Changes

From Dan Bull, the man who brought you the 4th Leaders Debate Rap.



Thanks Dan!

Enough

There has been much ink spilt over this already and I have no desire to rehash the arguments; despite which the events of recent days were why 24 hour rolling news was developed for and my words might be out dated before I smash 'enter'.

Lets me get the key points clear as I see them.

One. Gordon Brown has not resigned. He said he had no desire to stay on any longer than needed. He is still in number 10, I am not rejoicing. Like the horror movies, dead does not actually mean dead once the film rolls on a bit. Until he is actually gone, there is no cause for celebration. Remember this is the man who fell for Blair’s offer of a later resignation only to have Blair go back on it; if Brown can pull off a rainbow coalition with himself at the helm, you can be guaranteed that the come the time he is expected to go he will find some crisis or other in which to justify a u-turn. To be honest though I do not believe any such Rainbow coalition has any legs.

Two. Thankfully some Labour stalwarts actually did care to listen to the electorate and they know that Brown, Mandelson et al are putting themselves above the Labour Party and the electorate in trying to stay on for a bit. The only explicit message the electorate delivered was that Brown had to go.

Three. The Tories put too much on the table and built up the idea of a stable long term option in the minds of the electorate and now they look like they have been done. That was for the Lib Dems to offer. They have demonstrated a degree of naivety that the Lib Dems predictable are attempting to maximise for their own advantage.

Four. If a Queens speech cannot be agreed on or if we go back to the polls again this year the Tories will get their majority. Certainly Labour appear desperate and underhanded, the Lib Dems duplicitous and opportunistic; but more than that, ask any candidate who just lost their deposits and spent a fortune on posters and campaign materials if they want to do it all over again in a few weeks or months and it will soon become clear that there will be lot of areas where there will be much shorter ballot papers.

Elections are like balance sheets and MOT’s, they are a snap shot of a particular moment. If there is another election to follow with uncertainty over who would lead Labour (for which there may not be time this side of an election to get sorted) and with the events of recent days and with a reduced field and a nearly bankrupted Labour Party, there will only be one winner.

So, come on Cameron, this is the time to show your mettle. Call Clegg, remind him he came third and lost seats tell him that time’s up; dare him to try a rainbow coalition – he and Brown can share a Pickford’s van when moving out of their London homes for the journey north. The rainbow coalition will fall short of votes because there are a good few Labour MPs that have and will openly not back it.

The First Debate In 15 Seconds

Sent to me by Tom, a Lib Dem supporter.

Monday Musing

Apologies for not posting for a few days, I have been away enjoying Conference League Football, celebrating my sisters impending birthday, recovering from some genetically modified super-virus and last night watching 24 and House all of which kept me away from the computer, and work will no doubt be competing for my attentions this week.

Along my travels there has been some conversations along the way from people regarding the election and regarding in particular the debates.  Despite what the polls are saying, I have yet to encounter anyone who is swinging their vote to the Lib Dems.  Now, that might say more about my circle of friends and family, and the encounters of the weekend, but none the less with a 14% swing in the polls, it is not matching the reality out there in Daniel World.

Which is good because I would genuinely be concerned if all of this fantasy talk of Nick Clegg becoming Prime Minister were to come true.  Mostly because of the Lib Dems fanatical support of all things EU - they would sell us down the river in a heartbeat; but also for Cleggs refusal to back the Lisbon vote despite the Lib Dem Manifesto commitment, and his intent to rid us of Trident (despite declaring publically he would not in his own leadership election, and at the cost of leaving our defence in the hands of the French).  I am actually getting annoyed hearing him refer to his opposition as the "older" parties when his party was born before Labour back in the 1800's.  (And back then the Liberal Party were for personal liberty, free markets, free trade and smaller government none of which can be charactered to Cleggy's party of today.)

What is a little alarming is that there are still people about supporting Gordon Brown, including people in my own family that really should know better.  It seems that whilst most of us are at work, Brown has done some good work in the last year on the sofa's of daytime television and at least one person I love dearly is at the moment still planning to vote for him, though she freely admits it is out of pity.  That really does not make it any better.

