How much should George Osborne reveal on tax and spending plans?

All the details are on today's ConservativeHome frontpage but there is some confusion about yesterday's seemingly get-tough message from George Osborne on public sector pay.  The FT leads its morning edition with the story - headlining 'Tories take risk over pay and pensions' - but The Times says that advisers to Mr Osborne "backtracked" from the idea of a confrontation with the unions.  The Daily Mail, in a leader praising Vince Cable, accuses the Shadow Chancellor of "muttering" about public spending control but lacking a clear plan.

It's the biggest question facing the Tories this side of the election: How much should be said about post-election plans on tax and spending?  We asked Tory members for advice for the party leadership.  On a forced question we asked members to choose between three options:

1. Maximum openness: "Closer to the election the Conservative Party should give voters a very honest and open indication of the changes to tax and spending that will be necessary to restore order to the public finances."
2. Medium openness: "The Conservatives should avoid specifics but lay out the general principles for recovery in the public finances, saying that spending will be brought under control and taxes increased if necessary."
3. Minimum openness: "The Conservative Party should say that the economic situation is grim and we cannot write a budget until we have seen the books."

The results confirm that it's not an easy choice...!

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[Westminster Wolf]

Disappointing that the Mail should be bigging up Cable.

[Paul D]

Dacre knows his mate Brown is damaged goods and the only way to prop him up is if the LibDems do well enough to force a hung parliament and left-wing coalition

[Silent Hunter]

I would have to vote for Maximum Openness!

What the Tories need to understand is that the electorate DO NOT TRUST "ANY" POLITICIANS to tell the truth and think that they "hide" their true intentions from the electorate.

You might as well write your political manifestos on toilet paper for all the notice that we now take of them - that goes for all parties, including the Tories.

What we are crying out for, are political parties who ACTUALLY DO what they say they will do, rather than coming to power on a manifesto which then gets tossed into the bin as they walk into parliament.

You Tories have GOT TO CLEAN UP YOUR ACT! It may come as a big shock to some of you but the reason that you're not doing better in the polls than you should - is that you STILL have MP's who are as sleazy as any in the Labour Party - look at the public reaction to Eric Pickles when he tried to defend his expenses on the recent Question Time.

That sentiment is throughout society now.

And we remember what you lot were like when you last had the reigns of power - you know? - the reason why Labour got in on a thumping majority.
To "clean up politics" - (excuse me whilst I fall about laughing given what they've actually done for 11 years.) - and what we got was UBERSLEAZE.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you Tories can't grasp the nettle of purging yourselves of your own residual sleaze; which would leave you free to point the finger at Labour without worrying about one of your own skeletons inconveniently falling out of the cupboard at the wrong moment.

All the electorate want is HONESTY!

Is that too much to ask for?

[Angelo Basu]

"What we are crying out for, are political parties who ACTUALLY DO what they say they will do, rather than coming to power on a manifesto which then gets tossed into the bin as they walk into parliament."

Well, Boris seems to have delivered on that score so perhaps you are being rather too cynical.

[Graeme Pirie]

Osborne needs to wake up to the reality that despite Brown being the worst chancellor & PM in history - he still has 30% of the vote.

This isn't because they're "core" voters, it's because they don't have a reason to switch.

What we want are a few decent policies that let the electorate get a warm feeling about the direction of the party.

Step right back to

- Small government
- Low tax on business & individuals
- Family friendly policies & an end to nanny government
- Fair welfare state (that's fair to the taxpayer as well)
- Efficient & well run public services
- Re-instate civil liberties
- Removal of slease. There's nothing to stop the tories implementing NOW a slease free expense system.

Stop getting mired in the details like inheritance tax, give us a wish list so we know what's going on in your heads.

[David Belchamber]

"Disappointing that the Mail should be bigging up Cable".

It is disappointing - but for a different reason. If you listen to or read what Vince Cable and George Osborne have to say about economic matters, the outright winner is unfortunately not our man.

I agree that Cable is able to be much more positive and clearcut because he is unlikely to be in government (unless he supports the conservatives in a hung parliament), whereas Osborne no doubt feels that to be too honest about our plans will lose us votes.

