Paper Tigers

May 1, 2010 — simonashall

Not particularly unexpectedly, the papers continue to turn on Gordon Brown as Labour heads for utter wipeout at the election. The Times, which has backed Labour for the past three elections, returns to the Conservatives along with the Sunday Express but interestingly the Grauniad and its sister The Observer is backing the Liberal Democrats, presumably in order to force a hung parliament and keep DC away from Downing Street.

It will also push Labour voters tactically into the hands of the Lib Dems in a reverse of 1997.

What previous Conservative voters thinking about chancing one on Nick Clegg have to consider is this: do they really want to be voting along with Guardian and Observer readers who’ve been happily voting for Labour since 1979? I’ll be the first to admit that the Conservative Party isn’t perfect and I’ve posted before on how I think that is but really, take the thoughts of the Times – which hasn’t supported the Conservatives in 18 years – on board and think about what Britain needs right now.

A hung parliament and Nick Clegg’s promise of change, which means different things depending on where you live, or David Cameron’s visionary and responsible blueprint for Britain that is backed up by a depth of experience within a party with a track record of sorting out Labour’s mess.

Posted in elections, news, politics. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

Lesson from JK Rowling

April 14, 2010 — simonashall

JK Rowling with a book containing more truth than the Labour manifesto

I’m not a fan of JK Rowling – I think her books are terrible and the fact she gives money to the Labour Party is borne of an similar level of fantasy. Today she writes in The Times about DC and the party’s manifesto for single mothers and although the Times subs have done their best with it, it’s still a couple of commas short of iambic pentameter.

But depressingly, I find myself agreeing with some of what she says and I think she’s done the party a favour by spelling it out, albeit after the manifesto is published. I’ve written on it before and I’ll say it again – the Conservative Party policy to reward married couples with a (very token) tax break is a step backwards in bringing its attitudes in line with a modern Britain that isn’t interested in recapturing 1950s social norms.

Firstly, the fact is that society will no longer be told by government what it should find acceptable and unacceptable – the role of government in this area is now defunct and no amount of bleating by the right of the party will bring it back. Yes, the family unit is still the single most important building block of society but the family unit can no longer be described as one man married to one woman and their resulting offspring. A government that tries to impose this doctrine through the tax system will not succeed and the party it is formed from will ultimately lose credibility.

Secondly, JK Rowling points out that “it’s not the money, it’s the message” is a deeply misguided view of what single parents go through. For those who have decent independent incomes and families to fall back on when they part, it may just be about the message – although not a very welcome one, I should imagine. But for others who don’t have partners at any time in their parenthood or families able to support them financially following separation, it is very much about the money. And if anything, we should be spending the money otherwise used in this tax break supporting those who need it ie the single-parent families, not married couples.

I believe that DC takes social responsibility and justice seriously but this policy doesn’t back that up. Having said that, much else in the manifesto does. I joined the Conservative Party because I want to see a society where people can get opportunity, work and make a prosperous future for themselves and their families. But if they manage that, they don’t need state subsidy as well. In an ideal world, no-one would.

But this isn’t an ideal world and until it becomes so, that help from the state which exists needs to be focussed on those who need it; married, divorced, single or otherwise.

Posted in Conservatives, Social Justice, Tax. Tags: , , , , , , . No Comments »

Not winning here

April 9, 2010 — simonashall

Winning where, exactly?

On the junction of Grange Road and Woodham Road, the Liberal Democrats have decided to put one of their large posters up. That’s okay, they are allowed to do that and it doesn’t bother me – while posters are good to keep up the morale of activists, I don’t believe a single vote changes hands because of them.

What’s more difficult to understand is the Lib Dem slogan “winning here” on the orange background. Winning where, exactly? Certainly not in Horsell East and Woodham, where I cannot recall a Lib Dem councillor ever having been elected. In fact, the Lib Dems haven’t won a single election in Horsell in four years and we’re obviously working hard to try and make it five.  Nor can the poster refer to Woking constituency, where they have never held the parliamentary seat and according to the excellent Times Election 2010 website, there’s only a 10% chance that they will this time. So they aren’t “winning there” either.

Don’t get me wrong, there are places where the Lib Dems have won. I wouldn’t argue with the poster in Goldsworth Park, for example, nor in South Woking where they won last year. But putting up a sign on the Woodham Road saying that they are “winning there” is bogus and total nonsense. I prefer the one being used outside a house in Wheatsheaf Close that advertises Rosie Sharpley’s name – at least it’s honest and doesn’t give a totally false impression of the local politics.

Posted in Lib Dem lies, politics. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Keeping the faith

March 2, 2010 — admin

Time for a decisive, DC - what's it to be?