And with absolutely nothing to back up this or any of my claims I will move onto David Cameron who it seems has actually alienated people back home.  Whereas I thought he had just edged the debate over Clegg (despite clearly not having picked up some basic lessons from the US debates) it seems back home Cameron came across as remote and as somebody who could never understand the problems facing the coping classes and working poor.  A comment I would find difficult to make an argument against. So I won't.

And is it just me in thinking that if there really is a Clegg-bounce from a debate appearance, does that not make the case stronger for all of the parties to be involved in a TV debate at some point? If seeing and hearing Nick Clegg talk Lib Dem for his part of the 90 minute debate did him good because he was perhaps seen as new or different by some, then maybe UKIP, SNP, the Greens...et al, should be included also in future prime time debates.

So, with three weeks to go dare I make another prediction?  No, I am gonna stick with my original prediction of a wafer thin Tory majority and I think the Great British public in their infinite wisdom are collectively and subconsciously keeping the numbers in hung parliament territory because quite frankly we all have a shopping list of what we want from a perspective government, and few of us thanks to Browns busting of the bank balance are getting to hear much of what we want.  Consensus politics and record debt means there is little anyone feels able to promise.  The closer we get to polling day the more some of our shopping lists will get second and third looks from the main players.

If I were up there, as a crazy right-winger, I would be offering to sell off the BBC, and a referendum on EU membership which would save us money.  But I am not, so you can't have it.

Debate Poll Results

The poll was open for just under an hour.

Q. Who Won Tonights Debate?

A.
David Cameron - 71%
Nick Clegg - 29%
Gordon Brown - 0%

Total Responses - 18

Comments from the poll:

1. No-one they are all as bad as each other falling over themselves to tell us how they'll spend our cash without asking us whether we agree or not.

2. But God help us if that is the best of it. Cameron "won" it for me, but Clegg, allowed by Cameron to get away with some ridiculous assertions, will do so in the eyes of most people who now are not interested in politics. Tonight will not have helped

3. Cameron too careful.
Clegg was anti-tory.
Brown looked foolish.


My personal feeling was that Cameron just edged it; he was out in front for a bit then Brown turned on the Tory Cuts line and dragged Cameron into a bit of a slog which let Nick Clegg do well in the late questions. Brown came over pretty bad, but I have never been a fan. The big winner on the night was Clegg purely for getting the airtime and the big loser was Brown.

It was not as sterile as I had anticipated, and it might actually shift the polls - it definitely will if Brown is this bad in either or both of the future debates.


Cross-Posted

Debate Poll

For blog readers.

Who Won Tonight's Debate?

Feel free to spread this.

The State Of Our Union

As I suspected I arrived at work today and there is quite a bit of talk going on regarding the election campaign. What does not seem to have penetrated the hard skin of those who only "do" politics when an election looms is the scale of the crisis in the economy, and that is probably fair enough because I don’t think the campaign has really directly addressed these problems or highlighted exactly how severe things are.

So, here is my attempt to set it out in layman’s terms, both why the main parties are being shall we say economical with the truth and to set out where things are, or at least and more accurately how I think things are. My humble aim is to reach beyond my normal readers and offer something that can help people understand some of what is being talked about. I am not generally comfortable on the economics when it comes to the nitty gritty, so I will reference back where I am able, but feel free to put me right in the comments if I have drifted astray.

I believe it was in the 2009 Budget that Labour set out their spending plans for the 2010/11 year and this was not amended in the recent 2010 budget. In it, Labour has basically said that they will spend around about £706bn in this financial year (2010/11). Now, this covers everything from doctors and nurses, through to teachers, maintaining the roads, buying paperclips, servicing our debts and of course, funding MP's expenses.

That number again is:

£ 706,000,000,000

Now, the Conservatives did say quite some time back in 2007 that they will match Labour overall spending totals were they to win the election. This was emulating Labours 1997 pledge to mirror the Tory economic plans, which won favour with the voters and reduced uncertainty in the minds of the voters about changing the regime. The plan in 2007 was to try and take away any accusations from Labour that the Conservatives would “cut services”.  The debate at that time was that Spending was equal to Service, thus a cut in spending would result in a proportional cut in service; this is an argument I would reject, (but you may not.)

