead horse any longer - time and politics will not forgive us if we dont!

[Malcolm Dunn]

I couldn't agree with you more Raj. Labour showed so much discipline between 92-97, why can't we?

[Raj]

I did NOT vote for Cameron,I voted for DD..[waah-waah-waah]

My earlier point (@12.25) proven.

[Ian Bennett]

Malcolm - The LABOUR discipline you refer to was lets be brutally frank a fluke born out of tragedy!
When John Smith,one of the few respected politicians of his era from the Kinnock Labour Parrty died,a myth was born.A myth that out of reverence to Smith,they should stop the in-fighting and focus on honouring Smith by winning an election.What emerged was a Blair/Brown truce that festered below the surface just long enough for them to hide,and our economic re-generation which they piggy backed cleverly on to!
There are NO similarities between Smith and Cameron,and no lessons to learn from that period of Labour politics.
We simply have to take the bull by the horns before its too late,take the step that will galvanise the true party workers on the ground and make the COUNTRY AND THE FLOATING VOTERS IN THOSE KEY MARGINALS aware we mean business....serious politics for the gravest of time = Davis and Clarke!

[GB£.com]

Raj says: "he[Cameron] was saying he didn't believe in simply listing things that could be cut as if that would instantly provide all the revenue required."

The Times, 18th Nov (other papers too)
"He [Cameron] has asked a team of strategists to study Whitehall budgets in order to find potential savings to fund future tax cuts."

Hmmm....

[Iain]

"Alistair Darling's problems over the rapidly worsening state of the Government's finances mounted today ahead of Monday's critical Pre-Budget Report.

The Treasury slid deeper into the red as tax revenues continued to fall short of the Chancellor's plans, forcing him to borrow last month for the first time in any October since 1994.

The public finances were in red by £1.8 billion last month, compared with a surplus of £1.4 billion registered in October last year, in the latest symptom of growing stresses on the Treasury's books."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5196900.ece

Lets see how quick off the mark the Shadow Treasury team are to link this with the unaffordability of Brown's fiscal stimulus ?

Nothing so far, on World at One they had Yvette Cooper extolling how wonderfully well placed the economy is to weather the economic storm having reduced debt. So here an issue the Conservative party should have corrected months and months ago is still being used by Labour as an achievement.

With complacency like that its no wonder the Conservatives have lost their lead!

[toryjoan]

Ian

Whislt I think your tone is maybe too agreesive against Cameron I do fundamentally agree with your logical arguments.

I can only speak for myown well established CP - a straw poll last week indicated 75% of members wanted Osborne removed immediately, the favoured replacement was Letwin,followed by Clarke and Hague.

Interestingly,35% wanted Cameron to move too,and Davis was the unanimous choice - the shift back to him away from Cameron has been stark in the past 3 months -

not a scientific poll I admit but any local Constituency Party with a sitting MP with a majority of less than 2000 like mine has to be very seriously worried by the backdraft of opinion that is building - I just pray the media dont pick up on it before its too late.

[Raj]

Hmmm....

I don't see the contradiction. When you originally quoted him he didn't say he would not make efficiency savings or cuts to any budget, did he?

Out of curiosity, what did he say before and after that selection? The "but" implies he said something on efficient government before.

[Raj]

It's also worth pointing out that before the financial crisis hit, listing things to cut was probably not a smart idea. Of course cuts would probably be made, but saying you'll have to cut when things aren't looking quite so bad (at least in the public's mind) makes them think about front-line services.

Now that finances are in a worse shape "efficiency savings" are more palatable.

[Michael McGowan]

The problem with discipline is that, while important, it is not an end in itself. The French Army mutinied in 1917 because discipline is not a cure for failed tactics. Rather it prolongs the agony. If Osborne wants to get back in the saddle PDQ, then I suggest: (a) cut the paranoid Nixonesque rants about Redwoods-under-the-bed; and (b) read Willem Buiter's article in today's FT about the parallels between the UK and Iceland. Pour yourself a stiff drink before you do (b).

[JohnfromCamberley]

Well, I've jusy read through the posts on this thread, and at least half of them positively reek of panic. Panic stirred up equally by anti-Cameron types and trolls, both working hand-in-hand for their shared objective, which is no Conservative government this side of 2015.

Cameron is here, well supported by those around him, and therefore here to stay.

The same can be said for Osborne.

Our good performance in the polls a while ago came from the 10p tax issue, Labour funding accusations and a few things else, followed by us plugging along consistently with our fundamental message.

Our poor performance in the polls comes from Labour having got its act together, minds focussed by a desire to appear to be doing something useful in the face of the banking crisis and recession. And we are still plugging along with our message (apart from on this site!).

One of the big things that holds us back is the unprecedentally hostile media If we were to do one single thing that would have the biggest impact on our poll ratings it would be to find a way of getting the media, especially the BBC, back to a position of neutrality. We don't need to change one iota of our political message, just sort out how it is presented.

