Cutting with credibility

June 8, 2010 — simonashall

The PM speaking at MK

The PM’s speech in Milton Keynes was among the most important of his political career so far. It defined his position more clearly than anything previously on the defining political question of the decade – how to get Britain back into business.

We can take from it several things – firstly that the PM will lay it on very thick about the economic crisis being Labour’s fault. I think that’s no bad thing – particularly because they are starting to come out with some pretty outrageous criticism of the coalition on a situation they helped, at least, to create. But I think he’s got to be careful and not get too free with this tactic. He needs to be the consensus man, the leader, the unifier and the solution, not the “new” problem.

Secondly, the PM is happy to tell us just how bad it is, unlike Labour. Not everyone will agree with him but it is obviously in his interest to make things seem as bad as possible. I don’t think a great deal of exaggeration is necessary – things are very, very bad – but the openness he is in a political position to afford could be something of an advantage. I think if played well, far from Mervyn King’s prediction being correct, the public could be sympathetic to the Coalition for some time to come. Honest actions go a long way in politics nowadays and the public recognise favourably politicians who are prepared to do the right, if not popular, thing.

Thirdly, Danny Alexander will be right next to him – all the way. There’s no way that the Liberal Democrats are getting off the hook with this one as full members of the Coalition and I don’t think they want to. NC has said that there will be a “cut with kindness” policy that will shield some of the most vulnerable from the worst of what needs to be done but that can only do so much – they can’t be protected from council cuts in many areas.

Nor do I think it’s a good idea for George Osborne to widely consult the public on where to save money. This is a very risky strategy that could puta very considerable rod in his back when Labour organises a Twitter campaign to get people to respond in a particular way. The results could then be FOIed and may not be where the final decision needs to be made. It could look like the public has been consulted and ignored – not great PR.

The simple answer here is that, a bit like Masterchef, this new economic future is going to “change our life”. There are opportunities for efficiency, yes, and looking at different ways of providing services. But the bottom line is that we need to get a £170bn deficit down and there’s a lot of money to hack off budgets. It must be done, it must be done quickly and there is a certainly amount of political risk that is going to come as the pay-off of winning the election (sort of).

I think the Coalition needs to remember that the public has a great deal more of a problem with dishonesty than ineffectiveness. If the government tries to mask the problem, if it breaks its promises over what it is going to cut, if there is a suspicion that certain groups are being unjustly protected or if there is any underhand treasury regulation as with the last government, the considerable goodwill that the public holds will drain quickly.

If the government is straight, calls a cut a cut and acts responsibly for the best interests of the nation, it might just find itself laying down a legacy of decency – if not prosperity – and a chance in 2015 to lead the country properly back into the new world economy with its head held high.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Economy, lib dems. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

A Classless stunt

May 29, 2010 — simonashall

A grim day for David Laws but also the relationship between the media and government

When the PM decided to make his big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats, it was done because he recognised the necessity in forming a strong government in the wake of an ultimately indecisive election. He knew that the British public didn’t want to be at the polls again in October, he knew that the country couldn’t afford – and probably wouldn’t accept – Labour being kept in power and that in order to form the only coalition government that could claim a mandate he would have to talk seriously, sensibly and flexibly to a party between whose activists there has at times existed a genuine hatred.

No matter – that quite rightly has been placed aside in order to get the best people into government. And if you look at the excellent line-up of the cabinet – the PM and NC working together, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Ken Clarke, Vince Cable and others, you understand that the sacrifices both parties have made in their hearts and minds have been worth it.

David Laws has, for me, been the stand-out performer of the coalition. His handling of the announcement of the £6.2bn cuts last week was first-rate both in the house and in front of the media. His boss George Osborne was there with him but said very little and one hopes was watching carefully to see how it should be done. The point is it doesn’t matter whether he’s Lib Dem or Tory; if he’s got a mandate from the electorate and can do the job, the country needs him in place.

Enter the Daily Telegraph, whose view of the country is somewhat different. For them, the agenda is foxhunting, family values, favourable taxes and flag-waving. They don’t care much for Lib Dems – especially ones with secret gay lovers – and they’re not bothered about keeping the coalition together if it forces an election that could redress the result of May 6. Don’t get me wrong – I’m really disappointed that we didn’t secure an outright majority; but it was the failure to gain winnable Labour seats – not Lib Dem ones – that cost us victory.