That was pretty much how things stood until recently.

However, the Labour government recently announced that they have identified £11bn of annual spending which they could classify, today, as “waste” and they declared that they intend to cut this waste from their 2012-13 spending plans onwards. In return, the Conservatives amended their 2007 pledge stating that they had in fact identified £12bn in “waste” and that if elected they would cut that “12bn waste starting right away; using £6bn of it to tinker with the National Insurance Bands (the “Tax on Jobs”) and cut spending annual spending by £6bn with the rest.

That's:

£ 12,000,000,000 in annual wasteful spending the conservatives will begin to halt in the over the 2010/11 year if elected in a few weeks.

£ 11,000,000,000 that Labour say they know is being wasted or inefficiently used that they want to keep spending until the 2012/13 year, (though we should keep in mind that by 2012 whoever wins the election will have to have at least one spending review before this date so all numbers at that point are likely to change.)

£ 6,000,000,000 that the Conservatives will spend less per year than the Labour Government. (A less than 1% reduction.)

So to repeat, the £6bn currently in discussion in the media and on the TV and what will be mentioned in the leader’s debates is £6bn of money already being spent which has been identified as wasteful with a further £6bn being used to not make employing people into work more expensive.

So, based on the above, the Conservatives are effectively now saying that for 2010/11 their spending projection is the Labour pledge of £706bn, less the £6bn just mentioned, or:

£700,000,000,000

Now, if you like me get a bit bamboozled over these numbers you are not alone and it is because the numbers are truly huge.
 
To pay for Public Sector Spending as set out by each party a Government can basically do two things, it can collects tax and it can borrow money. Borrowed money needs to be repaid at some point along with interest along the way and is obviously a more costly way of keeping the Government running.
 
There is no way I, you or Alistair Darling can be certain of the amount of tax that will be collected in the 2010/11 period, but what we can look at is how much was collected last year and see how much tax is coming in versus how much is needed to go out. Looking at the HMRC numbers for total tax collected in the past year and in recent years there is a very large gap between what can be afforded via tax revenues and via what either a Labour or a Conservative Government is committed to spend. By the chart linked, the Government has collected £397bn in taxation to go towards the amount needed.
 
Let’s keep our numbers simple hope that the tax rises coming will not stifle tax revenue collection and assume that if collection remained flat the money coming in will be:

£ 397,000,000,000

So in our exercise, with a fair assumption on tax income for this year there is a shortfall or to use the Economic term a Budget Deficit in the Labour plan between the amount of money needed to keep the government going and the amount of money coming in via tax of:

£ 309,000,000,000

And it is fair to say that there is a deficit in tax revenues to the Conservative plan of:

£ 303,000,000,000

And that crucially for this next year alone!


This deficit however is not the same as debt.

So when The Chancellor and George Osborne talk about tackling national debt and tackling the deficit these are not the same thing. Sometimes watching debates on TV about the state of the economy I have heard questions asked about our debt and the answer has come about cutting our deficit – this is usually a rouse to lead away from the truth that by all projections our national debt is soaring and will continue to soar no matter who wins the election because the best the parties are offereing is to halve the deficit.

The national debt can be defined quite simply as what the UK owes, and every penny of it needs to be repaid, usually with interest. The current national debt for the UK is about £849bn and as (I hope) you can see from what I have written above, this is rising all the time as the deficit between the money coming into Government and the money going out are vastly different and the deficit needs to be plugged with new loans.

That number again that every taxpayer in this country is now indebted to is:

£ 849,000,000,000

Now, unfortunately this is the "official" number.  However, the official number because it is defined by the Government does not take everthing into account that you and me might include in a more traditional definition.  So, to illustrate this more clearly I need to go back just a few months.  At the end of 2009 the National Debt number stood at £829.7bn.  At that point I wrote about how that £829.7 does not even include Private Finance Initiatives and Pension Obligations that the Government is obliged to pay and at that point a more truer interpretation might put the true debt at £1.35 Trillion, or:

£ 1,350,000,000,000

But, this £1.3 Trillion also does/did not include the potential and worst case outlay based on pledges to buy back mortgage securities. When those are factored in the number rises again to £2 trillion.

