Thoughts on David Cameron

[Democratic Hawk]

As his speech to the Conservative Party Conference approaches, the bottom-line for David Cameron is this. He can either be, positively, proactive in articulating the Conservatives as a better alternative to Brown and Labour or he can be, negatively, reactive towards Brown and Labour.

He needs to decide once and for all, whether he is a ‘moderniser’, who is not afraid to confront the reactionary right wing of his party, just as Blair and Brown have Labour’s left, or someone who merely capitulates to them the moment the going gets tough.

The Labour Party’s move to the centre ground was protracted and often painful with rival factions tearing the hell out of each other. While the modernisation began with Neil Kinnock and continued under John Smith, Tony Blair took Labour by the horns taking the party exactly where he wanted it to be, a progressive ‘Third Way’ party for the 21st century. Much of the Thatcherite ‘Settlement’ was accepted, although Labour has subscibed to capitalism ‘with a conscience’ for want of better words and with much success in casting off it's more debilitating dogma.

This week will either be the making or the breaking of David Cameron. Part of his problem being that he expected to just walz in as party leader then ride a high wave on the back of Labour’s faults, which is why, thus far, Gordon Brown, a seemingly refreshing change from the more flash and debonair Tony Blair to many voters, has sent him reeling.

Indeed, the real strength of Brown’s speech to the Labour Party Conference was in that he didn’t seek to smear, rubbish, or disparage the opposition parties and their leaders; and kudos to him for setting such a positive tone in which he emphasised his hopes and aspirations for a better Britain. I’ve no doubt Brown’s core rests in his profound social conscience, as grounded in his Presbyterian faith. I will concede, however, that comments from Neil Kinnock and Hazel Blears was, alas, far from positive. Brown offered a positive and optimistic vision of the nation, whereby Labour can build on the last 10 years. This is why I suspect, in that it transcended petty partisan politics, it has, thus far, resonated very well with those voters who aren’t rapidly partisan one way or another.

Cameron needs to be cautious that should be take some crass scaremongering, negative, reactive approach, although it would surely resonate well with many Conservative voters, it has every potential to turn-off other voters, especially that given, thus far, voters across the political spectrum appear to be impressed with Brown’s performance as PM.

Surprising, as it may seem, many don’t like ‘negative’ politics. I’ve been out on the knock long enough to know this. I sometimes wonder if such ‘negativity’ diminishes turnout, though much evidence I have is anecdotal.

Above all, there is a need for some CONSISTENCY from Cameron, who in his struggle to define himself and the direction in which he, supposedly, wants to take his party, has resembled a weather vane, blowing this way, blowing that way, lurching here, lurching there, clutching at this, clutching at that as each and every bandwagon approaches and passes.

One minute he is the ‘heir to Blair’, the next minute the ‘heir to Thatcher’; one minute he’s a compassionate liberal Conservative, the next he’s Thatcherite to his core; … it just goes on and on.

The policy reviews, and I actually commend Cameron from undertaking such a comprehensive review, seem to have sent a rather incoherent message to voters, none more other than those of Osborne and Redwood, and Gummer and Goldsmith.

Personal Reflections

My gravest reservation about Cameron, however, is that he seems set on some path towards marginalising our great nation in European and international affairs. I view with some concern his pledge to withdraw his party’s MEPs from the European Peoples’ Party (EPP). Although something of a centre-left progressive myself, (though an uber ‘hawk’ when it comes to national security and no bleeding heart liberal when it comes to crime), I’ve always viewed with some admiration the European Christian Democratic parties, just as I have the ‘One-Nation’ Conservative tradition. And I’m far from convinced David Cameron fits in with that.