[Letters From A Tory]

Some of the specifics might be worth holding back, but at the very least the Conservatives need to say what principles they will apply in office so that they cannot be accused of springing surprises if they form the next government.

The public will not allow Cameron to sit on his hands and keep all of his financial plans to himself, but he must balance this with reasonable discretion about what the public need to and want to hear.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I am tempted to agree entirely with Silent Hunter. Yet we all know what happened to John Smith in 1992.
Yes we should not tell lies as Darling did in his PBR or as the Lib Dems do in each election but should we just talk about 'difficult decisions' or spell out what those difficult decisions actually should be.
It is difficult for George, in opposition you do not have the full facts at your fingertips.
It is a major strategic question though, I hope the thread will provide a good debate.

[John Coles]

Ssshhhhhhh!! Say nothing! Let's try to quietly sidle into power - we don't want to be weighed down with policies!

[Malcolm Stevas]

Graeme Pirie:
"- Family friendly policies & an end to nanny government
- Fair welfare state (that's fair to the taxpayer as well)
- Efficient & well run public services
- Re-instate civil liberties.."
I hate to carp since in principle I agree with you, but there's a contradiction between "family friendly policies" and "fair welfare state" on the one hand, and restoring civil liberties plus ending nanny government on the other. Any government that intervenes in people's relationships to favour one sort of domestic partnership over another is by definition both nannying, and damaging the civil liberties of those who will be taxed to pay for the financial advantages being offered to others. And I don't see how a Welfare State can be "fair": any such well-intentioned but top-heavy, bureaucratic, massively expensive institution must inevitably create huge unfairness against those not determined (arbitrarily, ideologically etc) as being entitled to receive public largesse, and against those who object to the whole damn thing but who are coerced by the majority into helping pay for it...
And very, very few enterprises organised and run by the State are ever going to be efficient or well-run.

[Henry Mayhew - Kipper]

He's already revealed all we need to know.

[David_at_Home]

The balance of payments has been in deficit for about a decade and is now running at 10% of GDP. This, together with massive debt, both private and public, shows that we, as a nation, have been living well above our income for many years. To this we must add the collapse of the City of London as a money making machine (if it ever really was), the taxpayers’ bail out of the bad banks and the global recession. The very viability of the British state is in question.

The Conservative Leadership, which aspires to form the government, should have a plan to preserve and support what remains of our productive industries (we are still the world’s sixth manufacturing nation and we retain strengths in science and engineering design) and be preparing the country for what is to come. There should be massive cuts in government expenditure and in the salaries (and pensions) of all but the poorest paid government employees and deep cuts in business taxes (employers’ NI and business rates) to preserve industry and jobs.

At least Vince Cable shows some understanding of the problem (pity he is in such a rotten party) but I fear that neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Osborne have even begun to grasp the magnitude of the challenge and that, even if they did, they would fearful of admitting it to the electorate lest they were to be seen as “nasty”. If the politicians don’t show they are up to the job there is a danger that a latter day Cromwell will.

[John Haynes]

I don't think that any of the approaches is either desirable of feasible, the ball is still in play.

Vince Cable and the Libdems making all kinds of 'noises' is fine because they know they will never become the Government. In fact a more interesting question is just why the Libdems aren't doing better in the polls. If they can't take significant percentages off Labour now under these circumstances, they will never become a "second party, Government in Waiting ?"

The above is less to 'knock' the Libdems, it is to illustrate that the electorate generally takes a very jaundiced view of all politicians. Also, they are not stupid and know full well that an incoming Government will have to "inflict pain" to dig us out of the mess. All they really want to know is that it will be evenly spread and not be directed 'tribally' in the way Labour has done.

Forget jam tomorrow David Cameron can do something important now as a 'down payment' of good will and good intent. Get the whole of the Tory Parliamentary Party to agree outline reforms to MPs pay and expenses. It will involve the abolition of some allowances and the current pension scheme being replaced with a money purchase one so that politicians are no longer a charge upon taxpayers once they 'retire or are retired' by the electorate.

There will need to be an increase in salary and a commitment to reduce the number of sitting MPs in the next Parliament to 500. This needs to be done now and regardless of whether the rest of the House agrees or not. An influx of new Tory MPs should be committed to such promises the moment they cross the threshold of Westminster.