The way in which the Telegraph has dealt with the David Laws story is bullying, immoral and reckless. What David Laws did was unquestionably wrong, although one can understand (just) why he did it. The money that he was taking from the taxpayer to pay his lover as landlord fell foul of regulations in 2006 that money could no longer be paid to “spouses” as “rent” (the fact it ever could be is bewildering). Had David Laws then not continued the payment, the question of why would have been asked – forcing him to reveal details of his private life.

Trouble is that £40,000 is a lot of money and he doesn’t need it any more than the PM. It creates the impression that a man asking the nation to make terrifying cuts across public and private fields is being less than austere with his own arrangements. For that reason, once the story became public, he has done the right thing in resigning – a very sad consequence of unjust parliamentary procedures in the first instance and social judgement in the second.

But for the Telegraph, there is no such mitigation. This angry, reactionary and backwards publication is an embarrassment to Conservatism and the nation it so very proudly wants to tell everyone it embodies. It represents exactly the kind of sneering, snobbish and bigoted values that the public reacted against in 1997 and brought Tony Blair into our lives. Why it felt it could not reveal the facts about David Laws during the original story is anyone’s guess and there is a rancid stench of spite and homophobia running through the decision to break it now – just as David Laws reaches the peak of his political career and achieves the platform to display his talents.

Who knows what’s behind it - there are of course powerful factions with an interest in removing a star in the making who wears the “wrong” colours (or the “right” colours in the “wrong” way) in both their political and private life. What amazes and disgusts me is that they, whoever they are, would choose to run so contrary to the national interest by fashioning the demise of potentially a key figure in the recovery and rebuilding of our economy.

The lowest nadir for UK journalism since the Sun decided it was in the public interest to publish topless pictures of the Countess of Wessex a few days before her wedding; and to trump the Sun on classlessness takes some doing.

Posted in David Cameron, Economy, politics. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

At long last

May 11, 2010 — simonashall

What we've all waited 13 years to see

The day after my 19th birthday, Tony Blair swept into Number 10 with a silly grin on his face and the nation hypnotised by the promise of hope, panache and plenty. I didn’t think he’d deliver any of these as no Labour PM had ever done so before and six months later, I joined the Conservative Party. I made it my aim as a student activist to try and get rid of Labour but I found a Tory Party unwilling to learn lessons or change and so followed a different path - but the events of May 1, 1997 politicised me in a moment that everyone active in politics experiences.

Today, Labour has finally gone. But unlike 1997, there is no sense of positivity and little hope for short-term prosperity. In 13 years of borrowing from the future, Labour has brought the country to its knees financially and failed to address any of the social issues that people believed it would. Yes, there have been some difficult circumstances not all of its own making but Labour has ruled recklessly – and, worse, in its own self-interest. It has expanded the public sector to bring more people into state pay, opened our borders to bring in voters likely to boost its standing and declined to address benefits dependancy and a lack of social mobility to keep whole sections of society locked into a sense of victimhood.

What has happened since 1997 has been an undermining of our nation far exceeding anything that happened under Margaret Thatcher. Almost every aspect of our daily lives has been made worse by Labour – and that is quite an achievement. From our economy to our overseas interests – our health service to education, Labour has failed to stem decline in all of these areas through a woeful addiction to political dogma and a determination that the country should serve it rather than the other way round.

The Conservative Party needs to accept its share of the blame for the 1997-2005 years. It was a shambles of an opposition during that time, fighting among itself and moving decisively to the right in the wake of John Major’s defeat. William Hague is a fine politician but if Ken Clarke had been appointed leader in 1997, it is quite possible that Labour’s spree of destruction would have ceased in 2005. DC is the person who has turned that situation around – but it is only the beginning.

I long imagined that the sight of DC entering Number 10 would fill me with joy but it gives me no pleasure that a Conservative Prime Minister should be in power once more faced with the bleakest, leanest and most difficult times since the Second World War. But at least at last, at long last, the shadow that the wretched and devisive New Labour project cast over this nation of ours has been lifted and the process of finding our place in the world once more can begin.

But I envy neither the new PM nor our coalition colleagues the Liberal Democrats for the work that has to be done.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Roll on 2010. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

Gene-ius!

April 3, 2010 — simonashall

This is the defining image of the 2010 election

One of the most interesting things about the totally inexplicable Labour poster is the way that the character of DCI Gene Hunt obviously means completely different things to different sectors of political opinion. I’ll say now that I don’t watch either Ashes to Ashes or Life on Mars (although that is based in the 1970s) but my understanding is that he represents everything good – and bad – about how policing used to be before the reforms of the 1990s.