Yep, that’s:

£2,000,000,000,000

As the debt goes up in terms of what we can afford to pay so too will the interest rate in which we can borrow future debt, as it becomes more and more risky to lend to us the more we already owe. This is not just true of the UK, but also true of all countries, all households and all businesses. As our deficits continue our total debt rises.

If the deficit is the difference between income and outgoing, and debt is the total that we owe; it is therefore the case that the deficit can be cut, whilst debt continues to rise.

So, you can see that by focusing the debate on the £6bn issue of whether to cut wasteful spending now or later is kind of a false issue which serves to distract from the fact that to actually implement either plan would require loans that are just not realistic in the medium or long term. To meet spending plans as presently set would require loans that would cripple us. If the deficit is growing by about £12bn every month, perhaps £6bn annual reversal is not enough of a plan for now(?)

When the Chancellor and George Osborne talk about halving the deficit in the next Parliament we should remain aware that they are not talking about cutting the debt that is being accrued for which we must continue to pay interest on, the gap will remain and the amount we owe and the amounts we pay each year in interest are set to go up and up and up and up and up and up.

You can look back across recent years and see, there is no way tax revenue would ever cover the levels needed. Simply raising tax rates will not guarantee that more money will come in at the end of the day.

So, in my humble view the current economic debate is something of a sham, because none of the parties are facing up to the real tough questions that should be posed this side of an election. They all know that there is absolutely no way we can afford to take on and service that level of debt. The extent, size, reach and cost of the State has been inflated to a dangerous size, one in which the people of the UK could never have afforded to support over a great period of time. This has been done by our present Labour Government and it is being propped up already by high amounts of borrowing. We will spend more this year on debt repayments than we will for the entire Armed Forces on the United Kingdom and the figure is creeping up.

Labour has had 13 years to re-build the country in the Social Democratic or Socialist model it so desired, but they built their house on foundations of sand and there is a storm approaching. It will need to be rebuilt all over again.

The State framework that Labour built is going to crumble in the next year or so no matter who wins this election. There is going to have to be massive, massive cuts to get by. But let’s be clear, the size and cost of this predicament has been caused by, set up by, with sole responsibility belonging to, this Labour government.

Please frame this in the context of your home or in terms of circumstances that are close to you in terms of what we must do. If your household income fell, you would not increase your level of spending you would cut it to match your income. There may be loans, credit cards and even a mortgage to factor in, but you would manage these based on your ability to make repayments. We probably all know someone who over borrowed or maxed out their credit cards a few years back who is struggling today. It is not really so dissimilar, we all know that in the end to balance ANY budget spending and outgoings need to be balanced against ability to pay, furthermore we all know that by delaying this ends up being more costly in the long run.

By keeping the argument about the circumstances, and merits of the Conservative application of a potential £6bn distracts from the very real arguments that are not being aired, and that people will be afraid to air. The cost, and thus the size of Government needs to be cut by my guess at least by a third and maybe more.

The Institute for Economic Affairs is more optimistic than me, and they think that without any new tax rises that Labour’s spending plans need to be scaled back by at least £167bn annually.

Sorry, but to continue the theme that’s a cut of:

£ 167,000,000,000

Taking £167bn or two times the NHS budget out of the public sector will lead to unrest, it will lead to strikes. Tragic though the consequences are for the people losing those jobs are, the truth is many of them should not have been hired in the first place, their fate is a result of Government mismanagement of our economy.

So when the layoffs do happen and the strikes and civil unrest does come, be it under Labour, the Conservatives or under a Coalition partnership we should be talking today about what lies in store in the road ahead; because ultimately every single person in our land is going to feel the effect of this, every single one of us. And that is what the leaders in this election campaign should be addressing, and as a result that is the debate that we should be having in our schools, workplaces and pubs. By not discussing the size and extent of the inevitable cuts, I believe will fuel even more unrest and protest, because yet again decisions will be made in Whitehall and by the time the election is over and the cuts are being made, the dialogue will be about the tough decisions that need to be made.