On the other hand, Gordon Brown is undoubtedly, statesman, global leader material, who is widely feted on the international stage, and as such is better positioned to guarantee our national interests. Cameron, given something reminiscent of an ‘identity’ crisis (at least, with Blair you actually knew where he wanted to take the Labour Party), is much more likely to buckle under pressure from within than Brown, despite what he says in his coming conference speech.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Cameron bold ? He hasn't even got the guts to sack the totally unsuitable Sayeeda Warsi, seemingly a BNP apologist [wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't herself born of Pakistani immigrants] and homophobe with a brief for, believe it or not, Community Cohesion

Meanwhile, after banging on about economic stability BEFORE tax cuts (blah, blah, blah), what does  George Osborne come along and offer? Tax cuts. Of course, many people are only too well that Tory tax cuts aren't really tax cuts at all. Oh yes, what they giveth away they clawed back in non-direct taxes, which I might add do not reflect the ability to pay

That said, neither is the upcoming reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 22p to 20p since that has been costed by abolishing the 10p starting rate of income tax, which is something Labour introduced I might add. Nevertheless, the basic rate cut is good

Not to mention one minute you have Osborne standing alongside the REHABILITATED ABOMINATION that is John Redwood (get them kids up them chimneys, quick sharp ) like a nodding dog endorsing less control and regulation for the banks, then the Northern Rock crisis comes along and here's the very same St George calling for new arrangements for consumer credit, banking supervision  and deposit insurance (the latter of which I've voiced support for, NR proving the existing system grossly inadequate). What is that if not more regulation?

Not too long ago we had, Cameron and Osborne pontificating about a "mountain of personal debt". This may well have gone down like a load of lead with voters. Who are they, who've probably never wanted for anything in their lives, to tell us plebs how much we can and can't borrow?

It gets better. Osborne, apparently, said that the base rate should be 8%. Yes, why not cripple us plebs more? Haven't the Tories learnt that high interest rates in the wake of the ERM debacle done them no favours whatsoever? Meanwhile, the OECD has suggested that interest rates may need to be cut to boost the economy. Bring it on, I say

No seriously, there needs to be more responsibility on the part of lenders and borrowers [I'm not so flippant as to not think that]

BTW, according to the Gospel of St George, inheritance tax is a "tax on aspiration"; though the mind boggles as to what a deceased person can aspire to be once they are dead

The threshold for inheritance tax should be incrementally raised, year on year. In fact, why don't Brown and Darling work towards a two-tier progressive rate of inheritance tax, maybe 20% and 40%, depending on the value of the estate. From what I can ascertain, relatively, few estates pay inheritance tax in any case

Still credit where credit is due . The proposal to exempt first-time buyers from paying stamp duty on properties valued at less than £250,000 gets the Hawk's seal of approval

But the bottom line remains why roll the dice on the stable economy, and, thus, the socio-economic well-being and, relative, occupational security of the British people on these chancers? Then we'll all know what economic pressures are all about

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Meanwhile some good news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7021247.stm



More good news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7021414.stm

Hopefully, this is just the beginning . I'd like to see it in line with the US and Canada, at least

And more good news:

http://www.abeceder.co.uk/newsarticle_2809.php



And some bad news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7021021.stm

But a reasonable increase nevertheless

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Cameron bold ? He hasn't even got the guts to sack the totally unsuitable Sayeeda Warsi, seemingly a BNP apologist [wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't herself born of Pakistani immigrants] and homophobe with a brief for, believe it or not, Community Cohesion

Dave

I'm only going to comment on this part because I think it's unfair. First of all, what Warsi said was that BNP voters (voters, mind) had "some very legitimate views on race and crime". Or in full;

"There are a lot of people out there who are voting for the BNP and it's those people that we mustn't just write off. "They have some very legitimate views - people who say, 'We are concerned about crime and justice in our communities, we are concerned about immigration in our communities.'"

This is similar to what Margaret Hodge raised in April 2006 when she said white working class voters may vote BNP because "no one else is listening to them"

"The political class as a whole is often frightened of engaging in the very difficult issues of race and...the BNP then exploits that and try and create out of a perception a reality which is not the reality of people's lives."

The sentiments expressed are very similar and worth consideration without political points scoring. That is why, you may have noticed Labour have failed to 'run' with that angle as they know not to do so. If Margaret Hodge (born in Cairo not that these things sgould be relevent) is still a Labour minister, then Sayeeda Warsi should remain in the Shadow Cabinet.

BNP, ban the bastards

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should think so too

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simon Hughes. I'm not even going there, except to say that his by-election campaign was disgusting. That said, Tatchell is too left for my tastes

As far Warsi, seen her on Question Time a few times, nowt ower . Of course, I'm not easily impressed. The performances of some of my own lot leave much to be desired, on screen and off

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Election battle lines drawn as Tories defend tax plans

Osborne's £1m inheritance tax threshold under fire from Labour and analysts

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tory2007/story/0,,2181590,00.html

The cuts, he told his party's annual conference in Blackpool, would be funded by charging a levy from so-called non-domiciles, such as foreign City workers and the super-rich, who register offshore and avoid paying tax. To rapturous applause, Mr Osborne said: "We will take 10 million people out of these taxes on aspiration. For millions of people, today sounds the death knell for death taxes."

However, the proposals were seized upon by Labour and called into question by independent financial analysts. Drawing on Treasury figures, Labour said the proposed charge on non-domiciles would raise £650m, leaving a near £3bn shortfall in the Conservative plan. "It looks like it has been done on the back of a fag packet, which is incredible since they have had so long to get this right," said one official.

The party pointed to official figures that showed that in 2005-6 there were only 114,000 non-domiciles - not the 150,000 on which the Tory calculations are based. The Tories countered that their figure was based on a projection for 2008-9, the year in which the tax cuts would begin.

A spokesman for the Institute of Fiscal Studies said: "These are people [non-domiciles] who are notoriously difficult to tax. You do have to wonder if it was so easy to get the money from these people, why Labour hasn't done it already. The Tories cannot be certain what tax they will actually get from them."

Don't know George gets his 10m figure from, since, as far as I'm aware only 6% of estates pay Inheritance Tax in any case. As for being a "tax on aspiration", please enlighten me George as to what a person can possibly aspire to be once he or she is dead?

Meanwhile, the Diana Minutely heralds the blow against Gordon Brown's Inheritance Tax . Any one would think he was responsible for introducing it? Don't recall him being Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1986. It's not like thresholds have stood still either

"Economic stability BEFORE tax cuts, economic stability BEFORE tax cuts" - all sounding rather hollow now. I won't be rolling the dice on these chancers. Besides, for all I know, this planned tax on non-domiciles could be bad for the economy, overall, which I suspect is why, IIRC, Brown considered it but never introduced it

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Brown introduces nothing that hurts the super-rich. That's why the average graduate can be expected to pay 54% of their income back to the taxman by super tycoons can pay no more than a smidgeon to back to the public purse. Graduates are just as vital to our economy as the super rich, but unlike the super rich they are not a major source of party funding.  

Where do you get that 54% figure from? I hope it's not from some wing spin tank

BTW, where do the Tories stand on top-up tuition fees these days? I never approved of them.  Loans were a necessary evil. Full grants unsustainable given the volume going into the system I'd have thought

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pledging to actually do something about the sons and daughters of the mothers and fathers who were actively encouraged by the then Conservative government to sign on the sick instead of claiming dole to make the figures look good, are they? These sons and daughters, of course, never knowing any better, went on to claim themselves. Yes, mass welfare dependency is neo-liberal construct (Keynes never intended for it to be this way) and I suppose this, partly, is where the seeds of this so-called 'broken society', Cameron is so keen to bang on about, were sown. I don't buy that myself, society is ruptured in parts but hardly smashed into smitherines

Welfare dependency is psychologically a hard pattern to break. People who are made to feel worthless, actually grow up to feel worthless, often making them predisposed to personality orders and mental illness. For these men in the 1980s, losing their and their families livelihoods must have been a hard blow to their psyche, especially those who had always been in paid employment

In the meantime by cracking down on misclaims, should it come to this, alarm bells will definately go ringing in the ears of the genuinely sick, pushing some over the edge I suspect. Any crackdown is going to create added bureaucracy?