I know him best from the Marks and Spencer ad where he ogles a female model in a harmless enough way – although this was enough to get some people worked up. That is clearly the side that Labour is aiming for – the corrupt, brutal and amoral character that Hunt is in Life on Mars. But what Labour has spectacularly failed to grasp is that the people who see him in that way are people who think like the London-centric, politically-correct Islington sushi set; and the vast majority of people have, as the Grauniad said – the Grauniad , for goodness’ sake – “taken to our hearts” the character of Gene Hunt. People in Britain like a loveable rogue.

Ironically, in the 1980s series Ashes to Ashes, Hunt is a different character – more professional, loyal and with a host of good qualities he lacked previously. Which begs the question of whether Jacob Quagliozzi, the poster’s designer – who was four or five years old when the 1980s ended - actually watches Ashes to Ashes either?

Whatever the reason, Labour has catastrophically misjudged the majority’s viewpoint. People might have reservations about some things that went on in the 1980s but I can remember a time when police were out on the streets rather than filling in forms. I also see that rates were dramatically less by percentage of income, petrol cost a quarter of what it does now and houses exchanged hands for something like the cost of building them rather than a four or five times premium. Everyone had a NHS dentist, doctors gave out appointments in the week they were requested and councils didn’t hand out fines for selling goldfish, or engage in social engineering.

You can see what Mr Quagliozzi had in mind – there are some things about the 1980s that weren’t so great. I just about remember the Miners’ Strike and while British de-industrialisation was necessary in the face of foreign competition, I will never support that the way some of our northern communities were treated. Thirty years on, dozens and dozens of towns across the north will never vote Tory because of the appaling way they were treated and there is some justice in that.

Those towns will “get” this poster (although it’s probably not appearing there). But they won’t vote Conservative anyway. For the majority of people, Gene Hunt is something entirely different and Labour have shown in splendid technicolor how they have become unable to engage with people who don’t think as they do. Up until this point, the Conservative posters have been rubbish. The airbrushed one of DC was limp and corporate and the Saatchis were brought on board to rescue a sorry situation. Luckily, Labour has gifted them the defining image and slogan of this election – Fire up the Quattro. It’s time for change.

Posted in David Cameron, Labour, elections, politics. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Lurch to the right

January 25, 2010 — admin

DC has plenty to think about - but voters still don't want Gordon Brown as PM

There’s no mystery as to why the Conservative lead in the polls has narrowed. In fact, reading PR Week this morning, it was quite refreshing to see Alex Hilton spelling it out for any reading Conservatives who may not have realised yet. And if we look at the polls, we don’t really see any massive increase in Labour’s polling – they are steady at just under 30% – but a decline in support for the Conservatives.

The tipping point was the Lisbon Treaty being ratified by President Klaus of the Czech Republic. For the first time, DC and his team looked like they’d been caught out – like they had thought that the wily old Klaus would hold out for them and they didn’t look as though they had really thought through what would happen next. Or perhaps they underestimated the level of opinion within the Tory grass roots and had expected them just to swallow the whole debate being kicked into the long grass.

In reality, there wasn’t much alternative, as I argued at the time. A referendum on the treaty is a totally pointless waste of time and the activists’ posturing on it just that. But the question of whether to put Tory grass roots ahead of country as a whole was a particularly poignant one for him because voters see that question as the benchmark as to what kind of PM he will be. In the end, he chose neither and pleased neither.

Since then, we’ve had some cracking grass roots-pleasing policies. Punishing people for not being married is one. For goodness’ sake, we’ve had 13 long years of a government telling us how to live – from the beef we can eat to detention without trial, people want a Conservative government that will leave them alone, not tell them they’ve got to march to the Register Office or else. Marriage doesn’t automatically equal childhood bliss as we’ve seen in Edlington; please DC, just let it go.

Next we’ve had the Tories arguing about strengthening the law to allow people to defend their homes. The simply fact is that we have to have some kind of trust in the rule of law and the police to distinguish us from the animals. You are already entitled to use reasonable force – which may include deadly force – to defend yourself and your loved ones in your own home; there is no for any further “clarification” of this fact. By banging on about it, Chris Grayling and everyone risk succinct exposure by the legal profession.

Then DC had a pop at teachers and told them that they would need to be cleverer in future. I happen to agree with his view on this but saying such a thing was never likely to endear him to the NUT, BBC, or the many parents who are potential Tory voters that have a healthy respect for the teachers at their childrens’ school. There is an issue with teaching standards in this country but he’d have been better leaving it to Michael Gove to say so.