After this election the only thing we will be talking about is cuts, cuts and more cuts. That is why we should all be talking about it this side of the election if we want an input on how those cuts may land.

The Westminster Party

Lord Adonis was just on Sky News talking about his article in the Independent today which is worth reading in full.  The Labour Transport Secretary has attempted to wade into the sticky area of tactical voting and come out to declare that in his eyes Labour and the Liberal Democrats are virtually the same.  In fact he only quotes the Iraq War and the Lib Dem obsession of Proportional Representation Voting as their only differences. A little ironic considering Labour seem to have found a new appreciation for the voting with PR their proposed system for a wholly elected Lords and their step towards PR with their efforts to force a referendum on The AV system for the Commons.

Let's let Lord Adonis do the talking here.

Nick Clegg will spend the next month attempting to cast a "plague on both your houses". The truth is that the Lib Dems, for all their local opportunism, have national policy that is similar to Labour's. The difference is that Labour can implement its programme. The Lib Dems have no realistic chance to implement theirs without a Labour government. In Labour-Tory marginals, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote which helps the Tories against progressive policies. And in Labour-Lib Dem marginals every Labour MP returned is a seat in the Commons more likely to put Labour ahead of the Tories and therefore better placed to form a government.

So what about Conservative-Lib Dem Marginals?  Is the Transport Secretary going to finish the sentence and advocate Labour Supporters then voting Lib Dem?

The Liberals won their last election precisely a century ago. Or rather they were the governing party in a hung parliament which, with strong Labour support, introduced national insurance for the sick and unemployed, abolished the veto of the hereditary House of Lords, raised taxes on the rich, and permitted the trade unions to support political parties financially. In turn the Liberals supported the 1924, 1929 and 1977 minority Labour governments. Until recently the two parties were in coalition in Scotland. Outside wartime, the official Liberal party has never supported a Tory government. Lloyd George's decision to govern with the Tories after 1918 – even with the plea of a post-war national emergency – split his party, destroyed his own political authority, and led directly to Labour replacing the Liberals as the major party of the left within five years.

Never a truer word spoken by a Labour Minister.

Roy Jenkins told me when I was considering joining Labour after Tony Blair became Labour leader: "The only real difference is that Labour is now the larger party of social democrats, the Lib Dems are the smaller; and in our political system, it is generally wise to support the larger party if they are on the same page."

No surprises there then.

The Lib Dems have supported our investment in the public services, radical constitutional reform, equal rights, fair taxation, environmental protection and positive engagement in Europe. As his diaries reveal, Paddy Ashdown ardently sought a coalition with Labour after 1997, which might have happened had the Labour majority not been so large.

Take political reform, which is top of the Liberal agenda. It was this Labour Government that devolved power to a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, a Northern Ireland Assembly and a directly elected Mayor of London. It was this Labour Government that introduced the Human Rights Act and that finally passed a Freedom of Information Act, giving the public the right to know. It was this Labour Government that removed most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords – a reform the Liberals failed to implement when they had the chance in 1911. And it was the Tories who this week blocked a referendum on voting reform and our legislation to remove the remaining hereditary peers.

All these policies were supported by the Lib Dems. Yes, in some cases they were Lib Dem policy before Labour embraced them.

Well we all knew that Labour ran out of new ideas around 1998 and have been skulking around nicking other peoples ever since, but it is nice to have a Labour Minister commit to paper that they are nicking the Lib Dem's proposals.

So, it's clear that Lord Adonis has made a national acknowledgement that there is not a cigarette paper between the two parties.... hang on a second... "Not a cigarette paper between the two parties" where do I recognise that phrase from?.... hmmm.... Oh yes, that's right, that is what David Cameron reckons is all that separates HIS Conservative Party and the Lib Dems.
Let's revisit David Cameron's article entitled "A Lib-Dem-Tory Alliance will vanquish Labour" which he wrote for The Observer just last September.

In 1997, Labour cruised into power on a wave of expectation that Britain would become a more progressive country. Twelve years on, the poor have got poorer, social mobility has stalled and quality of life has gone down.