This would demonstrate to the electorate a Tory Government in Waiting that will share whatever pain with them and it is something that can be done right now.

[B.Garvie]

G.O should keep his cards close to his chest regarding future tax policies. Only when he has inspected the Government's 'books' can he definitively decide on the best course of action. He will then be a forecaster, not a fortune teller. Why should he reveal solutions to these problems at this time? Why do this Government's work for them? This Government would kill to have sound solutions to their dysfunctional approach as all their policies are failing and proving totally inadequate. As it is, all they can do is impotently snipe and actually prove they have no solutions.

This Government has the distinction of being the worst in history. They have ruined our pensions, ruined our savings and now devastated our economy. Brown's largess has virtually bankrupt the country and left our children and grand children to pay off his massive debt. What an atrocious legacy. The trouble with socialism is that they eventually run out of other peoples' money.

They are utterly incapable of organising satisfactory solutions, short or long term, to navigate through this depression. With unemployment rising and businesses collapsing daily, the great British public are hemmed in, pressurised and with no alternative,there could be rioting in the streets soon.

Only when a General Election has been declared, should George Osborne reveal policies to demonstrate his course of direction.

However, if this Government goes to full term, policies should be revealed next January. That will leave 5 or 6 months for sensible debate; enough time for the electorate to understand who will be better for the country.

[Anthony Scholefield]

The basis of your question is probably wrong as there is no sign that the Tory leadership has got any post-election plans-secret or otherwise.
Regrettably once again you have gone for the tactical PR question-what should the Tories reveal of their supposed master plans.
The question is what is the target and what period is it to be carried out over and,above all, is there the will to break the public service parasites of which MPs are the prime examples.
Private business cannot afford this shell game or they are out of business.
Conservativehome suggested a reduction in expenditure of 1 1/2 % per annum for 4 years. I am not sure if that is an absolute target or one of these funny money inflation based reductions but lets be clear. In 2009 and 2010 public expenditure will at best be 75% covered by tax leaving a 25% reduction required to stop the debt and the interest getting any bigger,let alone reduce it.
'Flint faced turbo-charged accountants' can easily reduce governement expenditure by this amount but it means some crushed toes starting in Parliament.
Lets take two Cameron sacred cows which he promises to maintain
1. Overseas aid. Leave aside the fact that many consider this useless,please note that 50% of UK aid is channelled through the EU and you do not have a say in what it is spent on.It is an EU building exercise and nothing to with distress in the Third World.
2.Another Cameron pledge is to keep frontline numbers in the Health service. Lets confront that head on with the assertion that we cannot cut the number of nurses.
According to Aneurin Bevan, when the NHS took over what was then the leading health service in the world ,there were 533,000 beds and 125,994 nurses. Now it appears that there are 184,871 beds(2002) and 322,000 nurses- a rise in the nurse per bed ration of seven times.
Frankly,while this kind of lazy thinking continues to infest the Tory leadership-they are doomed and will rely on the printing pressas their only policy.

[Victor M]

Oh yes, a monster problem. I entirely agree with other posters who say that the electorate don't trust any politicians but the problem is providing a credible alternative to this current horrendous bunch of incompetents. Osborne could easily say as been said innumerable times over centuries "I don't know until I've seen the books" BUT everybody now knows or think they know what the books will look like - frightening. It's a very fine line to draw for us Tories but I suppose this is what being a politician is all about.

[David_at_Home]

Malcolm Stevas,

Thank you for your reply yesterday on another thread.

"Any government that intervenes in people's relationships to favour one sort of domestic partnership over another is by definition both nannying, and damaging the civil liberties of those who will be taxed to pay for the financial advantages being offered to others."

At present the state does intervene to support single mums. If there were no state support single parenthood would not be viable for any but the very rich and marriage would again be the norm for nearly everyone with children. The price, huge in the first instance, would be starving teenage girls and dead babies. On the other hand, if we go on as we are, our society will collapse under the weight of the ever expanding underclass and dysfunctional feral youth.

Maybe there is a middle course such as accommodating desperate “single mums” in very basic accommodation whilst ensuring at least a basic education for their offspring (but how?). The left would call this “reintroducing the workhouse” but libertarians such as you would continue to decry state intervention. I don’t think I have the answer either!

[Susan Wade Weeks]

Graeme Pirie I couldn't agree more.

Low tax is key to all the rest.

It's family friendly, pro-enterprise, pro-choice and needs only a skeleton crew to administer hence leads to smaller Government and reduced welfare costs as fewer NEED help and benefits when taxes are low.

Gordon Brown and Co meanwhile are fiddling with our taxes on the deck of the UK Titanic Government, playing cat's cradle with red tape while the rest of us, unwilling but helpless passengers, can only watch the tip of the debt iceberg loom into view.

Let us please, please, please present a sunnier prospect- the Land of Low Taxes, where work brings reward not penalties and where families are freed from the constant worry, threats and stress of intrusion, means testing and debt or the undignified restraints of benefit dependency.

"Let people keep more of their own money" ought to be our mantra.

[Peter Buss]

Frankly unless Cameron can knock some sense into fools such as Garnier( prattling on the Radio about repealing the fox hunting ban) and Hannan coming out with the most fearful rubbish about the NHS "making you iller" then we shan't even be in Govt to present a budget. I am absolutely furious that yet again its the total lack of political nous, demostrated by guys such as Hannan and Garnier that at a stroke theatens to undo all the good that Cameron has done.

On the question above I am with Nigel Lawson who has said say nothing until we actually see the books. In any event, I am still waiting for the BBC/Sky to repeatedly ask Brown/Darling exactly what programmes they are poposing to cut - but it never happens although the Govt have themselves reduced their spending proposals for a years time.

[Tom FD]

Let's look at it this way. Isn't it just as well that despite lots of barracking from the media, George Osbourne never made lots of pledges on taxation or spending during the good times? Being portrayed as vague is surely a whole lot better than as a promise-breaker. As tantalising as it is it's just something that can only properly be done when the time comes.

[Denis Cooper]

There's something missing from that question:

"How much should be said about post-election plans on tax and spending?"

Like:

"In the interests of the party, ..."

or possibly:

"In the interests of the country, ..."

I know that there are some people who sincerely believe that the interests of their preferred political party are always identical to those of the country; but that isn't the case, and the great majority in the country realise that it isn't the case.

There are extreme circumstances under which it may be necessary for politicians to deliberately deceive the people - for example, to avoid a collapse of morale when the country is threatened with invasion, or to prevent the spread of panic, or as a unavoidable part of a strategy of deception directed against a foreign enemy.

However a policy of deliberately deceiving the people is not seen as a last resort, in the interests of the country, but as a matter of routine practice, in the interests of the party, doesn't that show that the party lacks respect for the people?

Why should I vote for a candidate who views the electorate, including myself, with such contempt that he has no compunction about lying to get himself elected?

I came across this Code of Conduct for MPs:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/code.pdf

"6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents."

No mention of a duty to their party, there, and indeed:

"Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties."

So what is a political party, other than an outside organisation which not merely influences, but actually controls, MPs in the performance of their official duties?

[Susan Wade Weeks]

Re: "single mums"

This has to be my all-time hated phrase. There is no such thing as single mum.

Constantly using this phrase reinforces an idea which is false.

Every child begins with two parents or there would be no conception. It takes two to tango, obviously.

In the very phrase used so casually by almost everyone lies the root of the problem: we assume the single mother is the state's problem, so does she and so does the father.

The teenage mothers you are referring to are a little different from the vast majority of "single parents" divorced mothers.

Sometimes they are desperately lacking in parental care and affection themselves and need these babies for someone to love who loves them.

Sometimes these babies are a status symbol.

Sometimes they are a (no,NOT easy)way of moving out of home into a flat of their own. Or all three.

If the continued presence of the father as cohabitee were a requirement to accessing a flat these births might drop in number. And if they did not, the babies would at least start life with a better chance of knowing two parents.

The current system encourages young girls to have babies to achieve independence and status where none is available to them otherwise.

Just as fatherlessness encourages many young men - often the fathers of these babies- to seek male approval, "respect" and role models in the gangs that provide them.

Build the responsibilities of fatherhood into the language by outlawing the phrase "single mum" and we might begin to have a glimmer of a chance of getting somewhere.

We could call them "young parents" and treat them as a pair with self-esteem and responsibilities to live up to.

[Ray Finch]

The problem for the Conservative Party is simply this:

David Cameron is not a conservative.

He is a Tax and Spend Blairite.

Look back to the first New Labour victory. Would it not be very easy to picture DC as one of Blairs junior ministers?

The Conservative Party needs to decide whether it is actually still that. A Conservative party, or simply another of the EUs Christian Socialist parties.

http://ukipsoutheast.blogspot.com/

[David Galea]

It's more about confidence in how right you are about what you're doing. Michael Howard knew we had an immigration problem but as a party the Conservatives didn't have the guts to say what they really felt and knew in their hearts was right. "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" was cowardly. I remember watching William Hague being questioned about the euro on the BBC and he didn't seem confident at all. Very offputting.

Labour could easily attack a party that was too shy to believe in its own ideas. Voters smell fear. It didn't matter if the exact policy was right or wrong, it was that we were scared of what other people (left wingers) would think. A lack of confidence is a vote killer. Thatcher knew what was right and she was fearless in going for it. You can't help admiring that. The leaders of Britain have to be fearless in pursuing what is right for Britain. Did Tony Blair lack confidence?

They say nobody cares about immigration and the EU, but that's not true. Voters vote for people who are confident that they are doing right for Britain and Britains. Fearless honesty is quite a frightening thing for people like Gordon Brown so get to it.

[David Galea]

I suggest a "we're not afraid" campaign.

We're not afraid to be honest.
We're not afraid to do what is going to fix the economy.
We're not afraid of punishing criminals.
We're not afraid of protecting the married family.
We're not afraid to deal with the EU.
We're not afraid to deal with immigration.
We're not afraid of terrorists.
We're not afraid of protecting civil liberties.
We're not afraid of Gordon Brown.
And we're not afraid of running Britain!

[ToryBlog.com - Broon and Roon be Goon]

So the three options are:

#1 Tell the truth
#2 Tell a few fibs
#3 Blatant lies

I'd go with #1!

[Mark Hudson]

Frankly, I would just like to know the truth so I can determine where to place my cross on polling day.

And by the way, George, a message of we're not quite as crap as the present lot is not a particularly compelling proposition.

[Malcolm Stevas]

David_at_Home:
"The price, huge in the first instance, would be starving teenage girls and dead babies. On the other hand, if we go on as we are, our society will collapse under the weight of the ever expanding underclass and dysfunctional feral youth."
Well, your two models are rhetorically effective though somewhat extreme! Yes, I agree that there would be a price to pay, albeit the first price would be infinitely less awful than the second, and surely one that any sane person would choose... I respectfully suggest that you neglect the huge wellspring of charitable impulse present in this country, oppressed and sidelined by decades of bossy State welfarism admittedly but still there: most English people are generous and charitably inclined. There will always be unfortunates who by bad luck, poor judgement, immaturity or native stupidity are going to conceive unwanted children they can't afford, or otherwise become a burden on others; but I suggest if left to private charity, such problems would be dealt with in a far more focussed, efficient way than via the present behemoth of a State apparatus. And the exponential growth of a permanent claimant-class would be rendered impossible.
"Maybe there is a middle course such as accommodating desperate “single mums” in very basic accommodation whilst ensuring at least a basic education for their offspring.."
I'm not so fanatical as to deny the possibility of some modest degree of State intervention such as you suggest - it's worth discussing. I just think any Welfarism run by the State takes us into can-of-worms territory, with public sector empire-building and all the hideously swollen bureaucracies wrought by arrogant, power-crazed, spendthrift, patronising Leftists who think people are too stupid and incompetent to do things for themselves. Too many similar people seem to be swelling the ranks of the Conservative Party...
Re David Galea's "We're not afraid..." list I suggest if the Tories were to institute any such campaign they'd be guilty of telling huge porkies regarding most items on the list.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Ray Fich, is that really your considered opinion? Crass statements like that are one of the reasons why UKIP are stuck on negligable percentages in the polls.
I see Nigel Farage is being typically candid with Total Politics, I get the impression he's starting to lose hope.