He’s also playing a risky game engaging the government over the raising of the UK Terror Threat to “severe”. The public do not like to see politicians making political capital of national security. Yes, DC means well but he needs to engage his PR brain a bit more to see how these things may be perceived. Is Andy Coulson on holiday?

DC’s greatest political achievement has been to drag a tired old party kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I and many others waited 10 years for someone to do it and it remains a great achievement – but it’s only a starting point. And with Lisbon, he has been a victim of circumstances trying to do the right thing – but hey, that’s politics. Now is the time for DC to be fitfully stubborn and stand his ground – the centre ground.

He must, must not allow the party to do what many of its activists want and move back to the right. He needs to focus back onto the left of politics – to talk the language of inclusion, of accessibility and of aspiration. He must ignore the threats of UKIPper defections – he needs to stay focussed on the mainstream of society, the probables, the Liberal waiverers, the people who are looking for him to uphold their vision of a small-c conservative society that celebrates success and achievement but makes this possible for everyone. I’ll fight and fight for the party forever – but I’ll feel a lot better about it if I hear more of this and less Monday Club rhetoric.

Labour won’t make it easy – they are focussing on Gordon Brown the statesman with the War on Terror, the Northern Ireland process, they are talking about banking bonuses again and tax will be an issue too. There are probably brighter economic figures to come. DC needs to stay strong, to regain confidence in his ability to be the Prime Minister of everyone, not just his own party.

The time for him to become PM is approaching fast and his margin of error is narrowing. It’s now or never and he needs to get a grip once more.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, elections. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

Brazenly elitist

January 18, 2010 — admin

Hands up - DC has outflanked Labour on teaching

We were overdue a clever piece of PR from the Conservative Party and I’m delighted to see that the latest draft piece of the manifesto has prompted one. DC and his front bench have been open to the charge of “elitism” when it came to their educations and what a great idea for them to turn that notion on its head by saying that the education should be “brazenly elitist” about the quality of trainees entering the teaching profession.

Brilliant. Michael Gove’s team can turn a negative into a positive, the Labour response has been weak and it provides a great way to repel any future elitism jibes – yes, Conservatives should be elitist about education; we should let only the very best enter into the classroom to teach our children.

It’s long overdue. Several of my contempories during my first degree are now teachers – and very good ones too – but there are also others who went into it initially at least for the money received during training. Well, needs must I suppose but it would be good to think that teaching inspired people who were passionate about knowledge and about the importance of education.

I think the Conservative approach of brazen elitism in teaching standards is exactly what is needed – it changes the meaning of the word elitism to mean what it should mean; that every child in this country deserves an elite education. They won’t get that under Labour, which believes all children should have the same education.

But we need to go further and hand control of school administration, budgets and discipline back to governing bodies and the communities they serve. At the moment there are far too many visionary headteachers bound and gagged by government interference and far too many headteachers who don’t have a vision for their school because they don’t need to.

In addition, children are not the only ones who should be learning from school; often parents need support to support their children’s learning. I did my second degree with a former teacher – she said that every single problem she had ever, ever encountered with a child could be traced directly back home and that children’s performance at school was always a reflection of their life away from it.

It is easy to forget that while children enjoy the support of teachers, often there is no-one supporting parents and I’d like to see plans for widening education in many parts of the country to include the whole family, not just the children. From talks on how to support their kids, explaining about discipline to adult learning itself – this kind of long-term thinking won’t reap benefits for 15 years but it is necessary for us to think about if we truly want to get our society mobile again.

Posted in David Cameron, Education. Tags: , , . No Comments »

We’re going to the chapel

January 17, 2010 — admin

Back in the spring of 2007, I watched Francis Maude give one of the most unimpressive performances on Question Time that I’ve ever seen. The background for this was the announcement that the Conservative Party intended to commit to the idea of rewarding married couples through the taxation system. His answers were defensive and and a little condescending and I held my head in my hands as the Conservative Party once again went back to basics.

Even back then, I knew that just as the original back to basics had started the decline of John Major’s government, so the new version – despite its different presentation – could seriously damage a future Conservative challenge; people don’t want to be told how to live. And now the issue is back in the news - not because it’s new but because given everything that has happened since St David’s Day 2007, Labour feels that the Conservatives are vulnerable on this issue – and they are dead right.

I’m not against marriage – heck, I’m getting married in June. I’m not even going to argue with the fact that marriage is a preferable institution from which to create a stable family unit. I’m not arguing that kids from married families statiscally don’t do better at school and stay out of trouble. Marriage is the most important building block of our society and we disregard it at our peril.

But marriage is not a magic wand – it is a means to an end. Marriages create stability, continuity and an environment of care, which is why it is so good at nurture and creating stable and balanced households. But it doesn’t have a monopoly on love, stability and care. There are plenty of co-habitees, single parents and same-sex relationships that provide exactly the same environment. Equally, there are plenty of marriages that provide very little in the way of any of these positive things.

My problem with the Conservative policy of rewarding marriage in the tax system is that it alienates people who don’t fall into this category, many through no fault of their own. The break-up of any marriage is always a tragic and deeply traumatic event, particularly when there are children involved. But it happens – sometimes people who fell in love with all good faith simply fall out of love, or fall more in love with someone else. It’s one of the most difficult things about being human – but being human is all that it is.

I feel very uncomfortable about levvying a financial penalty against those involved in such a sad chapter of their lives – even though to them it would no doubt pale into insignficance compared to everything else. To me, it smacks of kicking people while they are down, of turning our backs on them when they need support most and of keeping a whole lot of other people, many of whom will be relatively vulnerable, off a list of “the favoured” because they – for whatever reason – cannot or don’t wish to embrace a formal marriage arrangement.

I understand what the Conservative Party is trying to do here – but it’s all wrong. It allows our opponents to paint us as an exclusive party – as if we didn’t have enough trouble with that already. I seriously don’t want the Tory Party to be the party of the rich – I want it to be the party that leaves the rich alone, looks after the poor and increases mobility from poor to rich. But it’s difficult to get that inclusive idea across when you illustrate it with policies like this one.

And the party only has itself to blame. By trying, in the spring of 2007, to impose its grass roots’ preferred way of living, we have been overtaken by circumstances to a point where we are left with a policy that DC would probably reverse in an instant if he could – he’s already tried and then had to go back on himself - but can’t. Despite the recession, despite the sensitive issue that taxation policy has now become, he cannot go back on the marriage promise for fear of losing grass roots votes and another Lisbon-like U-turn. On one side his better judgement, on the other ConservativeHome and the Daily Mail. Rather him than me.

It’s what happens when you announce things three years ahead of an election. Okay, there’s nothing wrong with supporting marriage but I’ll bet that if DC could choose something now that he’d announced in 2007, it wouldn’t be this.

The Conservative Party must support people, not institutions if we wish to remain on the centre ground.

Posted in Community, Conservatives, David Cameron. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

The leader following

December 13, 2009 — admin
British soldiers in southern Afghanistan

British soldiers in southern Afghanistan

I see that the BBC is placing a visit by the PM to troops in Afghanistan high up on the news agenda. That would be fine, were it not for the PM’s sake and a timely reminder of our troops’ ongoing stalemate in the country. The corporation is making a virtue of the fact that Gordon saw fit to “bunk down” in one-star accommodation while staying the night in the country.

You’ve got to be having a laugh – aside from the fact that there aren’t many five-star establishments in Helmand, I should jolly well hope so. The guys on duty in the province spend six months or more – night and day – in the country. Frankly, after what this government have done to our ability to properly carry out military operations, a Christmas visit and an overnight stay are just about the very least the PM can do for our soldiers. He certainly doesn’t deserve BBC plaudits.

More to the point, DC beat the PM there by a week. The corporation’s response was decidedly less sycophantic. The problem they have is that Cameron is a leader and knows where to be and when. Gordon is a follower who does whatever Mandelson/Campbell/insert advisor here tells him to. It would be interesting to hear the views of the troops serving in Afghanistan which man they would rather have making decisions for them. Until then, I guess we’ll just have to stick with the BBC’s opinion.

Posted in David Cameron, Military. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Life after Lisbon

November 4, 2009 — admin

DavidCameronEuroWell, that’s it. The Czechs have signed and the Lisbon Treaty becomes law soon. DC has outlined his response, no doubt hoping to kick this into the long grass until after the election.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that will convince some of the more strident Eurosceptics, who will continue to call for a referendum on something, anything, to do with Europe. The thing about referenda is that there is a time, a place and more importantly a question, for them. We can have several referenda a week if we like but unless they are timely and relevant, they are a pointless waste.