He understands Lib Dem foreplay well, let's recall what follows...

I don't believe in drawing dividing lines where they don't really exist. Politics works best when instead of hiding behind false divisions we seize opportunities to work together to get things done.

What do you mean Sir by "dividing lines where they don't really exist" ?  Surely that's the whole reason why you are in, and lead different political parties!

That's what Nick Clegg and I did with the Gurkha issue. We had different answers as to how best to repay those who had given our country so much, but we agreed the status quo was unacceptable, so we recognised it was best to work together, defeat the government and make them think again.

That same spirit should exist between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in other areas, too. That's because on so many progressive issues, there is strong agreement between our parties.

David Cameron then rolls off numerous examples of how the Conservative and Lib Dem policies are the same and subtly refers to each as "real progressives" so as to collectively group Conservatives and Lib Dems.

His last sentence begins:

There's barely a cigarette paper between us in all these areas. It's clear: the real enemy of progressive politics is not the Conservatives and I would not claim it is the Liberal Democrats.

So if Labour Ministers think that the Lib Dems and Labour supporters are essentially the same and the Conservative Leader thinks there is barely a cigarette paper between his party and the Lib Dems could it just be that is because the Parties are now too close together to warrant even pretending differently?

I find it pretty sad that in our adversarial system of democracy that has worked so well for so long, we now have most decisions and laws get handed down from a totalitarian system based in Brussels.  The areas left in which Parliament and our notional government presides over is monopolised now by what can only be described as "The Westminster Party" the amalgamation of three main existing parties who basically agree on what they will do on most things and on most policies including remaining quietly subservient to our real government in brussels.

To my mind the only way to resolve this is to force a referendum on EU Membership for the UK, whereby if we stay in we can do away with the largely unnecessary and costly Westminster and if we exit we can restore sovereignty and power to Westminster and make the decisions for ourselves with the parties willing and able to offer variety and alternatives.

Until that point, LIB/LAB/CON = Westminster Party.

Least Worst Option

I have been looking forward to this election for a long, long time.  I have been yearning for the simple pleasure of watching Gordon Brown issue a concession speech on the early hours of 7th May when it becomes clear that his beloved Labour Party has been completely wiped out in the polls with the Great British People having issued a stinging and lasting rebuke to kick the Socialists into the long grass for a decade or so.

But as time has rolled on by and as the election has drawn closer the reality of the situation and that of our politics has become more and more clear.  The three "main" Parties have all set themselves out on a course over the past year that in many ways is spectacularly similar.  Elections are no longer about people voting for what they want their MPs to do, and elections no longer provide for a democratically charged change of direction.  Elections are now used, here in this country of ours as a mandate for Governing in a way that the overwhelming majority of people do not agree with.  Manifestos are no longer adhered to, the policies are largely the same; our function as voters is reduced to changing a few of the main characters every five years or so and even then we are not exactly torn by the selection on offer, we seldom regret not electing certain individuals do we?  We are continuously picking and actively screening for the least worst candidate.  Those who are eventually deselected via ballot go on to lucrative and unelected positions either in the House of Lords or in Europe. 

Why are the political parties in the UK all offering much the same?  The answer is simple, they all must operate within the guidelines of what the EU lets them govern.  In other words, the EU makes the laws for us in the areas in which it chooses, then our Parliament and our political parties operate in the waste land that the EU does not deem important enough to already legislate on.  This election is worse, because post-Lisbon the EU controls so much more and is building the framework to seize control of our markets and our diplomatic service.  Do not kid yourselves that this decreasing sphere of legislative freedom will not get smaller and smaller as the EU expandes again in the coming years.

Look at what according to the House of Lords the EU has sole control over.

Look also at some more seized EU broad controls:

And, they were good enough to share these, though don't forget that EU law has primacy in the UK, so by "share" they mean that they are prepared to and empowered to over rule with anything they disagree with.  You will hear our home grown parties talking about these policies, but run down the list and you will understand that their similarities are based upon the extent in which they think they can manoeuvre without being over ruled by the EU.

And lastly, the these are things the EU likes to control some funding and will be seizing overall control over at a later date.

