« National debt counter launched on conservatives.com | Main | Safe »


You say this evry few months. The lesson should be that things are still fluid and you should stop acting like the election is tomorrow. Otherwise you will look silly next time the mail says mean things about our Gideon.

Like many, I was very much persuaded by Blair, Brown, and Mandelson, as its principal architects, that New Labour was no longer partisan, but instead represented a wholly new centre ground in politics.
I have been concerned that in recent months Brown has been tending towards the more traditional divisive language of Old Labour. I have been trying to form a judgement : Is Gordon Brown at heart New Labour or Old Labour ?
There are too many inconsistencies to enable him to fit comfortably into either camp.
Finally, I believe I have found a conclusion that fits the facts : perhaps he is neither New nor Old Labour. Perhaps he is simply a grasping opportunist with no principles who unscrupulously uses whatever language meets the needs of the day, to secure and hold on to power. What do you think ?

"What do you think ?"

#1 Bank nationalisations/recapitalisations
#2 'Green' Taxes
#3 New 45% income tax rate
#4 No plans to reduce the size of the state (just slower growth)

None of these have been opposed by the Tories, some even suggested by them. There seems to have been a wholesale parallel shift to the left by all parties, not just Labour.

GB£ it is clear that you don't like the tories, so why do you hang around here?

Rob Atkins wrote:Perhaps he is simply a grasping opportunist with no principles who unscrupulously uses whatever language meets the needs of the day, to secure and hold on to power. What do you think ?

I think you are right -- after all what has he got to look forward to when he is thrown out? Maybe become Blairs 3rd rate side kick again?


I agree, the Conservative Party did not foresee this crash coming (even I did, at least as far as UK debt was concerned, and predicted it in April 2005 at a public meeting during the General Election campaign).

Nor have the Conservatives proposed any meaningful alternatives (any reasonably informed person can see there is near on £100bn in the public sector which should be slashed and burned) and, even now, does not seem to have much of a plan other than joining Labour and the Governor of the BofE in forcing the banks to lend yet more money to people who cannot afford to pay it back.
Who in their right mind would buy a house just now? Is yet more debt to be forced upon us?

I fear that, whatever the government, there will be rioting in the streets when all the chicanes (or vultures?) come home to roost.

Lol pp!

Huh? Apart from confirming that I will be voting Tory, praising Cameron's speech the other day, praising the debt counter today, suggesting better ways to word attacks, suggesting CCHQ releases that would expose the government's growth projection lies etc etc.

Oh, but yes, I am not a partisan Cameroon. I am doing what Mr Dale suggested, fighting for change from within so we can kick out this shambles of a government.

Sorry if the criticisms touched a nerve. It was Mr Lilico who has attacked the socialist nature of Cameroon economic policy most, why not tell him to bugger off too?

Interesting Clause in the Banking Act 2008 hidden away in the lloyds-HBOS Prospectus which allows H M Treasury to cancel securities, rename banks, dispose of property, de-list shares and a whole raft of arbitrary actions....even retrospectively...until February 2009

Sliding into arbitrary government never seemed so easy

GB£ - you are a troll and you know it. It really is pathetic trying to pretend you are a Tory. At least Ukipper is honest about who he is, though why he hangs around on here is anyones guess - oh I suppose it is because loonie tune UKIP don't have enough supporters to set up their own site haha - go on prove me wrong -UKIPhome - now that really would be fun, or would the UKIP leadership worry about the views expressed on there?

As GBE.com points out, the Tories are supporting the green taxes. OPEN EUROPE has just sent out extracts from a House of Lords committee report which is scathing about the proposals.Eg. "EU energy targets unnecessary and risky, electricity bills will go up £80 per household."

The cost of these carbon emission savings and wind farms will be enormous and they may not work. We shall still be paying, of course. Not a word from Mr. Osborne or the other Tory front benchers on this.

I think the editor has warned idiots like yourself to attack the argument not the man.

I have made it clear a million times that I will be voting UKIP in the Euros and Tory in the GE.

I am a member of neither party, but seeing as we only have a choice of two people who will be PM, it makes sense to seek change in the party nearest to your own views does it not?

The party which has the likes of Dan Hannan, Philip Hollobone, Philip Davies etc in it, always has the potential for decent change.

Now, please why not seek to point out what was inaccurate in my post, not get annoyed that it highlights a truth you'd rather bury, so resort to personal attacks!

Ah Edward - another one - maybe the three of you could set up UKIP-home? Why do you UKIPers keep coming on here? Pathetic attempt at political evalangelism?

Enough off topic comments thank you.


You should beware of reading only to those views which confirm your preconceived ideas.

As for those of us who are no longer Conservatives, maybe we would return if the Tories had something constructive to offer on the economy, on our relationship with the EU, on the impending energy crisis and for a viable defence policy.
All these matters are dealt with in some detail in policies posted on the UKIP website. Maybe you should have a look:


You might be pleasantly surprised.