The absolute last thing we want is to have a shrill argument about personalities. Labour are reading this thread, smirking, smiling, laughing, congratulating themselves, and worst of all, working out cunning little stunts for how they can exploit and enhance this disunity.

DON'T DO LABOUR'S WORK FOR THEM!

[GB£.com]

"It's also worth pointing out that before the financial crisis hit, listing things to cut was probably not a smart idea."

May was before the financial crisis hit?! Only in Roon-world.

ROTFL. That is exactly what the criticism of the roons has been, that they were the last to notice the crisis was that occurring around them.

By May 19th Investment banks had collapsed and the others were shedding thousands of jobs to prevent themselves from collapsing but as you will note from that speech, Cameron was still busy telling us that he would be to social reform what Thatcher was to economic reform.

Cameron was embarrassingly out of step with world events and has struggled to catch up convincingly since, hence the massive fall in the polls.

So don't blame the 'right', blame the wroong!

[Raj]

May was before the financial crisis hit?! Only in Roon-world.

Read what I said - stop taking things out of context. I said quite clearly that things weren't so bad at least in the public's eye. To them the financial crisis happened after the summer. That is why there was no need to start going on about the need to slash spending left, right and centre.

Now are you going to quote what Cameron said around your speech-bubble, or should I assume you're trying to hide that he said something about efficiency?

hence the massive fall in the polls

Which were overinflated to begin with and built up under his stewardship. If we had stuck with people like Hague, IDS and Howard you would have never seen leads like that in the first place.

So don't blame the 'right', blame the wroong!

Sure, because the right got it correct in 2001 and 2005 didn't they? Such smashing election victories.

[GB£.com]

Raj, I voted and campaigned for Cameron. I don't regret voting for Cameron and if the GE is called before the Lisbon treaty is ratified then I'll be voting Cameron no matter what.

However, if you look back at the 'lessons learned' here from 2005 you'll find that the key lesson was about balance.

That is as important today as it was then. The roons went so far in the other direction, they briefly touched equilibrium then kept going create a new imbalance.

However, if the GE isn't called until 2010, then I'd have to say that on current dismal economic performance from the roons, which direction my vote goes in is 'game on'.

[Iain]

"Sure, because the right got it correct in 2001 and 2005 didn't they? Such smashing election victories."

Well the electorate liked Conservative policies in the 2005 election, what they didn't like was the Conservative party!

[Raj]

Also, before I forget to raise this, perhaps you could tell us how Cameron won Crewe and Nantwich by such a large margin in that same month (May) if his comments weren't resounding with the electorate? Clearly he was saying the right thing at the time.

[Raj]

GB£

The roons went so far in the other direction, they briefly touched equilibrium then kept going create a new imbalance.

Iain makes the point about the 2005 problem. Cameron had to detoxify his party, which required radical thinking. He was criticised to begin with but eventually it paid off. Perhaps he and his supporters could have brought the economy into things more, but any "imbalance" you mention was probably caused by the reactionaries in the party trying to slow him down and having to be overcome with even more force. The situation between now and 2005 is still vast, as the party can convince people to vote for them. Indeed, when was the last time it kept polling 40% or more?

Perhaps things could have been done differently, but unless you have a Tardis handy you have to look forward. Complaining about the "Roons", which is actually disrespectful towards anyone still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, does nothing other than make yourself feel better and annoy others who haven't given the leadership a blank cheque.

You should be voting Conservative for many reasons. Even staying at home is a vote for Gordon Brown's future tax rises, ID cards and the rest. It's up to you, but as far as I can see there is no choice.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Ian Bennet, the Labour Party was extremely well disciplined between 92-97 .I'm not interested at all in the reasons ,it just was, and it worked . If we are serious about being the governing party we need to be disciplined too.What will it take to learn that,another defeat? How much more of this government can our country take?

[Iain]

"Perhaps things could have been done differently, but unless you have a Tardis handy you have to look forward."

Raj, It didn't need a Tardis to see what was heading our way on the economy. But if you accept that it was a party problem rather than a policy problem, then the attack on the right is wrong, as was the Conservative leadership following an uber modernisers agenda that ditched policy thinking and sought to copy Labour's policies especially over the economy.

[Raj]

But if you accept that it was a party problem rather than a policy problem, then the attack on the right is wrong, as was the Conservative leadership following an uber modernisers agenda that ditched policy thinking and sought to copy Labour's policies especially over the economy.

I think you fail to understand my point. What I was saying is that some people in the party - let's say "reactionaries" rather than "the right" - were trying to stop the reform process. That may have required a tougher push to break through. If the reactionaries had accepted that a third defeat on the trot required a new direction the change might have been more balanced. But they didn't and sought to cause mayhem to get back in the driving seat.

Again, as I said moaning about what was and wasn't done doesn't change anything. Labelling people who still support Cameron and don't think that moaning (on a public forum that has recently been quoted in the media is going to help) is a good idea as "Roons" is divisive and will exaggerate party splits rather than move things forward in a positive fashion.