It all seems as though it could go terribly wrong after a YouGov poll found that the PM was on course to claim another five years in power, something unimaginable even four weeks ago. DC gave his speech on Sunday in Brighton to a generally good reception but couldn’t avoid a look about him that was rather too close to someone living out their nightmares. I thought it was a solid speech and nothing more – designed to steady the ship and motivate the crew rather than inspire a nation through new discovery. But I remain confident that Cameron the performer will outshine either of his rivals whenever he gets the chance.

What he needs to start to do is give people a reason to vote Conservative – something I’ve been telling the party locally for a number of months now. Gordon Brown remains our biggest asset and I have no doubt that whatever the polls say, he will not win the election. But that doesn’t mean a Conservative victory – as the Times put it, it is isn’t that people don’t think DC is capable of being a good PM, it is that they don’t understand why he wants to do the job.

I know that DC feels the desire to reform our country, he is deeply interested in social justice, cares hugely about health and education and wants to address Britain’s copious social problems. He wants to foster an economy that allows people to reach their potential and steer a dignified course on the world stage. Why? Because it’s the British Way – fair play, compassion, reward for the successful and support for the struggling. I think the term “patriotic duty” was taken out of context by the press but it wasn’t the most wise; I know what he meant but I’m not sure it was the best way to express it. He needs to express it how the man on the street would ie the country at the moment is in a mess – unfair and injust after 13 years of Labour failure. DC wants to be the person to put that right.

But we need to spell out in practical terms what the Direction of Travel is and how that’s done. And we need to give people some reasons to vote Conservative as opposed to reasons to vote against Gordon. I think DC’s policy of attacking the PM has reached its optimum effectiveness and has now started to decline. I want to see less barracking and more focus on what a Tory government will deliver. Cllr Richard Lowe, an emminent Tweeter, collated the following:

1. A cut in net immigration of 75%

2. No more early release for convicted criminals

3. A two year freeze in council tax

4. The abolition of inheritance tax for all families except millionaires

5. Cutting politics with 10% cut in the number of MPs and 5% cut in pay

 6. Headteachers to be put in charge of school discipline

7. Restoring the link between the basic state pension and earnings

8. New laws that will give householders more rights against burglars

9. The budget deficit cut in half by 2014 so future generations don’t live in debt

10. Abolition of Labour’s expensive ID cards

I’m more comfortable with some things than others on that list but politics isn’t an all-or-nothing craft. These would be 10 reasons that if nothing else explain to a public fed up of waiting what the Conservatives stand for. And most of them represent current policy - not that you’d think it from our reticence in coming forward. So come on DC, let’s hear about them and let’s have a bit of fearlessness. Ignore those who say that we are losing support because we’ve gone to the left and keep to the centre ground. Stop bashing Gordon – tempting though it is – and start selling yourself, selling the party and its promises and selling a Conservative Britain as a place that has voted for change and is fairer for all.

I don’t believe that Labour will win the election, the polling in key marginals is still heavily in our favour. But we must show some mettle, some work ethic and a willingness to let people into our confidence if we are to finally summit the mountain we have struggled for so long to conquer.

Posted in Conservatives, elections, politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Economy’s off the scale

January 26, 2010 — admin

Well, don’t you feel better now? The UK is officially out of recession (link to The Times because the BBC’s coverage reads like a Treasury press release), so we can all get back in our cars, go back to shopping in Waitrose and start thinking about re-mortgaging the house. Not quite. Because the government has been pumping so, so much money into our economy during the past 12 months that anything other than growth – however pitifully small – would have been utter humiliation. It’s also worth pointing out that we still have January and February’s figures to come before Q4 2009 growth is confirmed.

I believe that 0.1% is rather convenient for Gordon Brown and will be revised downwards in a few weeks when the fuss has died down. But there is a fundamental distinction between the two parties on how to maintain recovery – and remember that a second “after-slump” in the face of first recovery is something that has characterised nearly all the post-war recession. Labour wants to continue to prop up the economy with taxpayers’ money and there’s nothing particularly wrong with that in such dire circumstances.

The BBC's graph is stastically nonsense

But at some point, the props have to be taken away – and at the moment, the whole thing would come crashing down if that were the case. This is the graph that the Treasury and the BBC wants people in Britain to see. It looks like we are out of the woods. With another 18 months of quantative easing and borrowing, the figure could quite easily be pushed up to 2 or 3 percent and the government given credit for not just a full recovery but a new boom.

The Guardian's graph not only shows us where we actually are but compares with other recessions

This, though, is the Grauniad’s somewhat more realistic assessment of the situation that shows the recession has wiped out all the growth in the British economy since 2005. I have heard both George Osborne and Phillip Hammond in the media today say that the only thing that will keep us out of recession is the private sector’s profits, jobs and tax revenues and that interest rates must stay low to stimulate that growth. We need to cut the defecit to bolster our credit rating and boost our floundering currency.