Personally, I do not really care which political party is in power but I do wish for good government; that seems rather a forlorn hope just now.

Actually GB£ it was not a personal attack, though yours was.Though someone who votes UKIP at any election calling someone else an idiot is really funny! Thankfully most Tories who voted in the Euro elections for UKIP in the past have realised that you don't have to be a rabid europhile to know that UKIP as an organisation are a ragbag of extremists and colonel blimps, who have helped to keep Labour in office. Any one who votes UKIP at the Euros will provide succour to Gordon Brown. Gordon loves UKIP - you might just as well put a cross in the labour box.

Sorry Tim

Since May 2007 the Daily Mail has acted as Brown's Useful Idiots- with a special mention given to both Paul Dacre and Peter Oborne. Shame on a so called Tory paper.
Little Brogan, and David Hughes before him, are apolitical as far as I can make out.

It is only worth reading for Richard Littlejohn- who should be editor.

Back on subject,( apologies for my offthread exposure of trolls), that photo really does show anyone what a wierdo we have as PM!! For those that didn't see it he was chortling away when he should have been hanging his head with shame. I am surprised it didn't make more of the papers - rather like his smug grin when he ousted Blair

So all those "Daily Mail Readers", so despised and derided by the lefties, were really voting for Tony Blair after all?

Sticking with Labour is equivalent to Captain Ahab on the whale ship Pequod who strapped himself to Moby Dick and was never seen again. I wonder how many of their MP's and infantile supporters are doing that now The Mail has turned ?

Will they stand with the Good Ship Britannia or will they end their days on the back of Labouring Moby Dick ???

We'll see how things pan out with the Mail. It has never been good to the Labour Party but has occasionally been nicer than I expected to Gordon Brown who it saw as an improvement on Blair.
The final arbiter is not Brogan but Dacre who is apparently friendly with the Browns.I think if the Mail feels that Labour will not be able to fight back and have a chance of winning the next election they will abandon Brown (same goes for his few remaining friends at News Int).
PS Nigel J ,GB£ used to run a website called UKIPHome, it's now defunct as after a short period of membership of the Conservative Party he abandoned UKIP after a year or two.

Daily Mail supports Tories - dislikes redistributive taxation policy - bear defecates in tree-covered area.

Hey, here is a spooky cycle stat that we have just spotted that could become an internet favorite.

Times when Britain has been in massive financial problems, needing to raise massive loans:

1914: First ever war loans introduced in November 1914.

1945: Britain receives big loan from US to stave of bankruptcy.

1976: Britain needs IMF loan to stave of bankruptcy.

2007: Credit crunch begins.

The link between them? The prime number 31. There are 31 years between each date.

"Daily Mail supports Tories - dislikes redistributive taxation policy"

To know this, assuming it to be true, you must be a "Daily Mail Reader”, Resident Leftie, thus proving that at least some “Daily Mail Readers” are indeed supporters of the Labour Government!

Can we really afford the £106000 per minute (55 billion per year) net cost of EU membership? And for what?

Doesn't say much for the Daily Mail's judgement does it? Why has it taken over 11 years to wake up?
When after 15 years of growth, we'll borrow 80 billion pounds. Didn't just happen yesterday.
What about selling the gold at 20 year low? stealing 5 Billion a year from the pension funds? Tax Credit fiasco? Brown's FSA overseeing the Financial Sector?

My advice is to choose another rag.

GB£.com there's another link between 1945, 1976 & 2007. Labour Governments!

Alright, I'll forgive them 1945 - even they hadn't had time to screw it up. They needed 6 whole years that time.

But this time the Dude in #10 is looking to make an even bigger mess of the country than Adolf managed. And the way it's looking, he's going to achieve it!

A weird paper, the Mail. It professes deep royalism, but sticks the knife into the Royals whenever they're in trouble. It trumpets "family values" but routinely offers a genially salacious take on life in its pull-outs and supplements. It cultivates a reputation as a paper of the right and cosies up to Boring Gordon. I suspect that it has read the minds of its readers well and has come to the conclusion that theirs are heavily compartmentalised minds. Pull out the bunting and its cheers and drinks all round. Unveil a spot of opulent bed hopping and its frowns and mutterings and shakings of the head. The notion that among this collection of reactions is anything like a world-view is misguided.

LoL John. Perhaps we should blame in on Keynes, who coincidentally was born 31 years before 1914, in 1883!

Unlike a lot of precious types, I like the Mail. I don't and never have liked New Labour unlike some people who are now welcomed to the Conservative cause. New Labour's policies have been madness for this country. It is a shame so many Tories bottled it and elected Cameron as leader. I will probably vote UKIP in the European elections; after all it is the Tories who are ultimately responsible for our joining the EU and all the damage which has ensued. I have always voted for a Tory MP (unlike some I am sure who opine on this site). Whether I do at the next election will depend on the performance of the Tory opposition which IMO has been pretty pathetic for far too long.