If people want to make criticisms fine. But do so in a polite, constructive manner rather than lash out at people who might actually agree with you and cry about spilt milk. There is no time to stop and argue about which road would have been best to take x months ago, if the Tories are now on the right road then go along it!

[Raj]

By the way, the point about the Tardis was having one to CHANGE the past, not decide what happened.

[ChrisD]

OK ChrisD, if you have all the answers, show me the steady systematic attempts by the Opposition over the last 12 months to shred Brown's faux-credibility as an economic genius??

The polls over the last year.

Crewe&Nantwich

10p Tax con.

---------------

And now, well Malcolm makes the point perfectly.
"If we are serious about being the governing party we need to be disciplined too.What will it take to learn that,another defeat? How much more of this government can our country take?"

Discipline, unity and loyalty = a successful Conservative party.

But the problem is, that the loudest critics on here are not members of the Conservative party. They snipe from the sidelines in the hope of undermining the party while attempting to use it as a vehicle to deliver their cherry picked issues.

As someone complained upthread about the *conservative members* who don't attack Brown.
That's complete tosh!
Many of us do just that on this site, except so many of the former regulars here have disappeared because they were worn down by the constant negative carping of non Tories.
They end up spending their time defending their party instead of doing what they really want to, and that's attack Gordon Brown and this government.
Debate laced with a mix of political views is fantastic, but the constant daily negative criticism from the same people isn't debate.

There has been a very distinct group within the Conservative Parliamentary party over the last 17 years who have done more damage to the party than the New Labour spin machine could ever hope to have achieved.

I remember back when IDS was being sniped at at and undermined in the most unedifying manner possible.
Hearing Diane Abbot remark that her party were just happy not to intrude into our pain, the enjoyment being felt by the Labour party then was palpable.

I don't worry about Cameron and Osborne etc screwing up our prospects at the next GE, they will work their backsides to try and deliver a Conservative government.
No, I worry about the usual suspects who sit back in a rather pompous way in our party and demand that their policy platform of Thatcherism should be the party!
Tim unfortunately managed to make my point so beautifully on Newsnight earlier this week.

The most important thing for me right now is seeing a Conservative party in government. That is my over riding passion in politics.
This government, and the man behind its economic stewardship took a golden handshake from the last Conservative party and blew it on the biggest party thrown by a Labour government since the last war!

And the economic hangover is going to be prolonged and very painful.

And for the other poster up thread bleating about the present leaderships strategy being unpopular with the grass roots in the Midlands and the North England makes my point.
We have tanked in those area's since 97'!
We cannot do any worse there, or in Wales or Scotland than we have done in the last 11 years.

And why? Because the pinstripped Thatcherites that have spent more time trying to preserve her legacy in the 90's, and beyond, did so at the expense of improving the chances of a Conservative government. That's why we are still sitting with less than 200 MP's in Parliament!

Even Michael Foot didn't manage that!
And if Mrs Thatcher was presiding over this party right now, she would have no more truck with that attitude than I do.
Her over riding passion was politics and a successful Conservative party for the political and economic times of today.

One prediction for the next GE. A united, passionate and loyal Conservative party under David Cameron and Annabel Goldie(up here) who advocate fiscal responsibility in times of recession, will be rewarded in Scotland. Watch the borders, Edinburgh, Perthshire and the North East swing back to the Conservatives. They won't break Labour's dominance, but every seat counts and they will do their bit.
And the saying goes, every little bit counts. So, to say that Cameron and Osborne have not been successful in reaching out to other parts of the UK in a way that we have failed to in many years is wrong.
We have not seen such a recovery in our poll figures up North in many years. And we need those votes throughout the UK to win.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Well said Chris

[Raj]

ChrisD, spot on. If Maggie were here she would beat the living daylights out of people daring to invoke her name as an excuse to undermine the leadership to further their petty agendas!

Do these people have no shame? Perhaps they only use her memory because they know as an old, slightly frail woman she doesn't have the ability to intervene to shout them down.

[Ian Bennett]

"DONT DO LABOUR'S WORK FOR THEM!

John from Camberley - I totally agree.

But that is exactly what Cameron,the hopelessly inept Osborne are doing on this vital issue.

I watched Question Time last night with my hands around my face,it was soul destroying to see an able politician like Phil Hammond,trying,and failing spectacularly to explain a policy of ours that is frankly inexplicable.

NO TORY MINISTER should ever again be subjected to that - the culprit is Osborne - he needs to stop hiding and Cameron needs to replace him-if he does'nt we will not only remain in the politcal wilderness,we will implode!

I will not allow my Party to die for the sake of highlighting what the majority of the Party knows,Osborne is politically incompetent and electorially a disaster and unless David Cameron acts on this he will go down with his good friend too!

[resident leftie]

It's too late to move Osborne. You should accept that and unite behind him.

The best rule of thumb for taking people seriously on this site is whether they spell his name correctly!