How the Tories can avoid losing in 2015

Yesterday we saw 120,000 largely public sector workers marching through Dublin in protest at the Irish government's cuts in state spending.

How long until our own government faces up to the bankrupt nature of our fiscal position?  How long until we see Dublin-style protests at necessary restraint in British state spending?  120,000 people marched in a nation of four million.  How many will march in sixty million citizens Britain?

In today's News of the World, Fraser Nelson predicts that the Tories will inherit the unrest that will be needed to put right Labour's mess:

"The first to feel the pinch may be Boris Johnson, London Mayor. He’s up for re-election in 2012. “But by then,” a senior Tory told me, “Cameron’s cuts will be in full flow. It’ll be war with unions. “Imagine it – teachers on strike. Nurses protesting in the streets. Litter uncollected. No Tory could be elected then.” This augurs ill for Cameron’s re-election. Especially if tax rises mean the economy double-dips BACK into recession. Cuts are vital – and inevitable. It’s also immoral to keep loading future generations with debt because ministers won’t cut now."

At least four things seem necessary for the Tories to limit the risks of this scenario:

1. Levelling with the people before the election. Telling the British people that spending can continue to rise and that there'll be tax cuts for married couples and savers can hardly be the full truth.  Voters won't like the truth but they're not fools.  As long as the pain is shared across the private, public and (importantly) political sectors they are more likely to swallow the medicine.
2. Pinning the blame on Labour for the mess. That's why the Domesday Book idea is so important; "The Book would be one of the first acts of an incoming Conservative government.  New Cabinet ministers would be ordered to prepare an audit of their portfolios.  Four to six weeks later a Domesday statement of the extent of public borrowing, the weakness of the nation's energy infrastructure, the weakness of family structure and so on would be published.  As well as serving as a statement of challenges it would then be hung around the neck of the Labour Party."
3. Preparing well for government.  Today's news that Lord Turnbull will be helping with preparations is good news indeed.
4. There's going to be no time for learning on the job.  MPs like John Redwood, Michael Howard, Peter Lilley, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Stephen Dorrell should be recalled.

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[John]

"How long until our own government faces up to the bankrupt nature of our fiscal position? How long until we see Dublin-style protests at necessary restraint in British state spending? 120,000 people marched in a nation of four million. How many will march in sixty million citizens Britain?"

Call me cynical - but weren't the police issued with 10,000 tasers? !!!

Does the government know someting we don't?

[Iain]

I think Cameron has already lost the 2015 election for people are only supporting the Conservatives now in order to get rid of the other lot, I don't think there is any affection for Cameron's progressive Conservatives and as a result they will have the shortest honey moon in history, not because of the dire financial position they would inherit, but because Cameron’s Conservatives are serving up Blair and New Labour light, a brand that is already bust.

[Phyllis Crash]

I agree with 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.

Bring Dorrell, Lilley and so on back would look too much like the return of the hated Major government.That would make defeat in 2015 MORE likely.

[Mr Disgusted]

Camerons plan of winning by default wont work twice.
I predict Cameron will quickly become more loathed than Brown because of failure to deliver anything much, I mean, what does he stand for?
You can't just duck and avoid situations once in power and Labour will be quick to rip you to pieces.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

Ken Clarke will be an important part of a Cameron government. His blokey-ness will compensate for the Etonian feel of the Cameron team. Ditto for Pickles, Francois and Lansley.

[rugfish]

A: Gordon Brown is an ardent (f) ducker and spinner so he couldn't be honest if it meant saving his granny.

B: David Cameron says anything to win support and hasn't got the guts to place 100,000 public sector workers redundancies, massive pension decreases, and a hive of "cutting programs" into a manifesto. In fact if he did, and he was honest, then no one would vote for him don't you see, they'd all vote UKIP or BNP I guess or for the wishy washy party. Furthermore, he doesn't have the guts to give a clear policy direction on Europe when all he has to say is we'll repeal this because it's illegal and has no support. - There you go, it's really easy to be honest but he won't.

C: If he makes these pledges to "cut and run", then he'll not be Prime Minister. He should instead be saying ( if he's progressive and a true socially conscionable guy as he says ), that these deficits must be repaid by the people who caused them....i.e. THE BANKS.

If he developed a plan to place those debts under 'bankers mortgage' to the taxpayers and gave THEM 10, 15, 20, or 25 years to pay us back the money they WILL borrow under his direction, then everything in our English gardens could be rosy and there'll be no mass protests, no innocent people being fired or trampled by police horses, no shop windows smashed or banks turned over, or police vans set on fire, or people killed in the streets by armed police who 'accidentally' fired at the crowd, and life can carry on as 'normal' with HIM and the BANKS sorting the mess out which THEY created.

Or, he could go for broke and take a chance on whether his own Prime Minister's limo will offer enough protection from the madding crowds who are totally opposed to being placed back 30 years in their living standards and ending their own lives in poverty?

It's all hypothetical of course?

[DCMX]

Cameron will need 2 chancellors.

One to take all the hard decisions, absorb the anger but a different one to be there for the election.

[Sally Roberts]

Right - after comments 1, 2 and 3 here I am sure people would like to read the brief thoughts of a member of the Conservative Party....

My reaction is let's concentrate on winning in 2009 or 2010 first (more likely the latter) before we start speculating on possible loss in 2015! Frankly ANY Government which comes into power after the next General Election is going to be disliked for what they will have to do so we might as well bite the bullet.
I certainly take the point there will be no time for learning on the job and it might be wise to bring back a couple of experienced hands. However there is abundant talent available from post-1997 Conservatives and if we recall too many from the past then we risk being labelled "Same Old Tories..!" Certain past Conservative Ministers were associated with certain unpopular themes from which we have thankfully moved on.
As for rioting on the streets - People are angry. They are angry beyond belief with this present Labour Government and I fear that if the Conservatives do NOT win convincingly either later this year or next then we will see civil unrest on the streets on an unprecedented scale and I am afraid that the Police are clearly well aware of this.