Are the Royal family above criticism? As a monarchist, I think not.

Posted by: David_at_Home | November 25, 2008 at 16:07
To know this, assuming it to be true, you must be a "Daily Mail Reader”, Resident Leftie, thus proving that at least some “Daily Mail Readers” are indeed supporters of the Labour Government!

Reading the Daily Mail makes me a reader of the Daily Mail, not a Daily Mail Reader. You'll hardly be surprised to know that I am a Guardian Reader.

Know thine enemy.

I read the editorials in the Mail and take the opposite line. It usually works.


Are the Royal family above criticism? As a monarchist, I think not."

THe crown is in the gift of the people, so there is always the possiblity of a replacement. The Crown of Orange is still very much with us. I have no problem with Liz or Charles wearing our Crown, As a Monochrist I look only to the Crown not the accident of the person who is chosen.
Its high time we made ourselves vocal in the defense of our institutions.

"chortling away when he should have been hanging his head with shame"

Have you seen the little piggys..60's style greed from Labour. All at once Brown has printed to inflate, and the pound is hurt. I don't care what figures he is working from and what comparisions but it appears to always be in the red. Our combined work/tax dosn't produce enough, so we have to make a bet on even more debt working. Its utter madness. Browns raids on the pensions makes us all vunerable to meltdown. I say mint gold and silver coined at Oxford if you must, but mint them from gold and silver. These promisary notes have no real value.

There endeth the right and proper answer to this mess. I suspect that the
thrust to re-adopt LSD will take a while yet to get going, but will quickly gain a pace as those who can provide the metals see the potential for gain. The current economic model is utterly fated to fall away.

An interesting point resident leftie. I occasionally read the Guardian (I like Simon Hoggart and their Sports coverage) but it does not make me a Guardian reader. I occasionally read the Mail (they have free copies at the gym) but am not a Daily Mail reader.

I actually find the Mail a bit of a sensationalist rag- too much about swan-eating asylum seekers, 101 things that reduce the value of your house, sausages give you cancer, homosexuality to be made compulsory etc. I don't think it does our brand any favours to be associated with this anymore than it does Labour any favours to be associated with the Morning Star.

And TomTom @ 14.13 - 'Sliding into arbitrary government never seemed so easy.'

And TomTom there is always the 'Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill' hanging around, which can be used to by-pass the 'floor' of the House!!

Bill - yes, the monarchy IS above criticism - it has to be or it implodes into a million particles of powder. It is easy, after all, to suspend our normal critical faculties when dealing with VIPs - very impotent persons. They monarch, remember, has no genuine, free standing power. And because it is the institution which matters, the symbolism, the pageantry, the antiquity - the man or woman who actually wears the crown hardly matters. It's a paradox of course, and HMQ herself would probably disagree. But whilst we must appear to defer to her views, secretly we can dismiss them, for in the end we just need a blood descendent of all the other kings and queens to move among us in the right costume. Then the beautiful illusion works. Humans are not the purely rational beings that critics of monarchy imagine. They require the enactment and embodiment of certain inescapable human stories - of who we are and where we come from. Answers like "naked apes" and "cosmic slime" won't do. They leave us depressed. We need irrational consolation. The monarchy achieves this at no cost to democracy. Indeed, by calming everyone down with spectacle and legend, the presence of royalty ensures the smooth running of democracy. Criticism, which stems from the world of reason and argument, has nothing immediately to do with the poetic world of royalism. So if you want a King or a Queen you must occasionally turn your eyes away from his or her majesty's human weakness.

Intersting comment on 'strategic relationships' with journalists.

BBC has a headline today US Fed announces $800bn stimulus giving the impression that US are copying Brown. But if you read the story it goes on to say The Federal Reserve is to inject another $800bn (£526.8bn) into the US economy in a further effort to stabilise the financial system.

The front bench are doing an ace job right now - another line they may like to consider is what happens if you are committed to 'stimulus' and it doesn't work... You are rather committed to another one!! In for a penny in for a pound (or trillion).

oops posted before I was done... the rest...

When there were questions being raised about leaks of budget details via the BBC, Nick Robinson said on air that he had not had telphone calls from ministers or anything like that...

However, now in his blog, to protect the government from accuasations over the VAT deception he says This fits in with what both I and the BBC's Business Editor, Robert Peston were told in the few days before the PBR.

Maybe the front bench would like to question exactly who spoke to nick and robert in the few days before the PBR, what was said, and why Nick denied it at the time. Maybe he is taking lessons from Mandleson?

p.s. are all anti-brown bods welcome here to complain that tories are tories (rather than holding what ever form of "anti-brown and non-tory" views that they entertain?)

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker