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

[afleitch]

What David Cameron must do can be summarised in two points. 1. Tell the country about himself and 2. Tear into Grodn Brown, not Gordon Brown the man, but Gordon Brown the politician.

Labour tells us that Brown is untouchable, that his 10 years as Chancellor are not to be questioned only praised. Well there are questions we need to be answered by our ex Chancellor, but we know wont. Cameron must respond to them.

1. Why do we have 4.28 million people of working age (those receiving unemployment benefit, incapacity benefit and lone parent benefit)without a job? Why is this higher than the 4.07m in 1983 and 3.88m in 1990 when the Prime Minister you adore so much left office? 

2. Why did you take £100bn out of the pension fund. Why is one of Europes strongest pension funds now one of the weakest? Why did you force the youngest workers and those who had not even entered the job market to retire later rather than place 1p on income tax to pay for it as you were called to do?

3. Why are more young people out of work and not in education or training than when you came to power and promised full employment?

4. Why did you abolish the 10p start rate and foist a tax rise on some of our countries poorest workers?

5. Why, as PM have you not acted to halt the spread of foot and mouth when you predecessor postponed an election to deal with the crisis?

6. Why did you u-turn on drugs classification yet cut millions from the drugs treatment budget?

7. Why do you disguise our PFI debt and not tell the country that the schools and hospitals they hold dear are owned by private companies and rented at an increasing rate year on year?

8. Why will you not hold a referendum on the EU Treaty even though the treaty is considered as close in form to the Constitution it has moved other nations to call a vote?

9. Why, while pretending to distance yourself from the US did you give in to the stationing of radar for the US Missile Defense System in Yorkshire. something that Blair refused to budge on and denied calls to give Parliament a vote?

And why don't you trust people to vote on issued that matter. or to spend their own money wisely or to make their own choices in education and health? Why do you speak from the heart yet plagiarise your speeches? Why do you perform u-turn upon u-turn and shamelessly pilfer policies from the opposition while silencing your own Conference?

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. '

David Cameron must be bold, he must commit the party to perserving individual liberty and give them more of their own money back. He has to shield the young from the economic pressures placed upon them by a Chancellor and a PM who cares only for the votes of the 'middle age, middle class, made it, middle England' He has to stand up for the community and the family and for stability. He should say we will not penalise families, marriage or those in civil partnerships. He has to tell the country that we do not need relentless tax rises for improved public services that have yet to bear fruit. He has to call for a bottom - up tax cut for low income earners and to tackles youth crime and halt the alienation and villainisation of our young people by the country and this government.

If Gordon won't answer the questions, we will propose the answers.

And finally one final question to our PM - Who are you Gordon Brown?

[Silent Hunter]

A quick point on 1 (which can be raised with regards to a lot of things)- aren't there considerably more people in Britain than in 1990? Plus, why no figures from 1990-1997?

[afleitch]

A quick point on 1 (which can be raised with regards to a lot of things)- aren't there considerably more people in Britain than in 1990? Plus, why no figures from 1990-1997?

I don't have access to those figures; source doesn't hold them but they seem to be easy to work out if I can get hold of the relevant stats. If we extend the criteria to other allowances, the figure is often quoted as 5.3 million or 16% IIRC of the workforce as Alan Duncan quoted today.

[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

[afleitch]

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.

As for Mrs Warsi's 'homophobic' comments, I know homophobia when I see it. I also know through experience how elections work. She states, and I will believe her even though she holds a less enlightened view of gays than I do, that the offending leaflet was a template, drawn up by an overenthusiastic opportunist in her party, okayed by the agent and out before Warsi had the chance to check it. (and I know what that's like) It was an error on her behalf and she has apologised for the offence caused.

I choose to believe her apology as I do Simon Hughes belated apology and make my judgement on her performance in her role. If Ruth Kelly is entrusted with such a brief and is able to seperate personal opinion and religion from policy making, then I trust Sayeeda Warsi.

[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

[afleitch]

"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

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.   Also announced of course was a pledge to increase WTC for 1.3 million families by nearly £2000 a year by cracking down on those who misclaim incapacity benefit and trying to reduce the 4.3 million working age adults in this country without a job.

I believe that any tax cutting proposal should be scrutinied, and the Tory figures can add up to secure a balanced budget for the country and for each household. They cannot be blamed for trying to ensure a calculation as accurate as possible. Gordon Brown ringfenced £39 billion in public spending in his first month as PM. Where, I ask, were the figures then? Where then, were the sums and where were the costs to each household? The government bears its teeth and asks for the cost of every tax cut, but bares it's arse at anyone who asks for the cost of a tax rise or an increase in publc spending

We have a government that does not budget in 'pounds and pence', but in 'teachers and nurses' declaring that each billion will cost x amount of teachers or x amount of nurses. If they want to play that game, then fine. Why has it cost the government an unnaceptable number of 'post offices and A&E wards' to keep it's books balanced? Because nurses don't have as high a monetary value if you don't have A&E wards open for them to work in.

[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

[afleitch]

The 54% figure is the projected average for English students who began university in 2006/07. My own % (I left in 05-06 and we didn't have top of fees thank the lord) is over a third of my income plus increased pension investment and rising, next April with the abolition of the 10p starting rate (which is why I want to find a flat to rent before then) So times are hard for even those who did their best to not weigh themselves down with personal debt, without the government making things worse. Gordon Brown can promise me more 'teachers'n'nurses' (and doctors, some of whom I know can't find a bloody placement) but I'd rather have my livelyhood and the right to have my own roof over my head. Westminster' squeezed purse strings has impacted the Executives budget and made the possibility of job cuts in the civil service for whom I work a daunting prospect.

You donlt need a think tank to tell you what you and your friends have to put up with. The day the government takes responsibility for the last 10 years of power and stop pretending all problems are pre-existant the country will be a better place. (The number of people out of work, unemployed or nor is already higher in raw terms than it was under the worst excesses of Thatcherism as Labour innaely bleat on about)

The governments job creation record is apalling. Fit and healthy young people are being forced onto incapacity benefit because they can't find work, unemployment is higher amongst 18-24's not in education or training than when Labour came to power, after 10 years of facetious economic growth. As IDS pointed out, 40% of those who go through the New Deal are back on benefits a year later. Some go through the New Deal Programme, two, three, four even five times. A quarter of a million more people claim single parents benefit than are actually single parents because they are financially better off single or claiming that they are to the taxman.

2.5 million people claim incapacity benefit (not included in the official unemployment figure if you want to talk about 'fixing the books' ) costing the taxpayers £7.7bn and the economy countless billions more. We loose £2.6 billion through beenfit fraud which the government has failed to tackle. Our benefit boat is leaky and in need to repair - our countless millions out of work (from the PM who pledged full employment as Chancellor) need schemes designed to get them back to work. The working poor and the young people under this government deserve better.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The following figures are presented without commentary and the only notes are those needed in order to understand them better. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from them.

Some data from the 1981 census:

Pop. England & Wales over 16: 37,748,167

Economically active: 22,988,011
Seeking work: 1,983,725
Temp. sick: 218,470 (subtotal: 2,202,195)

Economically inactive: 14,760,156
Perm. sick: 772,419
Other Inactive: 8,062,015

Some data from the 2001 census:

Pop. England & Wales between ages of 16 and 74: 37,607,438

Economically active: 25,022,204
Unemployed: 1,261,343

Economically inactive: 12,585,234
Perm. sick or disabled: 2,076,243
Other Inactive: 1,174,401

Notes:

1. Scotland not included as figures not available for 2001 from the source I was using.
2. There was no upper cutoff point for age in the 1981 figures.
3. "Other Inactive" does not include students or the retired.
4. The source is Nomis.

[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

[afleitch]

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

[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"

[afleitch]

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!

And Gordon Brown, our 'conviction politician' does not? He gets Bob Shrum to write his personal speech and dregs through the discarded remains of the 2005 Conservative manifesto to ruffle up a few policies sprinkled with populist drivel like 'British Jobs for British Workers.' He woos Thatcher, he u-turns on a referendum,he steals a Conservative policy two weeks after refusing to back it and he seeks an election at a time that is right for him and not for the country.

Grodon does not rule by conviction, he rules by manipulation and all we've got left to figure out is if he is the manipulator or is being manipulated. He is the most transparent Labour leader in history and makes Tony Blair look like a picture of modesty by comparison. And today he breaks his promise to the people that he would announce policy in the Commons by flying off to Iraq for a token troop cut gesture (according to Newsnight nearly the entire 500 are already back in the UK and the other 500 are based in Germany and would never get anywhere near Basra in the first instance as they were due to replace the 500 who have already been recalled) designed to hog the front pages of the newspapers he spends so much time courting. FTR he failed; it was Diana and Maddy again!

This is the man, by his offices own admission who rang up the Times 6 times in the one day last week to complain about a negative headline. He shows as much contempt for parliament and for the Commons as his predecessor did and is as obessed with spin and his own image as a statist 'daddy' of the nation.

I find it rather odd you consider David Cameron to move 'anyway the wind blows' but are oblivious to Gordon's positioning. I know you try to rationalise it with 'big tent' and 'unity' and all that but really Dave, I expected your old 'support with criticism' with regards to Labour not to be so subverted by the man who walked in the door after knifing Blair in the back and without a leadership vote

[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

[The Man From G.O.P.]

You guys, can we keep the posts a little more short to the point?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As far as I'm aware incapacity benefit has never been included in the official unemployment figures;

This is true. Unemployment figures used to just count those on the dole.