[David_at_Home]

Malcolm [email protected],

As you may know, I am a ukipper (mainly because the modern Tory Party seems utterly to have lost its way) but I have always been a bit nervous of the "Libertarian Tendency" in UKIP because, as a one time naval officer, I was brought up to the concept that one has a duty to one's sailors and so, by extension, I am by nature a sort of Disraelian “One Nation” Tory. You have, perhaps, led me to understand that the two views are not necessarily so far apart as I had feared.

The question of what to do about the ever expanding underclass IS relevant to the subject of this thread because a near bankrupt Britain will not be able to afford so many passengers. So far, only you and I seem to be concerned about this aspect of the impending depression.

[Martin Cole]

The EU cannot afford the EU!

We cannot expect the EU to e-mail us this fact and then reduce expenditure.

The main opposition party needs to start trumpeting this message. Would it not have helped their prospects now if they could prove they had warned of the recession/soon to be depression and slump.

I cannot believe the dream world some Commentators to this thread are displaying even after the release of the Industrial Output figures showing a year on year fall of 12.5% in February.

Every area of public expenditure will soon have to be cut, especially EU payments, no area of taxation can escape consideration for increases. Cameron himself has described the country as bankrupt, when will he instruct his Shadow Economics team to prepare and announce a package that reflects that ever increasingly obvious fact.

Sky have just announced 9000 RBS jobs are to go, half in the UK - what will be the effect on government revenues and outgoings? What point now the billions paid to the useless bank? More realism and anger for the electorate more denial, no doubt, for their worthless elected representatives.

[Chris Clark]

Everything this Labour government does is party political and this is especially true of their budgets. Why commit to spending plans now and present a target for GB/AD to create their famous dividing lines come April 22nd? Labour's next budget will be a disaster and, given this, why would the Conservatives want to get in there and muddy the perfect picture?

I know this is very cynical politics but as the fella once said: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

[Tim]

If you have a spare minute please vote in this on-line poll, and spread the word!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/poll/poll-36517-details/ques-36871-id/Lite+poll%3A+nasty+party/poll.do

[Ross Warren]

I will go with minimum openness over our tax plans. We have seen far to often that Brown and Co, will steal our clothes given half a chance. Tell the truth of course but be guarded about specifics. In fact it is very hard to be certain about what tax's we can cut or raise. It depends on how bad the situation we inherit from this awful government and I am assuming that it will be far worse than we being told by Brown.

[Denis Cooper]

Chris Clark, if the Tories were as wise as serpents, they would have realised that the electorate is sick of politicians who turn out to be serpents.

As I suggested some weeks ago, comment overwritten - "Be men, not snakes".

"Homo sapiens" - "wise man" - or even better, "homo sapiens sapiens".

[Marian]

"homo sapiens sapiens" isn't that the official name of mankind as it is?

I always felt that saying wise wise man was going a bit to far. Otherwise I agree with what you are saying. The electorate isn't as stupid as many of our political masters assume. I am often surprised by just how many people I meet are sick of the political game and assume that politicians are corrupted and dishonest. The political class has nobody to blame but itself for the very bad impression that the voting public have of them. Its time to OUT the cheats and crooks, and to publicly clean up Westminster.
The leader who is willing to make this his personal crusade will rightly attract many votes.

[Sally Roberts]

Thoughtful post, Susan Wade Weeks - I like it!

[chris southern]

I'm with the whole truth camp. It's the only way voters will ever start to trust politicians ever again.

Don't just tell people about cuts and raises though, tell them about where you are heading and how it will benefit the people in the long run.
It's not just about the immediate course of action, but about the long term objectives.
If you simply tell people that taxes will have to be raised and some people within the public sector will lose their jobs, your simply shooting yourself in the foot.
If you are totaly honest about what the cuts will be, about which jobs will go or salries to be cut, then people are more likely to understand. Make sure that the important jobs within the public sector are safe, when public sector cuts are announced nurses, experienced police officers etc don't want to think that their heads will be on the chopping block.

[Matteo]

I get the feeling reading this that Tim Montgomerie knows the electorate will not like our policies. Who would blame them? No one wants to know that their taxes are going to immediately go through the roof and public investment is going to plummet.