[Chris Patrick Moore]

I am amazed at the number of 'nearly men' and 'never could be men' who feel they are in a position to offer advice on policy which David Cameron should really consider. DC is an astute leader and indeed probably much smarter than those who predict a 2015 destruction by labour. Let those who are so willing to offer advice put themselves forward for selection and see how they fare. Those who predict a return of Labour in 2015, store your predictions and see how wrong you are going to be.

[Teesbridge]

"...Cameron will need 2 chancellors.

One to take all the hard decisions, absorb the anger but a different one to be there for the election..."

Is that why Tim wants the Majorettes recalled to the Colours - to shovel the sh1t and then face the firing squad?

[Englandism.co.uk]

Two global threats have been identified.

One is irrefutably man-made and the other is arguably but not undeniably the consequence of human activity.

Both represent serious danger, one, allegedly in the medium to long term and the other is here and now, lethal and imminent.

Global warming has an entire industry of doom pumping out relentless messages of catastrophe, famine, plagues of locusts with the fulsome and vocal support of the great and the good. We will be forced to comply with absolute truth no matter what the cost to our personal freedom in a prohibition of choice. Get used to it plebs, it's for your own good.

Global depression? Not a peep from our masters about the certain consequences not as modelled upon software-based soothsaying but based upon empirical deduction from human history. The catastrophic consequences will be greater than anything even the most rabidly green-eyed MMGW zealot could conceive and yet we are in complete denial about those consequences.

With global warming we are forced to comply on the basis of certainty but with economic meltdown we cannot even be trusted with knowing the absolute dreadful truth.

Tim is right. Level with us David Cameron and we can start to prepare for what is coming and to collectively understand as a nation why some terrible things will have to be done and suffered. We are going back to the mid-20th century and, Heaven help us, without World War Three because all the necessary elements are taking shape.

[David]

"the Etonian feel of the Cameron team"

Indeed, with Cameron, Letwin, er...um..no, hang on......

[David Belchamber]

"Pinning the blame on Labour for the mess. That's why the Domesday Book idea is so important".

We have let Brown get away with downsizing all the nation's real problem areas: inflation, crime stats, the size of the government's debt, unemployment etc.

Until one recognisess the true extent of a problem, one cannot confront it properly.

As Sally rightly points out at 09.51, we have to win the election first (and preferably win very well) before we really worry about governing.

I, too, would like to bring back a few more people with experience in government (Redwood, IDS for a specific task and Rifkind) but more importantly I would like to establish the real extent of the mess that Labour (plus the rest of the world) has got us into before the election, if only because, by doing so, we will certainly win it.

My advice then to David Cameron is to:

"Be honest, be bold - and be conservative".

[Tommy]

The unions are growing ever weaker, after 12 years of labour they are even weaker now when they were when Margaret Thatcher was in office.

That coupled with the fact that most british people are sensible and moderate leads me to believe that there will not be widespread industrial anarchy. With the exception of the grossly unfair and poorly thought out disaster that was the community charge, the british have usually taken their medicine without much fuss.

[Alex Swanson]

Ken Clarke will be an important part of a Cameron government. His blokey-ness will compensate for the Etonian feel of the Cameron team.

I'd like to believe this is a joke, but just in case it isn't, let me remind everyone that Ken Clarke was John Major's right hand man giong into the 1997 election, and much good it did either of them.

[Chris C.]

Understandably this discussion has focused on what DC can do to deal with the economic crisis while maintaining popularity.

However in reality the relative popularity of the main parties will be as much decided by Labour's situation as by the government's actions - the implications of Labour's choice to replace Brown as leader for example.

If the puplic still holds Labour responsible for the recession or the debt mountain (or both) they may not be ready to consider voting Labout in 2014/5 no matter how DC's popularity fares. Remember from 97 till about 03 the public largely ignored everything the Conservatives had to say no matter what giving Labour a free ride. A similar situation may effect Labout depending on the extent of their unpopularity when they are defeated.

One step at a time, however - lets focus on winning next year first and then have the courage of our convictions to believe that we will have a tough but successful term in government giving us a good track record that we can defend.

Chris C.
Edinburgh

[Tim Montgomerie]

@Tommy,

The private sector unions may be weaker. I'm not so sure about the public sector unions. NUT. Unison etc

[rugfish]

We should begin preparations now and get a scythe and sickle factory going along with new breeding compounds for Drays.

( Just in case )

[eugene]

A vital part of the Conservatives holding on will entail not being hostile to the private individual. Less nanny state nonsense such as waste on stupid advertising (like today, an advert in the newspaper telling us that if our house looks easy to break into, a burglar might think the same), being less bossy (such as we cannot have salt in our food), no spying on us (such as ID cards and watching what we put in our rubbish bin), no telling us we are going to die when we want to reward ourselves with a drink or a cigarette, no speed cameras on the only stretch of roads where one can get out of second gear where 35 mph is obviously safe.....people do not only want economic stability from a government- they want the government to show some respect to the individual and not insult our intellect . A Conservative government can do this no matter what.

[Iain]

"probably much smarter than those who predict a 2015 destruction by labour."

Who said that? I didn't, I just said that the Conservatives weren't going to win it, personally I think the whole British political establishment are going to lose in 2015 for none of them are able to offer solutions to the problems which effect our county as its their policies where are the problem, and by 2015 people will realise voting for the other lost to get the other lot out is a futile exercise, so will look further a field than the Westminster village for their solutions.

[Westminster Wolf]

Any problems facing the Tories will be overwhelmed by Labour's disarray in opposition.

[pp]

Staying in will be easy - just be open and honest and fair.

The government got us in to this mess, but all MPs carry some reponsibility (if it is nothing at all to do with them, they what have we been paying them for?).

All public sector workers, but especially MPs must be seen to bear a good proportion of the burden that they have lumbered us with.

No foreign holidays would be an excellent start, it would cut their CO2 emissions (I don't care about mans CO2 emissions, but MPs profess to...) and a show of support for the british tourist industry.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Hard (impossible ?) to predict what's going to happen so far ahead.
I hope Cameron and his team have already started preparing for government and will not make the same mistakes Blair did.
I simply cannot believe that every decision will be made by focus groups which was the case between 1997-2003.

[Paul]

By 2015 no doubt the stupid socialists will be whining about evil David Cameron and his cuts just like they whined about evil Margaret Thatcher.

It requires that very special brand of left-wing utter delusion to forget about the state of the economy now or in 1979, but I have no doubt they'll manage it.

It never ceases to amaze me how many lefties claim to intimately remember every detail of evil Thatcher's economic torture, but have absolutely no memory of Callaghan, IMF bail outs, the Winter of Discontent, Grunwick etc.

[Sally Roberts]

Tim @ 10:37 - I tend to agree with you. Just look at Bob Crow's RMT and the Unite Union, both of which seem to be wielding a quite disproportionate amount of muscle!

I think Tommy under estimates the scale of the problem. I suspect we will see an massive increase in civil disobedience and direct action such as more frequent and larger fuel protests with the knock-on effect of chaos at the pumps, rationing and all the effects of the previous action on an ever bigger scale. Added to this one might add the problems of IslamISM and worsening community relations.
I am sorry to be a Cassandra (something I have been known to accuse other people of from time to time!) but if we do not win and win well then these are possible themes we have to consider.

[Alex Swanson]

The best approach is to spend several years before the election making it crystal clear that the govt is overspending and that reform is required. Win the intellectual war even before any actual battle is joined.

Oops, sorry, I've just advocated telling the truth and opposing Labour policies. Stupid of me, I must have forgotten who I was talking about.

[eugene]

Editor- this page at the moment is entitled ''How the Tories can afford (obviously, you mean 'avoid') losing the 2015 election''. Nobody can afford that- even the man that saved the world, our Glorious Leader, needs a Tory government so he can eventually get some pennies together to buy some tissues, allowing him to stop using his tie for that urgent purpose.

[steve foley]

This type of thread is hubristic and I feel counter-productive.

Rather than such pointless speculation we should be concentrating in ensuring that the 2010 General Election is won by having a platform of concrete and sensible polices which set the Conservatives apart from the present Labour Government.

Such prognostications are in any event pointless. Bear in mind the situation of Thatcher and Bush respectively before external events of the Falklands War and 9/11 changed the game plan completely and in their favour electorally.

[John Moss]

The "old guard" of former ministers from the Major/Thatcher era could be elevated to the Lords to strengthen/lead the Government team there. We will need that post 2010 as much as we need talent in the Commons and whilst there are some good "opposition" peers, few have experience of putting legislation through Parliament.

It doesn't need many of them, but enough to carry legislation in a House which will not have a Conservative majority post 2010.

[Iain]

"Added to this one might add the problems of IslamISM and worsening community relations."

Multiculturalism has created Hell's version of Bosnia here, unfortunately our politicians are too Lilly livered to lay down any sort of national identity, so we have tribal wars breaking out (I believe Afghans and Somalis were stabbing each other in London this weekend). As this situation is only going to deteriorate during the economic depression , and multiculturalism was a consensus policy of the British political establishment, then the solution to this problem won't be found in Westminster.

[Tim Montgomerie]

Silly error on my part eugene. Now corrected. Thanks.

[Conand]

'Pinning the blame on Labour for the mess.'

If we do get the chance to govern the country: I really hope we don't overuse this tactic. People are mightely sick of Labour still banging on about the Thatcher government after they've been in office for 11+ years.
The blame game should be played very infrequently and only by Cameron making reference to 'previous governments'. Other ministers should just spell out what needs to be done in future.
Personally by 2012 I will be annoyed by anyone mentioning the labour party, whoever is in government. I'm absolutely sick and tired of them right now. I was fairly tired of them when I was a LibDem student (seemingly in the cretaceous period) c.'95-'97*. The joke is starting to wear a bit thin about 14 years later.

*Yes, I was preparing for government...finished laughing yet?...OK Good. I know that always cheers you up. I'm a Conservative activist now, so I've atoned for that particular sin.

[Chips of Brookfield]

If you want to really set the public sector workers against you attack our pensions. I have heard this advocated over-and-over again - if you want choas in the public sector do that. Anything else you will get away with - but not that.

You could probably get away with scrapping pension agreement for new entrants, but attacking existing public sector workers would cause riots.

[rugfish]

Well thanks!

I read it as "afford" and wittered on about "affording it" with some very intelligent, highly informative and politically acute remarks unlike some of the others.

LOL

[christina Speight]

This thread should be read alongside yesterday;s Centre Right one on the BNP's prospects.

Unless Cameron et al spell out NOW that it's going to be very nasty to put right, then exactly what this excellent editorial says will surely come about.

The pain must be spelt out in advance. Do that people will believe it and extend that trust through a first term of office. Soft-soap the way to victory and vengeance will be the result.

[Tim Montgomerie]

Fraser has now blogged more on this subject at Coffee House:

"Cameron will win and he should expend some political capital now telling it like it is. His plan to spend less than Labour’s 1% spending growth is, in effect, a plan to copy Labour’s spending plan is unaffordable, and he knows it. If he does intend to make cuts, Labour’s message will hardly change –Brown has been saying ‘Tory cuts’ since 1994. He’s cried wolf on this, the electorate will be bored of hearing it. And given every household is making cuts, they should ask, why not the government?"

[Chips of Brookfield]

Tim, Fraser misses the point that when cuts are made in the home people want the state to step in and make up the gap - not add to it.

[Opinicus]

Cameron shouldn't do anything until he wins and then should compile his Domesday book and affect surprise and disgust at what he finds.

All the pain must then be declared in year 1, so that the recovery is underway by 2015.

IMHO he needs to take £100b out of quangos and local government, the Barnet formula and use the emergency to pull back from many of our EU determined commitments. I don't think the rest of the EU will be in a state to fight and may also be grateful for the excuse so that we have a chance for a different kind of EU.

With the right political will something really good can come of this disaster.

[William Blake's Ghost]

I think all that Tim says will help but in addition I think there are strategic policy approaches that need to be adopted.

1) Cameron will need to be more austere on the political classes than on the electorate. Lead by example

2) Clearly set out on a workable course and do not waiver except in exceptional cases. Be strong and keep the PCP in order.

3) Don't lumber the Cabinet with those who are likely to disapprove of the approach from the outset. It's not a time for disruption and debate once decisions have been made.

4) Nullify external influences ability to knock you off course. Which means keeping the likes of the EU/ ECHR at arms length and also means not being afraid of upsetting them. Perhaps Cameron's Argentine Junta?

5) Devolve public services which can be done for justifiable reasons (i.e some public services have grown so big they are no longer efficiently manageable in their centralised form) - along with freedom and responsibility goes accountability.

6) Nullify the unions partly through 5 and by highlighting the actions and impact of the Union leadership(a rising Scargill would be a gift) not the rank and file.

7)Keep things simple. Keep control over the amount of legislation. Avoid unecessary ideological self-indulgence (e.g. Labour's obsession with the Hunting ban)

8) Keep resources in reserve for anything unforeseen that threatens to send the plan off track.

[christina Speight]

Thanks Tim, for drawing attention to Fraser's latest on Coffee House. That's the very point I was making at 1146. Cameron must pre-empt the battle by laying down now that you can't put Labour's legacy right without hurt. HURT is the price of socialism.

But I don't think he'll do it - he hasn't got the guts!

[Raj]

I agree with Sally and to a lesser extent Opinicus. Better to win and then say "oh my good grief, the books are terrible!"

If Cameron starts going on about how we're all "dooooooomed!" and need to slash tens of billions from spending from day 1, then people will stick their fingers in their ears and will themselves to believe that such big sacrifices won't be necessary. That might not mean Labour winning but it would reduce any Tory majority.

Currently the public are not under the illusion that things will be easy, but I also see little willingness to make vast changes to the way they live. So although I wouldn't tell porkies, I wouldn't scare people too much either - scared creatures react unpredictably.

After the election, when Cameron and co are in full view of all the facts, specifics can be made. If Cameron says "public spending must fall big-time", Labour will only squeal with delight and demand to know what would be cut, by how much, what the effects, would be, etc and then say in the same breath that it showed the Tories were trying to cut support when people needed it the most because their rich mates don't need public spending. You don't want to go there.

[Jack Stone]

Ms Speight. If he is too frank with the electorate he will lose. What do you want him to say elect us and we will increase taxes and cut spending. Not exactly a vote winner me thinks!!!
People like you and the editor have to decide what they want. Do you want to win or just be right?

[cosmic]

But Jack, what's the point of winning if you are committed to doing more of the same which got us into this mess?

Current levels of public expenditure are not sustainable, not by any party, unless by debt. Sooner or later supply of the debt drug will stop then come the withdrawal symptoms.

[rugfish]

In a social sense, as people are social animals, I think "people" will naturally protect themselves and this will be demonstrated socially. It will essentially lead to economic implications as the two are really supposed to be tied together. Ergo: "social economics".

Our political leaders have to consider economics AND its social implications, or else all hell will break loose. People need to know politicians put their interest first and it's not all money and numbers in this capitalist world we're all living and some just surviving in.

Global decisions are rightly needed on the current crisis and should really lead to a way forward politically too.

Global decisions are not really by design so much as they are a required necessity to manage the situation, but there lies a political quandary too, for the last thing we need is a decision to make global political unification to ONE end....viz-a-vis, a New World Order which is based on capitalist ideals that continue to skew the favour and benefit toward capitalists rather then meeting the primary intended purpose of bringing benefit to societies which concern people. ( VOTERS ) -

Examples of these disadvantages would be failing to deal correctly with real issues such as labour regulation, disparities between welfare benefits, incomes, and costs of living. Another would be a failure to tackle the situation of governments acting independently with taxes and fiscal measures such as business grants, which give them an advantage but cause massive disadvantages elsewhere not least in unemployed numbers of people which add to the cost of another state.

These are all highly complicated matters which are foremost 'political', and yet in a global economy we really should be tackling them.

However the social implications of paying a British person £5 a week like a Chinese factory worker, or a Chinese factory worker £600 a week, really wouldn't do.

So too, the welfare side. The UK is completely out of step with many other countries in what it pays an unemployed person, and yet main parties favour complete freedom of labour to the extent where British workers aren't even aware jobs are being advertised in some cases.

So thinking outside of my own prejudices, I would argue many people will remain unconvinced that politicians are acting in their interests if offering CUTS, and I can understand why.

I think there's an awful lot more to come of how those unconvinced people are going to express themselves and the most extreme would be to revolt.

Personally, I think we'll see tax revolts, consumer revolts, and demonstrations about unemployment and low pay and unfairness and inequality.

David Cameron's party is already talking about how to win the 2015 election AFTER he's CUT spending to drastic levels as if it's a foregone conclusion and people will simply accept those intended cuts, but personally, I doubt that people will stand for them being the fall guys for bankers when their taxes are used to keep bankers in work and taxpayers out of it. I'd be asking WTF are our politicians working for, us or 'them'?

The other thing I'd add to this is the question what the point of a single market and a protected trade area is within a global market, which seems to have a mind of its own without any conscience for the societal mess it leaves behind and nor do many politicians.

This world belongs to all of us.

[Raj]

cosmic, you miss the point. A manifesto is not a legally binding contract. Cameron can urge spending caution but not seem like Scrooge up until the election. Once he was won, he can then say the reality is harsher and needs a tougher response.

Jack is correct. Do people want to win next year or be "right"? The Tories can try to say they were "right" in 2001 and 2005 but that did them no good.

If you were told by someone you believed that you could win or be "right", which would you choose?

[Anon]

I hope Labour win in 2010 to be honest. If they do, they will carry the can for the entire economic meltdown and be out of power for a generation.

If we win in 2010 we will lose in 2015.

After all, had Labour won in 1992 they would have lost in 1997. The best thing that happened to Labour was losing in 1992.

[Englandism.co.uk]

Raj: 'Better to win and then say "oh my good grief, the books are terrible!"

To be economical with the economic truth when it will be abundantly clear to the electorate that we/he knew the inevitable before we garnered the votes of the poor 'frightened creatures' under false pretences. BTW It does not help to see human beings as mere units of politics. That's what Socialists do.

Stone: 'What do you want him to say elect us and we will increase taxes and cut spending.'

Yes, I do actually. It's called honour. Country before party and all that good old stuff.

We will win regardless so it is better to do so with integrity than emulate the Labour party. Show our fellow citizens that we grasp the nettle, we understand reality and deal with it.

Raj 'If you were told by someone you believed that you could win or be "right", which would you choose?'

Both.

'A manifesto is not a legally binding contract....Once he was won, he can then say the reality is harsher and needs a tougher response.'

Party before country.

Good God. Do you really believe that? It makes us no better than...read some 1930s history and a little less Il Principe.

[Raj]

If we win in 2010 we will lose in 2015.

Sorry, I want the Tories to win in 2010 because I won't have an ID card.

+++

it will be abundantly clear to the electorate that we/he knew the inevitable before we garnered the votes of the poor 'frightened creatures' under false pretences

And you think that they will reward the Tories for saying they'll definitely cut £50 billion or whatever it is? If so you have your head in the clouds.

[labradoodledoo]

Stephen Dorrell? That must be a joke? According to his voting record he only turns up to vote once every blue moon, too busy running the family business. Surely MPs who have at least attended Parliament over the last ten years would be better placed for the job?

[christina Speight]

Jack Stone at 1310 asks " Do you want to win or just be right?" . I want Cameron to be honest - I want Cameron to tell the truth. The people are ready for the real truth. . Do you think anyone would vote for a dishonest party as you seem to wish? NO they will respond to people telling them the truth not people who offer weasel words in the hope of scooping up a few extra votes.

YOU on the other hand put a premium on dishonesty which. anyway, will soon be found out. But since you always recommend what's best for the socialists your contribution is only to be expected.

And you and Raj I'd reminfd that in much worse situation we were offered "nothing but blood, tears, toil and sweat" . The British people backed that manifesto and saw some dreadful things ass promised. They didn't waver.

But too many people here go on as though there were an option. There isn't! The cuts will come, the taxes will rise and jobs will continue to disappear. It's going to be most unpleasant. To find -a f t e r the election that things are awful is unbelievable. To say so NOW builds trust.

And if you want to know what the incoming government should do and what it shouldn't, read Liam Halligan in today's Sunday Telegraph. (main section 'Leader' page "Inflation is the greatest danger to the British economy") All, the things Brown does make it worse but they are popular with the Old Guard socialists and the dreadful Polly Toynbee and, I imagine, Jack Stone.

[London Tory]

The Party owes Michael Howard a huge debt for the invaluable spade work he put in from 2003-2005. He left many Labour MPs with anorexic majorities, these are seats which will turn blue in 2010. Given his intellect and obvious zest, he would make an excellent Lord Chancellor in the first term.

We are not sufficiently awash with talent that we can afford to overlook genuine heavyweights with ministerial experience like Rifkind, Redwood and Fallon.

[Raj]

The British people backed that manifesto and saw some dreadful things ass promised. They didn't waver.

Oh for God sake. This isn't war. People are not fearing for their lives, they are fearing for their lifestyles. That's two very different things. High public spending is not the Nazi war machine.

You want Cameron to tell the truth, but he doesn't know all the facts. If he says "I will cut public spending" he will be asked to say how much, how he will achieve that, etc. The easy answers peddled here, by people who probably never use public-provided services anyway and have always wanted to see big reductions in spending, won't wash.

If you want him to be honest, he must be honest all the way. He would have to say "I will cut public spending but I do not know how much by and I am not sure how I will avoid cutting services". That is a dangerous message.

[rugfish]

I'd just like to say that as I'm watching LIVE, the meeting with EU Leaders in Berlin, they are agreeing more or less the precise details of my early post.

I feel like I've just backed the winner at the Grand National.

I'm an economic mystic Nutmeg.

[Englandism.co.uk]

Christina Speight

You are my female alter ego. If you tell me next that you invented Strongbow cider I shall be smitten.

Raj: 'And you think that they will reward the Tories for saying they'll definitely cut £50 billion or whatever it is? If so you have your head in the clouds.'

Unless we are confronted with a major national emergency rallying the people to the current administration: We Will Win.

Oh, hold your horses, we are confronted with a major national emergency and the people rallied as per the Brownian Bounce.

For a bit.

Now he is busted back into his bunker of self-deluded magnificence with the endgame upon him. Ergo: We Will Win.

To echo the words of Christina 'Creator of Strongbow' Speight, once again, we should win with honesty and resolute integrity.

[josh]

'Cameron' will be hunted and will suffer Thatchers fate by his own party. You don't think he is in charge do you? This was made quite clear well WIlliam Hague and another senior shadow member said they would resign if they had the out of Parliament pocket money stopped. This has been the plan all along. Get a young, fresh faced leader. Change the publics perception of the party, get elected and then get rid with a real Tory leader. It's Politics......stupid.

[christina Speight]

Raj - Don't be silly please! Leave out the 'blood' from Churchill's message and it would be right today. Though on second thoughts I'm not so sure there won't be blood shed too. (and probably before the election)

If you think it is lifestyle is all that's at stake then you haven't a clue! There's the possible collapse of the NHS, (the EU's WTD is doing some of that), the present structure of benefits (see Frank Field this week) being torn up, poverty in old age returning as savings are destroyed.

And don't blather to me about " by people who probably never use public-provided services anyway" when you haven't a clue about their circumstances. I remember as a child the 1930s great depression with a coal miner in the family too. Soup kitchens on the street in those days - those HUNGRY days. So write from experience not socialistic claptrap please.

[josh]

'And don't blather to me about " by people who probably never use public-provided services anyway" when you haven't a clue about their circumstances. I remember as a child the 1930s great depression with a coal miner in the family too. Soup kitchens on the street in those days - those HUNGRY days. So write from experience not socialistic claptrap please'

And I remember 50 years later with 3 miners in the family (immediate) and I remember people starving to death and I remember people being stopped from traveling from one county to another and I remember food parcels and I remember heartache and poverty. Yes I remember and I also will never forget that it was on a Conservative Governments watch.

[rugfish]

2 out of 2
Jacqui Smith has just said that foreign workers will not be able to take the jobs of skilled British workers where those skills exist and all jobs MUST be advertised locally.

[cosmic]

Raj @ 13:41

Thanks for explaining that, it's all clear to me now.

There's no point having ideas if you are not in power. The primary objective is to get elected. There are several proven techniques for achieving this;

Appear moderately sensible and let the lot in power discredit themselves winning by default.

Realise that people want incompatible things and offer all things to all men, knowing perfectly well that no one with any sense takes anything you say seriously, but the public awards points for a cozy sounding patter. Mom and apple pie always goes down well.

Of course when you are in power, the fact that you can't do anything unless you are in power still applies. Long term objectives require that you gain another term and you won't do that unless you deliver all things to all men, easily enough done by racking up future debt.

And so this merry game of pass the parcel goes on with the last wrapper eventually having to be taken off to reveal a turd.

I suggest the parcel seems a bit smelly and the realisation is dawning on what's in there. The next government will probably be Conservative, and they can't rely on New Labour to remove the last layer and reveal the horror. The one to take off the last wrapper won't be thanked.

Time to start managing expectations and develop a plan to deal with the turd. This plan won't involve much Mom and apple pie.

[christina Speight]

Re Josh - in case anybody is so thick that they don't realise that what he describes as happening in 1959 didn't actually happen then or ever let me be the first to expose his spoof.

[Sally Roberts]

Christina, if "josh" is a Labour troll which he very well may be then this sort of ridiculous scaremongering shows how very desperate they are becoming!

[RC Saumarez]

I agree with honesty. Politicians now have little reputation for decency, honour or probity but one of cynicism, greed and corruption. Can the Conservatives break this mould and give us leadership to come through what are going to be some very difficult years?

[Englandism.co.uk]

Josh refers to 1980s Thatcher v Halfa Gargle. Still a misrepresentation 'though but the Left always views the past through a prism of Technicolor delusion.

Sally. Did Christina invent Strongbow cider? Christopher Booker says she did.

[Sally Roberts]

"Sally. Did Christina invent Strongbow cider?"

Englandism I have no idea but if she did, how about a Conservative Home Party being organised with Christina sponsoring the refreshments? (There's a thought, Tim and Jonathan!)

[christina Speight]

Sally - -please don't answer that - if you know the answer ! You and I use our own names and I therefore try not to include anything personal UNLESS RELEVANT. Those who are anonymous have various reasons some of which I fully understand but then the playing-field is a bit unequal.

This enquiry is totally harmless and if it were true I would be proud of it but still not intrude it onto this blog.

Let's stay in happy ignorance.

[Sally Roberts]

Don't worry Christina - I really have no idea.

[Yet Another Anon]

We will need that post 2010 as much as we need talent in the Commons and whilst there are some good "opposition" peers, few have experience of putting legislation through Parliament.

It doesn't need many of them, but enough to carry legislation in a House which will not have a Conservative majority post 2010.
If legislation were to be pushed through to hold the same sort of elections as for Hereditary Peers and reduce the numbers sitting in the House of Lords as Life Peers in the same way and proportion, at a stroke the Conservative Party would hold a majority of seats in the House of Lords.

[Yet Another Anon]

Or at least it would leave the Conservatives not far off having a majority overall in the Lords, and certainly a majority among whipped members.

[Alex Swanson]

And I remember 50 years later with 3 miners in the family (immediate) and I remember people starving to death and I remember people being stopped from traveling from one county to another and I remember food parcels and I remember heartache and poverty. Yes I remember and I also will never forget that it was on a Conservative Governments watch.

Oh, spare us. Everything the miners suffered they brought on themselves by trying to blackmail the rest of the country for their own personal benefit. You were trying to deprive the rest of us of electricity, remember? Industry, homes, offices, schools, hospitals. And you expected the govt to put up with that, and even to give you strike pay? Get real. There was some sympathy for miners in 1974, that's why Heath lost, but not later on. The Conservative govt won in 84-85 because it had the country behind it. Not even Neil Kinnock was prepared by then to give full support.

And just for the record, the reason - as you know perfectly well - why movements were stopped was because the men concerned wanted to take part in violent mass picketing, something which is now rightly illegal and which no-one even in the Labour Party or trade unions would be prepared to see back again.

[Peter Bailey]

I think Fraser Nelson is playing a bit of devil's advocate here. He knows as well as anybody the 2015 election is in the bag for Cameron. After the last 12 years, does anybody seriously believe anyone will EVER vote for a Labour Government again?

We are on the verge of a Conservative century.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Defeating the Scargillite section of the miners with their total lack of respect for democracy was won of the best things Mrs Thatcher ever did. Scargill and his cohorts were truly the 'enemy within'. Had they balloted the workforce and tried to negotiate I would have had sympathy for the NUM.But after the events of '84-85 I have none whatsoever.

[christina Speight]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Tony the Tory]

Never has a truer word been spoken.

The first thing we need to do on coming to power is to tell the pubic the truth.......Lock, stock and barrel.

They already know in their own minds but they need to have it spelled out in black and white and labour ought to be made to ring the leper's bell for many a year.

Maggie took a lot of the blame for what labour left her because they refused to do what was necessary.

[Alex Swanson]

The first thing we need to do on coming to power is to tell the pubic the truth.......Lock, stock and barrel.

No, the truth needs to be told NOW; otherwise Cameron et al will have no democratic legitimacy when the time comes.