What strand of contemporary Conservativism does all this fit in with? The 'heirs to Thatcher'/the New Right (economic libertarianism with cultural conservatism, kind of), 'Liberal Conservativism' (as it comes on the tin) and 'Compassionate Conservativism' ('One-Nation' Conservatism)

Mind I do think IDS has a genuine interest in poverty and social justice, in all fairness. Just sounds all too rich, especially coming from the right of the party, when social justice was rubbished as a euphenism for the hated socialism back in the 1980s and who, frankly, couldn't give a toss who fell on hard times

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bottom-line. Don't trust the Tories when it comes to the economy, public services and tax (they might have cut income tax, but they ramped it up elsewhere). I'm not rolling the dice on this country's economic stability, it's socio-economic well-being and the, relative, occupational security of the British people

Indeed, stormy waters may well be ahead for the economy, I don't know I'm not an economics or financial guru, but I want a steady pair of hands at the helm. 60 consecutive quarters of economic growth - 19 under the Tories and 41 under Labour. Who would have thought it

Gordon might be PM, but his first love is certain to be the economy because without a strong economy what are we as a nation. The wrongs of the past social traumas haven't been entirely being correctded yet

Just think I might have been a Tory had those reactionary neo-libs never taken hold of the party in the mid-1970s. Admiring Thatcher as a 'conviction' politician is not by any stretch an endorsement of those very same convictions. I agree with hindsight that days of nationalisation were over, as well as some TU legislation and RTBs. But , at the time, I think the only thing I wholeheartedly stood alongside her was the Falklands War. Still don't like the mass welfare dependency legacy of course (as I think you've probably gathered)

But seriously, I don't think of Cameron as leadership material. He's a kind of personable front for the more 'nasty', base elements that lurk behind. You may feel in a similar way about Tony Blair. Big difference though. Blair took the left of the Labour Party on, Cameron panders to his right. One minute he's 'Mr Moderniser' and the next it's 'Mr Back to Traditional Tory Values'. Where does Cameron want to be? In the 21st century or back with Redwood in the 19th [and pre-Disraeli at that ]? Disraeli, of course, seemed to be ahead of his times

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Believe me, public sector workers are a darn sight more secure under a Labour government than they are a Conservative one. Working for Durham City Council, in the 1990s, I never felt secure with a Conservative government ever. Fortunately, all redundancies, or early retirements, were voluntary and the then-Labour council never had to issue compulsory notices. It would have broken them to do that

Being a regular lurker, down at the Torygraph, the arrogance and contempt that those who work in the private sector show towards those who work in the public sector defies belief. I'm disgusted by the terms by which they refer to them

Yes, I don't doubt there remains a high-level welfare dependency. I'm fully aware of it, but it doesn't alter the fact that mass welfare dependency in the post war era did not come into being until the 1980s. It went beyond it's original intent as a safety net to become a way of life

As far as I'm aware incapacity benefit has never been included in the official unemployment figures; so obviously, we've come a long way FORWARD from where we were 25 years ago and with a higher population. More people in employment in the UK than ever before. The long-term incap numbers should fall as those were actively encouraged to go on it, back in the 1980s, reach pensionable age. Maybe your 18-24s are good waggers, I'm not aware of Labour deliberately encouraging the fit and healthy onto incap to massage the figures since the unemployment figure in itself is reasonably low not to fiddled

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Have the Tories at Blackpool had their "waste" and "red tape" moment yet?

Basically, when the Tories talk about "waste" they mean job cuts (and not necessaily voluntary redundancies or as posts become vacant through retirements, and such); and when they talk about "red tape", they mean undermining employment protection, pay, conditions, etc

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, when the Tories talk about "waste" they mean job cuts (and not necessaily voluntary redundancies or as posts become vacant through retirements, and such)

If you can identify parts of the 2005 manifesto or current policy announcements that call for cuts in public sector jobs (and bureaucrats and mandarins don't count. Neither do the £70 billion worth of consultants) then I might take that seriously

Past track records in government, Andrew, past track records . I just don't trust them with the economy or public services. End of! Even taxes. They might have slashed income taxes but they didn't half claw it back in indirect taxes, which don't reflect the ability to pay I might add

I had high hopes of David Cameron, very high hopes but he's oscilitated so much over the past two years that even Conservatives wouldn't trust him as far as they could throw him. He's 'Mr Moderniser', he's 'Mr Traditional Tory Values', .... He'll go where there are votes to had!