The thing is, we should be articulating the type of society we want to build out of the mess that Labour has created. DC would do well to give voters a vision of the future to look forward to, and then saying how we are going to work towards it, instead of just saying "we're going to hike taxes and slash spending, like it or not", which appears to be the choice Tim is presenting here. Given the options of either just letting people know "times will be hard and we will be bastards" or sitting on our hands and waiting for the tide of public anger once we get into power, I can see why Conservatives are not sure which route to take.

The point is that there is a third, more optimistic route to go down if only we have the balls to articulate it.

[Statistics Man]

Of course it's possible that a policy of "we can't state our tax policies until we've seen the books" is Maximum Openness. For example, if you don't have any tax and spending plans and you're waiting for Sir Humphrey to help you out.

[Victor Bowman]

As a retired civil servant of some 35 years service I would like to say that civil servants of my era (from 1965) always expected to be the first to feel the effects of financial squeezes and pay freezes - this was expected and was right, since generally, we could at least know that we had a job. This security was one of the reasons civil service pay was lower than equivallent jobs in the private sector. The consoling thought for us at that time was that MP's pay was linked to a civil service pay scale (when I retired it was Grade 7)and therefore they also had to scale back their standard of living and feel the effects of their own policies. Now this Government has promoted policies whereby many Public servants are not tied to a pay scale and are seriously overpaid either by taxable pay or inflated levels of other 'benefits'. There are now huge savings to be made by discontinuing these practices.

[David_at_Home]

Victor [email protected],

Would that today's Civil Servants were all like you! I fear that only a minority still hold these ideals.

Where is Sir Charles Trevelyan just when we need him?

[David Sergeant]

I really think we are being presented with a false choice here. Cable gets away with it because he will never have to do anything, I suspect he couldn't actually do anything anyway. Every speech by Osborne is furiously pick at as proof the Tories are going to sack nurses. There as a huge difference between coming out with details now and just before an election. To imply the difference doesn't exist as Cable seems to be doing just demonstrates he is just a dishonest as the rest of the Lib/Dems.

Cameron should concentrate right now of what is required once the troubles starting to calm down rather than cuts an tax rises.

[Julian L Hawksworth]

It's the timing which will be crucial here, combined with the need to be honest about the harsh truth. People are not stupid, and most will be well aware of the ongoing expansion of the public sector(regardless of today's economic climate), and the numerous "non-jobs" which Labour manages to create. Therefore, I believe that many will be more than willing to accept some fresh thinking.

In addition, Conservative policies regarding localism would also appeal to most people. Indeed, it could help people to feel more empowered in the democratic process. Labour's obsession with centralisation and trying to create a "database state", has severely damaged people's confidence in many of our once-revered democratic institutions.

[Ray Finch]

Malcolm Dunn.

At least I have the ability and courtesy to spell your name correctly.

"Crass"? It is the truth. More and more of the Conservative activists with whom I speak regularly are of the opinion that Mr. Cameron is "frit" and has no wish to pursue the conservative (small c) agenda that will make your party stand out as an alternative and thereby give the Labour Party the kicking it so richly deserves at the next election. Personally, I believe that he is no more a conservative than Jacqui Smith. He simply wants to be Tony Blair.
As for Nigel Farage, having spoken to him lately, he is more confident than ever that the British people will turn out and give the only party with an alternative vision for the UK its support in this election. Take a look at your own internal polling data. This will tell you the truth of the matter. With few exceptions, the elected politicians in your party are no more than Christian Socialists happy to go along with the EU and Labour visions of a bureaucratically run Quangocracy. It is turning into Orwells "1984" where the pigs become more and more like the humans they seek to replace.
http://ukipsoutheast.blogspot.com/

[Malcolm Dunn]

Morning Ray Finch,
Apologies for spelling your name incorrectly,I'm a lousy typist.
The rest of your post though is rubbish. UKIP are not scoring any better in any poll than they were three years ago.In most cases it's worse.I suspect Farage knows this.
I really can't be bothered to respond to your point about Cameron and Jacqui Smith. Crass doesn't begin to describe it.