They need to be able to say, and everyone including opponents needs to understand, that however hard the decisions made, they had a mandate to make them.

[josh]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

[Englandism.co.uk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527882/Christopher-Booker%27s-notebook.html

Harmless, yes.

[Adam in London]

To hell with the 2015 election.

Country before party.

[bobchilts]

I agree with bringing Rifkind et al back, but i thought Michael Howard was standing down, unless they're going to give him a peerage?

[Jack Stone]

I think this site is really getting carried away with the latest opinion polls. The election is not won yet. Things could easily change. At the end of the day the cards are still all in the governments hands. They can influence events the Conservative party being in opposition can do very little to do that. The game is not over yet and I think the editor particularly is being very silly if he thinks it is.

[Alfred T Mahan]

Once again, ‘conventional wisdom’ is rubbish - just as it was in the run-up to the bubble bursting. Conventional wisdom says that if you tell the electorate the truth you won’t be elected. That couldn’t be more wrong.

The whole country is crying out for a politician to tell them the truth - why else do we all think politicians are crooks with their snouts in the trough?

We all know we’re in a hell of a mess. Give the voters a straight choice - we will sort the mess out and the pain will be unpleasant but quick. Vote in Labour, and you not only have the authors of the whole horrific situation still in power but they will go on making things worse. The whole world knows the problem is serious and won’t trust panaceas any more.

Pretending it’s all going to be rosy after the election invites disappointment and contempt.

[Mike Thomas]

To avoid defeat in 2015, it's a case of big pain upfront, get all the real pain out of the way in the first two years.

First, we are all in this together, the government should freeze their pay and expenses for the term of the Parliament. They have to share the pain of the country.

1. Ringfence the job of every teacher, doctor, nurse, fireman, policeman, they are safe.

2. Domesday audit all government departments then put into place a medium term strategy to reduce headcount and spending. "We are going to offer competent administration." Rub Labour's nose in it, over and over again.

3. Identify all areas for investment (there will be some), identify all areas for spending reductions (there will be some). Announce what these areas are and act immediately, with the first 100 days of government. The line is simple "We cannot afford it." The public will expect a meaningful series of cuts. Don't mess with childcare, schools, hospitals or the armed forces. Everything else is up for grabs.

4. "We are paying back Labour's debts." It's is Labour's mess, Labour's debt, every time there is a reduction in spending, it's to pay it back. Every time Labour cry "Tory cut", it's to pay back their debt.

5. Get government off the people's back. Abolish RIPA, abolish HIPS, abolish ID Cards, abolish ECHR. Abolish means-testing. Get rid of speed cameras. Remove all the hidden fees for things like passports, driving licenses, etc, etc, etc.

6. A mass simplification of taxes, be honest and be upfront, get the tax code back to something like it was in 1997.

That includes abolishing tax credits and replacing it with a straight hike in the basic tax threshold. Re-instate the 10p tax rate and set the upper part of the threshold to the minimum wage.

7. A bonfire of the quangos; shut them down, "We are paying back Labour's debts." remember. Get rid of the RDAs, LHA's, allow the PCT's to form their own partnerships. Abolish NICE, let the PCT's decide.

8. Convert all civil service pensions to cash purchase (except all frontline in 1.). Retirement age is 40 years service or 67.

9. Simplify welfare, amalgamate benefits into as few payments as possible. Look at some of the suggestions of Frank Field. Create a welfare system that requires work for welfare at the minimum, for skills and community projects.

10. Make it easy to set yourself up in business, offer a £100 pack with all the forms to create a legitimate company (complete with background checks).

11. Encourage a savings culture, bring back TESSAs, remove capital gains on savings up to £20,000 a year interest.

12. Use the points based system for all immigration.

13. Prioritise a need for degree skills based on industry shortages, create incentives by offering no fees on certain degree courses. Restore maintenance grants for students from poorer families.

[pp]

Don't be sucked in by the jack-stone troll...

The tories *are* telling the truth. Unless you are prepared to sit down for a six month lecture they can't tell you all the truth in one go, but that isn't 'not telling the truth' that is just a practicality of human existence.

The (self) destruction of labour is to be celebrated - but I don't want a one party state (regardless of which party it is) - too much control for too long always seems to go bad...

I think Blair started out with integrity, but prostituted it because he wasn't clever enough to find the right path, and having left it could never go back (he couldn't admit he erred, so was forever lost) - brown isn't worth mentioning, he is so far from the path he is in his own little world.

Cameron has to start out with integrity, and keep it - if he can't find the 'right' way, he needs to be honest about it, it isn't a sign of weakness it is a sign of strength (although enemies will always say otherwise).

[Steve Tierney]

I'm torn. I also want Cameron to tell the truth (if he knows the truth. I haven't been fully convinced that many politicians really do yet.) But if he tells the version of the truth I personally believe, he'll probably lose the next election. The consequences of that loss would be ... unthinkable.

rugfish at 09:48 :
"The people who caused all this - the banks"
-I know its the current trend to say the banks caused this, but they didn't really. What they actually did with their irresponsible lending is *delay* this. Without a decade of fake growth and wealth based on borrowing it would have been clear we were no longer competitive as a nation years ago. Our 'standard of living' is a lie born of hubris and fools gold.

In doubt...? Ask yourself two questions. (1) What were people doing all this irresponsible borrowing FOR? Why? And (2) If we could go back 10 years and prevent the lenders throwing so much credit at us... what would be the consequence for our oh-so-lauded 'decade of growth' and year-on-year GDP bonanzas?

We're not at the start of a recession. We've been in one for years and years. Living on easy credit and the illusion of wealth born of a housing bubble to pretend everything was fine.

[Silent Hunter]

"....Staying in will be easy - just be open and honest and fair....."

As said by pp and I think that just about sums up what the people of this country are crying out for.

Forget all the political spin - we're sick of it!