At least, Tony Blair knew what direction he wanted to take Labour and, by Jove , he took it. Margaret Thatcher knew where she wanted to take the Conservatives and by Juno , she took it.  "You take the High Road, and I'll take the Low Road" / "It's My Way or the Highway" describe those two. Dave, on the other hand, ... I actually think is even more rudderless than the Lib Dems

Oh I'm sure he'll give off a good speech, he's slick, polished enough. I'm sure he'll get a conference boost. I mean the Tories seem to be on their best behaviour at Blackpool. Following the good example set by Labour at theirs, perhaps. Can Dave follow the tone set by Gordon in his conference speech or will be demean himself?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't know how I missed this one

As Alan Duncan said;

'We are witnessing government by propaganda of the most chillingly deceitful sort.  Nothing is genuine; everything is calculated.  Be it the blue tie, or the visit of Margaret Thatcher to No 10, everything is a cynical contrivance.  For me politics is about what you believe in.  For Gordon Brown it is what you can get away with.  Gordon Brown is an utterly shameless peddler of propaganda. '

What a petty, base, suspicious you have Alan Duncan? Get back in thy Ivory Tower dude , where you libertarians can't do too much damage

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave: "I wanna go this way", Evil Johnny: "No you're coming with me"

[Democratic Hawk]

I trust Gordon Brown to do what is right by the nation more than I would David Cameron. Gordon has been in public service a long time. It's a question of experience. I feel Cameron should have learnt how to walk before he could run. One term in parliament is not long enough to be leading a major political party, IMO, especially the only realistic alternative to the current government. He's not Pitt the Younger

As things stand, Labour is a party with a plenty of Third Way centrist-types with its leftwing that harps on a bit on this and that every once in a while; the Conservative Party has a fair few admirable moderates but remains an innately right wing party, in which pro-Europeans get a bit of a bum deal. The Conservative Party had in Kenneth Clarke, have a man who'd make a worthy Prime Minister, but there was no chance of that because he is pro-EU

Given that Labour has shed it's suffocating ideological dogma, I'm primarily support this party because,  in doing so, I feel it is the party that puts the economic stability, the socio-economic well-being, of both the country and the people, above all else. I also consider it the more moderate of the two main parties and I'm moderate myself

Labour, to me are incremental progressives, economically and socially, therefore, not suited to enacting any great upheaval as such. Much of the party, of course, on high-risk issues has led them to pursue a more 'hawkish' (watchful) path. The duty of any government is to enhance the security of the nation and the rights and liberties we cherish. Yes, we are a "big tent". Yes, many of us are keen to transcend petty partisanship.

Which brings me back to Cameron. I find him conceited possibly pretending to be something he is not but as you know I've taken a particular to dislike to the man, and so the time has come to say why.

A few weeks ago an 11-year-old schoolboy, Rhys Jones, was shot and killed in Liverpool. This sent the city and the country into collective mourning as to how something so abhorant could happen. Rhys' parents and brother conducted themselves with remarkable dignity, ancient tribal animosity between Everton and Liverpool was cast aside. A city came together and collectively shared their grief. This was of remarkable comfort to the Jones' family. Rhys' short life was celebrated as much as it was mourned. Condolences were expressed countrywide.

But what does David Cameron do? Well, he, knee-jerkingly, goes into the 'blame game' and accuses Labour of 'being in denial' about gun-crime. But to use such a tragic loss of young life to peddle such alarmist rhetoric as 'anarchy' is both crass and grossly irresponsible. In fact, it sickened me to my stomach. It's dangerous talk. It plays to peoples' fears. It undermines our right to live our lives. We must stand up to those who perpetrate such horrid acts, we must go about living our lives, if justice is to triumph over justice, if hope is to triumph over fear, if reason is to triumph over irrationality. It is these times which bring us together and together Britain can win

Tony Blair commenting, on the murder of James Bulger, in 1993, called the killing a 'hammer blow against the sleeping conscience of society' and warned of 'moral chaos'. He wasn't out to score points. There was no alarmist rhetoric there, no blame game. Why couldn't David Cameron have responded in a similar dignified way?

Apologies for any crassness on my part but some things needed to be said

Dave