So with so much hanging in the control of the EU, and with the people we put in Westminster the only ones who can both speak up for us, and maybe, just maybe work to bring control and decision making back to our shores and place it back into the hands of voters it really does matter who we vote for - but don't let any candidate or any party tell you that this election is not about Europe or the EU because it really is.  There are Euro ID Cards, Policing, Harmonised and Centrally Collected Taxes (probably VAT), all to come from the EU before the next UK Election on top of the surrendered competencies.

The only mechanism available to us in the Post Lisbon world is a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom asking for consent to remain in the EU with our present relationship.  There is no other mandate now for withdrawal - even repeal of the 1972 European Communities  Act probably won't do now we have signed into Lisbon as it formalises a drawn out and difficult divorce scenario, one which is designed to deter exit - in keeping with the "progressive" style legislation enacted by the EU which always points in one direction.

If you, like me are completely sick of this scenario, we have one month to make our voices heard.  There are options.  Firstly, there is UKIP who are preparing to fight this election with a promise to provide a referendum on EU Membership.  UKIP are not everybodies cup of tea, but if you are voting with the EU in mind, then UKIP must be considered.  They are clearly a compatible vote for disgruntled Tories. 

There is Jury Team who are a Party of Independents, who have an over-reaching set of shared aims, and at the top of that list is a referendum on continued EU Membership.

A lot of people though will want to still consider the main parties, and for them I would recommend they take a look at the Albion Alliance Pledge Pages, and see just which candidates are prepared to undertake this very simple pledge:

I pledge to work tirelessly to give the voters of my constituency a democratic and direct voice in the United Kingdom’s continued relationship with the EU.

I pledge that I will sponsor a Private Members Bill, written in clear concise terms, calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union – and/or support any motion for such a referendum – and to vote positively for any Bill that may call for such a referendum, irrespective of Party Whip, with a view to the successful outcome of this pledge within 1 year of a new Parliament or sooner.

I simply can't imagine voting for anybody who would not address this most pressing of issues. If your preferred candidate has no and will not sign up to this, can you trust them to act in your best interests in Parliament?

You can help, even though there is still time for candidates to declare there are 1,004 candidates that have yet to be contacted to see if they will pledge and a further 2,156 who have been contacted but have as yet not stated if they will or will not pledge.  The Albion Alliance is not a political party, it is a cross-party initiative that is open to all candidates - and all they have to do is sign their name up to the above pledge which is hardly asking much of them given how important and how widely popular such action would be.

There is also another option, as I mentioned there is still time to become a candidate.  Most of the seats targeted by the main parties are done and as good as closed.  This country is almost singularly brilliant in its inclusion of independent candidates in our elections, and they are often the most colourful and interesting candidates.  Independents essentially say to the main candidates that you cannot run in my constituency if you will not speak to my issues and I hope that Independent Candidates up and down the country take the fight to the LIB/LAB/CON Alliance of government only so far as the EU prescribes.

Lastly I hope what I am hearing that the new batch of Conservative Candidates being more EU Sceptic than the present bunch is true, but I hope they if elected to a majority government are prepared to act on those instincts.  [They can obviously start by signing the Albion Alliance Pledge!]  The Conservatives are driving people into the hands of UKIP and despite the threat of a Hung Parliament; they seem instead to prefer a hung parliament with a greatly reduced anti-EU vote, than an outright victory with an anti-EU membership vote.  Why is this?  I am one of those people who used to think the Conservatives were right about "being in Europe, but not run by Europe" and that "we can reform from within" but I was a sucker and more importantly I was wrong.  I want the Conservative Party to speak to Conservative issues, and at present it is not really doing that; I hope that this is a short term development and it will soon mend its ways.  But if David Cameron is to issue his "referendum lock" and if he is to renegotiate some powers back to the UK, perhaps he would be so good as to publish the legislation he intends to introduce for this referendum lock, and perhaps he will tell us how he intends to do the impossible and get certain controls back, because until he does I don't believe the Conservatives can make any claims to represent in any way the EU Sceptic and democracy loving millions of voters who still do not know for sure who they are going to vote for.

Another Cameron Gaffe?