Just tell us the truth - I think the Doomsday Book idea is a MUST HAVE for the incoming Tory Government, otherwise you run the risk of being blamed for the austerity measures that will be necessary after 12 years of fiscal imbecility by ZaNuLabour.

We know the next 5, possibly 10 years are going to hurt - but for God's sake make sure that the hurt is shared amongst ALL of society.......DO NOT let the rich and the Banksters get away with insulating themselves from the rest of us.........as Sally points out.....that will probably trigger civil unrest.

Oh! & BTW..........a ROCK SOLID commitment to abolish ID Cards and the repeal of many of Labours repressive, authoritarian laws would be most welcome.

But if you intend top be "Open, Honest & Fair" then the rest will follow........won't it!

Silent Hunter - http://politicalnewsblogs.com/

Where Comment really IS Free.

[pp]

Another freebie contribution to keep faith with the public...

Each MPs taxpayer funded income to be reduced pound for pound against other earnings...

For some MPs, we may not have to fund them at all!

(Oh and expenses fiddlers must go IMMEDIATELY - we don't want people who are only honest when it pays to be so, we need people who are honest, because that is the kind of person they are).

[Gloy Plopwell]

Tories already planning their second term?! But the Lib dems have stupendous momentum at the moment, and are poised to overtake both Labour and then the Conservatives this year! the Lib dem Cabinet is just 15 months away, with lots of stars such as Sarah Teather as chancelor of the Exchecker and Vince Cable as Agriculture Secrerary.
And the Lib Dems will get a second and a third term aswell. Very excriting!

[Steve Tierney]

>>Sarah Teather as chancelor of the Exchecker and Vince Cable as Agriculture Secrerary.<<

ROFL. It would almost (almost) be worth it happening to see Sarah Teather (oh she of the vacuous mind) tackle the Chancellor job. And Vince Cable moved into Agriculture!

Thanks Gloy. I needed a laugh!

[Ross Warren]

"9. Simplify welfare, amalgamate benefits into as few payments as possible. Look at some of the suggestions of Frank Field. Create a welfare system that requires work for welfare at the minimum, for skills and community projects."

As long as we are not starving the sick or dragging them to pointless make work schemes.
[I have a fearful picture in my mind of us like the Japanese (ww2) carrying sick beds to the quarry so the dying can break a few stones.lets keep it sane]

Otherwise I am of course 100% behind this type of scheme. After 6 months unemployment most hardworking people will be more than ready to do a little work. Of course we can hardly expect them to walk miles to work and so we will have to give them at least traveling expenses.

12. Use the points based system for all immigration.

Most especially those from the EEC.

[Ross Warren]

"The Party owes Michael Howard a huge debt for the invaluable spade work he put in from 2003-2005. He left many Labour MPs with anorexic majorities" He was far better than I dared to hope.

[A Reformed Labour Voter]

Brown has wrecked the economy with his 'ostrich, head in sand' regulation of the Financial Industry, he allowed record levels of private debt to accumulate and is now rapidly building a Government debt larger than the one we had following the end of WWII.

But Brown's other financial legacy is already in sight. With his 'Quantitative Easing' or Printing Money strategy, he risks unleashing the inflation beast again.

Sterling has lost a third of its value recently and that's before Brown turbo charges the printing presses.

We all know the risks of just printing more money. We all remember the Weimar Republic, Argentina and of course Zimbabwe.

The cost of imports is set to rocket; inflation will soar. Pay demands will rise to meet the cost of living and of course the public sector unions will call strike after strike.

Just something else for Messrs Cameron, Osborne & Clarke to think about.

[Peter Poop]

I agree with the Doomsday book tactic. Go into the election to win it, not be "right".

After election is (presumably, won, cretae the Doomsday Book of Labour Incompetence and say "Hey, we knew it was bad, but not THIS bad!!! Things are going to be harder than we thought".

It will be very important to ensure that the public sector suffers as much as the private sector - no-one will allow the champagne civil service to continue through some very austere years.

[A Reformed Labour Voter]

A few ideas:

1. Establish where you are at. The Banks must be audited and merged/nationalised. Revenue raised from any return to the Private Sector will be to recompense the tax payer.
The root of the absence of confidence is that none of the Banks will 'fess up. So force them. Once we know where we are all at, however bad, we can start the journey of recovery.

2. Reverse the greying of lines between Commercial/Investment Banks. One needs to be safe the other more of a gamble. The US was well served by the Glass-Steagall Act since the war. Overturned by the Clinton Administration, this needs to be reintroduced on both sides of the pond.

3. A five year plan to reduce the National Debt to manageable levels. Then build a low tax economy - first reduction to encourage Manufacturing, 50% discount on Corporation Tax.

4. Privatise the BBC. Without the daily pro-Labour propaganda, the electorate will soon see for themselves who was responsible.

[anne allan]

Unless the Conservatives win in 2010, that will be the last GE this country ever holds under the rules as we have understood them so far.
If Labour wins, by 2015, there will be a CCTV camera in every polling booth & you will be fingerprinted & DNA'd by the presiding clerk.
If you have the temerity to vote for the 'opposition' - ie some patsy put up to give the appearance of democracy, you will be sacked from your job, roughed up by the police, subjected to internal exile and your children will be placed in a state orphanage.
In short - just think Russia in the 1930's.

[anne allan]

Unless the Conservatives win in 2010, that will be the last GE this country ever holds under the rules as we have understood them so far.
If Labour wins, by 2015, there will be a CCTV camera in every polling booth & you will be fingerprinted & DNA'd by the presiding clerk.
If you have the temerity to vote for the 'opposition' - ie some patsy put up to give the appearance of democracy, you will be sacked from your job, roughed up by the police, subjected to internal exile and your children will be placed in a state orphanage.
In short - just think Russia in the 1930's.

[steve foley]

@ Sally Roberts

" how about a Conservative Home Party?"

Why not as long as there is MEAT in the food provided and decent alcoholic drink and not just fruit juice etc. Oh and I can't dance with a decidedly dodgy left knee.

I might even get to meet Graeme Archer, (with or without his cats)!