A rise in interest rates, which would have an adverse affect on people’s spending power, is the most serious threat to our sustained economic recovery – apart from a fourth term for Labour. More borrowing could mean a softening of Britain’s credit rating and devaluing of the pound, which would make government guilts and bonds less attractive to investors. The government desperately needs to harden these investments to pass Britain’s debt onto those with the money to buy it; cuts in spending alone coupled with tax increases will not be enough to pay off our borrowings.

I want to see Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond blast through Labour bluster about recovery and remind people that whatever Labour has done to bring us out of recession – and you can argue about the effectiveness vs cost of that – it’s nothing compared to the damage they have done to British business and trade, as well as landing us with a huge debt to pay off. I want to see people reminded about this until Gordon Brown doesn’t want to talk about the economy anymore. Brown’s plans to continue to spend his way out of recession and worry about the economic consequences later should convince that he can’t be trusted on this.

He’s been saying for ages that the Conservatives have made the wrong call on the economy every time. It’s not true and it’s time we hit back. He wants to continue to mollycoddle the nation and extend the pain for longer. The Conservative approach is not just a self-flagellating short, sharp shock; it makes absolute economic sense and it’s about time we said so.

Posted in Economy, elections. Tags: , , , , , , . No Comments »

UKIP’s major point

November 28, 2009 — admin

An interesting story in The Times today about the relationship between UKIP and the Conservative Party, which threatens to become even more bitter than that between the Tories and the parties of the left.

The story says that UKIP offered to not fight the general election if the Conservatives gave a written guarantee (as opposed to a cast-iron one) that a referendum would definitely be held after the election and that its MPs would be given a free vote in a Commons ratification. He got no answer, although both the BBC and The Times say that Lord Strathclyde acknowlegdes the meeting have taken place.

In case anyone didn’t know, UKIP elected a new leader last week, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to take over from Nigel Farage. This is obviously his attempt to make some headlines and announce his presence on the scene and that’s all fine. I’m glad that six months ago, the Conservatives had the foresight to see that Lisbon might be ratified ahead of an election and that this delicate siutation required careful planning, not more rash promises. In addition, a pact with UKIP endorses an openly Eurosceptic view, which may have caused further conflict within the party. We were right to reject their silly politicking.

What is interesting to me is the idea that, this one policy demand satisfied, UKIP was prepared to stand down from elections. In addition, Lord Pearson continued:

“And then when we had the referendum – which we believed we would win – we would then be out of the European Union and then at that point UKIP, well it would have been up to UKIP, but it would probably have disbanded because its major point would no longer be in existence.”

I thought this was a major party with policies on a range of issues. It appears, in fact to be a single-issue pressure group that stands for election and paradoxically ends up taking votes from the one mainstream political party that can deliver its single issue objective. It’s an incredibly short-sighted organisation.

If, as I hope it will, Britain ends its membership of the European Union within the next 10 years, there is a great deal that will have to be planned for to ensure that we remain competitive and politically engaged inside and outside the EU. For 35 years, our politics has operated on various fringes of Europe and to place ourselves outside that will require plenty of adjustments. Adjustments for the better, perhaps, but adjustments nevertheless.

But as soon as the exit from the EU is achieved, that appears to be UKIP’s tipping point to disband according to its new leader. Never mind the implications of the exit, never mind the work that follows it – we’ve got we wanted and now we’re off. This group doesn’t know the first thing about running a country – it’s only interested in tunnel vision politics and single issues. Successful politics understands that issues tend to happen simultaneously and everything, as Lenin once said, is connected to everything else.

So if you aren’t that keen on Europe and are thinking about voting for them in Woking or anywhere for that matter, try asking this of your UKIP candidate when they come knocking – what happens during life after the EU? Then ask yourself whether you really want people bought into a party with no concept of strategy to be your MP or local councillor.

Posted in Conservatives, Europe, politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Right on the money

October 7, 2009 — simonashall
Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

The technical problems on my blog have prevented a more in-depth following of the Conservative conference but here’s how I see it up to today. Firstly, I thought that Rachel Sylvester did a great piece in The Times yesterday on the mixed messages of the first couple of days of the conference. I can’t complain that there weren’t any policy ideas – in fact, there have been so many that the government has been forced to rush out some of its own - but the problem with policies is that they often contradict each other (“Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”, anyone?) Spread out, no-one notices but releasing them all so close together draws a more prominent relief of any inconsistency.