Principled these people may be, but they are also myopic. They can’t see that a Conservative Party arguing over Europe is exactly the alternative to Gordon Brown that the public doesn’t want. They can’t see that having this argument amongst themselves now assumes we are going to win the next election – which is still a bold assumption. They can’t see that yes, the question of our relationship with Europe is the political question for the next 10 years; but it isn’t by any means the most important question on the ground in British politics at the moment.

Conservative MPs and PPCs should ask themselves how we are going to manage and reduce the overwhelming debt that Labour has built up and how our shattered economy is not only going to be re-built but re-modelled for a new economic era.

They should ask themselves how to address education, training and social mobility – let’s not pretend these are three separate things – and how to stop young people in many parts of the country growing up without opportunity or hope.

They should consider how they will deal with the question of our Armed Forces and the tough choices that are needed to define what we want from our military in the future.

They should look at our police force and emergency services – including the NHS – and try to understand how we can restore public trust in the police, reduce crime and establish proper administration and a sustainable future for the NHS.

They should think about our constitution and our relationships with our immediate neighbours and how we can work together to bring about prosperity and transparent government. Local government is another area where the Conservative Party desperately needs to inject vigour, a sense of purpose and efficiency.

Yes, some of these areas are affected by EU policy. But they are big questions that impact on people in Britain today, now. The European question won’t ride off into the sunset. The Lisbon Treaty makes exiting the EU easy if Britain should ever wish to do this. If it instead wants to attempt renegotiation, then it will be free to try that too – although I cannot see how it would be achieved.

The point is that this is not a fight that we need to have now, it is not a fight that will win any elections and it is not a fight that the British people, many of whom have suffered job losses and reduced household incomes on top of spiralling food and energy costs, want to have now either.

Eurosceptics, including myself, need to let it drop. Otherwise they will lose the public confidence and hand victory from the jaws of catastrophe to Gordon to have another five years. And we certainly won’t be attempting renegotiation under him.

Update 5/11: There is a convincing and slightly expanded version of the same argument I make at Ben Archibald’s blog. I think this sets out in detail the context in which we should all see the European drama.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Europe, Other blogs. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Referendum fever

November 3, 2009 — admin

Back in 2007, a Conservative leadership that badly needed to get back the support of The Sun newspaper made a “cast-iron” guarantee about holding a referendum on whatever treaty resulted from the negotiations at Lisbon.

Once the Czech president Vaclav Klaus signs his country’s ratification of the treaty (as looks imminent), it will become law across Europe and binding on all states. The only way out is to leave and the only way to “repatriate powers“  is to negotiate agreement from all 27 members countries, which will mean so much compromise as to be essentially impossible. In effect, the only way to renegotiate is to leave and try to rejoin.

I still believe that holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself is pointless. It would be an expensive way of guaging public opinion – I can predict with 90% certainly that around 65-70% would vote against the treaty and 30-35% for it. So what? There’s nothing you can do with that info except to figure that Britain is a broadly Euro-sceptic country, which we already know.

So DC’s promise has been overtaken by events and he knows it. His problem now is to reconcile his party between those who want a referendum and/or exit from Europe – and how to stop them voting for UKIPpers – and those who still see a future in a Europe of trading partners. It is unlikely that other European nations – particularly France, Germany and a Spain riddled with resentment over Gibraltar – will allow the UK to enjoy the benefits of economic community without the constraints of the social and political union.

So where does DC go? He promised a referendum but the one he promised is a dead duck. He has stated he “won’t let matters rest” but that could mean anything. The repatriation of powers is not going to find favour in Europe itself but he doesn’t want to advocate leaving the EU for fear of upsetting the One Nation Set, including Ken Clarke who is broadly seen by voters as moderate and electable.

Personally, I have always favoured a trading relationship with Europe without the political tie-ins. If this becomes impossible, I think preserving our political freedom is more important than trade and we should withdraw from the EU and manage our trade relationships accordingly. It’s not a one-way street; Europe also needs the UK – otherwise we become a very potent competitor.

My suggestion to DC was to let Europe take a back seat but he seems adamant on pushing it. Therefore I think we should have a referendum with four questions – yes or no to:

1) The Lisbon Treaty

2) Membership of the Euro

3) Inclusion in the Social Chapter

4) Membership of the EU itself

The referendum would cost the same amount of money – but will provide a government with information on the sort of Europe that its people want and allow it to go forward with negotiation on that basis.

Posted in David Cameron, Europe. Tags: , , , , , , . No Comments »
« Older posts «
»