Having said that, what I’ve heard has been pretty sensible given the financial circumstances. In 1997, it was easy for New Labour to come up with big ideas and schemes; this time, with the country in economic dire straits it’s a lot more difficult. I support the idea of benefits being cut to fund education and training – it’s the difference between economic opportunity and economic slavery. I support a long-term view of working conditions that preserves pensions but needs us to work longer for them. I also support the measures that have been put in place to support small enterprises, which create wealth, jobs and investment in this country.

I’m delighted beyond all measure that the message that I have been telling everyone who will listen should be put out is finally being delivered – that after 12 years of Labour spin, spite, incompetence and centralisation spattered by the odd moment of common sense, the Conservative Party is the party who will be honest with voters, tell them about the pain ahead and take them through what is going to be an agonising Parliament. George Osborne isn’t my favourite member of the front bench – I’ve got far more time for Runnymede and Weybridge MP Phillip Hammond, who is a real asset and should be chancellor – but his speech yesterday was dead on the money.

And it was vitally, vitally important that he delivered a well-judged message in an appropriate way. There’s still a fair hint of arrogance about his speaking method but the content was absolutely right and I suspect the voters would rather vote for an arrogant man with good ideas than a humble man with no clue.

As Nick Robinson (who else?) points out, it’s a significant political gamble to announce cuts and tough times ahead but I think people are resigned to it and it will give the Tories acredibility lacking in the current government (and Vince Cable, who just wants to tax your mansion). This country, once again, needs to be rescued from Labour overspending by a Conservative austerity regime. Am I looking forward to it? No. It is fair that public sector workers will have to cope on frozen pay? No – but then I’ve not had a pay rise this year, either. Is it fair that they should lose their jobs? No – but this is Labour’s mess and they should remember that when they cast their vote.

Labour created tens of thousands of silly jobs in the public sector that were unsustainable to fund in the long-term. Now the party is over, those stuck in them are going to have to pay Labour’s debt. It’s a shocking betrayal – but I bet Labour (in opposition) won’t see it that way.

It is also interesting to note that despite the policies coming forward, we’ve had comparitively scant negative reaction in the mainstream media – let’s leave the Grauniad and Mirror aside. Instead, the BBC has contented itself with Chris Grayling’s mishearing of questions, the appointment of Gen Sir Richard Dannat and the When Boris Met Dave silliness on Channel 4 (although calling them mainstream is a little generous) tonight.

This reflects various things, I suspect. A quiet conference day in the build up to DC’s speech tomorrow – although this usually gives space for some criticism. There is also the realisation that the next government is almost certainly going to be a Conservative and journalists getting used to buttering up the other side. But also I think there’s an unspoken feeling at conference from the websites, papers and Twitter, that Britain has been buffeted, bungled and betrayed by Labour and that Conservative support might, as Rachel Sylvester suggests, be fragile – but they do actually have some half-decent ideas to try and restore our national self-esteem.

Purpose and clarity – there is still work to be done. But I think DC knows what needs doing tomorrow.

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

Economical with the truth

September 1, 2009 — simonashall

It’s a mixed day for the economic forecasts at the moment. Gordon Brown, for obvious reasons, is keen to claim credit for a few signs that the recession misery is easing. More likely, the dire straits of the first few months of 2009 are calming and the economy is being stimulated by production starting up again and the billions of extra pounds that the Bank of England has been forced to print.

Elsewhere, economists aren’t as optimistic as Gordon. Ann Pettifor thinks the worst is yet to come and the FT reports that even after a recovery is in full swing, there will be parts of the economy that have been permanently damaged and that will not return to pre-recession levels.

On a political level, Gordon’s front-page splash in the FT (complete with exclusive picture of Blairite hand gestures) is designed to keep City relations on an admittedly delicate even keel by trying to convince bankers that controlling their bonuses is vital to re-establishing the City’s reputation abroad.

He also knows that the FT is the newspaper that journalists read and that a front page there will get picked up everywhere else (notably the BBC, although they are obviously annoyed the story was fed to the FT as they only run it in the business news) for more populist purposes.

The point is this – that Gordon and his gang are going to try and claim that far from wrecking the UK’s once vibrant financial services and manufacturing economy with ruinous debts, strangling regulation and non-existent oversight, the government has actually saved it from destruction and navigated the financial storm. Really?

DC writes today in the Times about the Lockerbie decision and that’s fair enough because clearly some pretty underhand stuff has gone on there. But he needs to be ready to maintain pressure on Gordon over his economy-wrecking and head off Labour attempts to create a competence myth around the embryonic recovery.

Labour governments always end up out of office with the country bankrupt and 2010 will be no exception. DC needs to bring his communications skills to bear on this fact if Labour are not to slip out of the electoral noose.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Economy, Labour. Tags: , , , , , , , . No Comments »
«
»