I really did think the Conservatives were having a good day.  However, David Cameron was just on ITV News at Ten and said the Conservatives want to get rid of Regional Assemblies - at least I think that is just what he said, feel free to correct me.... (I am 99.99% certain).

This is a pledge that Eric Pickles announced in 2008 and was latterly confirmed by David Cameron.  (RDA's or Regional Development Agencies are the same as Regional Assemblies, just by another name.)

This is a welcomed move that I would support as these were foisted upon us from Brussels and are central to the EU's attempt to weaken England through regionalisation.

However, the Conservatives own website states that they aspire not to scrap or get rid of RDA's or Regional Assemblies but that they aim to reform them.

Policy Quote:

"Reforming the Regional Development Agencies to create a vibrant, business-focused force that is more responsive to local needs."

Source: The Conservative Party Website

So, which is it Mr Cameron, will you "scrap" them or is "reform" your party's agenda?

It's not like this particular contradiction has not already been pointed out, over a month ago.  I do wish the Tories would get their Policy Line in order!

As Good As Certain...

Making bold predictions can be a very unrewarding game, especially if you are a journalist.  Us bloggers can get away with it a little more, but we are still wary.  Anatole just can't resist it, he seems to make one every week; or at least he used to many years back when I read the Times.  I came to realise very quickly that whatever Anatole would predict not only would not happen, but, very often the exact opposite would happen... I was not a Times reader for very long, they were way off the mark with too much and gave New Labour too much unwarranted credit.  It was like being led up the garden path.

Anyway, it's not too often I am over on their site but I was tonight and Anatole has predicted that Labour are going to "do a 1992" and win the General Election, because the Tories have to measure the budget response right, and he feels they will not do this.  He even says:

But next week’s Budget will be a pivotal political event, not because of anything Alistair Darling may or may not say, but because of the response he will elicit from the Tory frontbench.

This could be the best news yet for David Cameron and George Osborne, they may not realise it but it really is.  Maybe in the last few years Anatole has turned it around and got a few right, and if that is the case it is I who will indeed be left with egg on my face.

His theory that the Conservatives must make more of the Budget than Labour is simply not true.  Alistair Darling is about to stand up and say how he wants to buy Labour some extra votes on money borrowed off of the future toils of the tax payer.  He wants to nudge the Conservatives into immediately replying with specifics about what they would cut after a General Election, and quite frankly even Cameron is not stupid enough to do that.  Nobody believes what labour has to say on the economy the trust is gone.  Nobody argues with crazy people in the street, they accept they are crazy and walk on... They certainly don't shout crazy back.

The Conservatives do need to shape up their policy announcements, but that does not mean they have to make specific pledges on cuts, the best weapon the Conservatives have between here and May 7th is that nobody believes Labour when they talk economics, nobody believes the numbers.  Like the mob, they would appear to have two sets of books running, one for the public when they need election promises, and the other that tracks the real cost of their profligate failures.  Talk cuts by all means, say that they will be robust and deep - people will appreciate that and take it as honest; but specific cut pledges in a budget week is not a good idea.

When Alistair Darling stands up and says he is going to add £5 to the winter fuel allowance David Cameron should throw Ed Millibands Energy Taxes back in his face, when Darling says he is raising the State Pension by £4 Cameron should remind everyone who raided the public pension purse.  When Darling remarks about borrowing to spend on investment Cameron should repeat that we are spending more on debt repayment to banks than we do on our under equipped and under supported Armed Forces.  And so on, ad nauseum.

What Cameron should not do is get dragged into a fight about numbers and projections that are probably not even true.  Labour will be setting traps.  He should insist that if the PM can't even tell if he has spend more money year on year on defence and if Liam Byrne is confused as to whether there will or will not be any new taxes there is clearly some work to be done to straighten out the books and only when after a Conservative Government has audited the books, and the bank statement, will they truly have an idea what measures are needed.  It is Labour that has created this uncertainty but that the Conservatives are ready to roll up their sleeves and give people a straight picture.

Anatole tries for an observation:

The Tories made three closely related mistakes in devising their economic and electoral strategy at the nadir of the financial crisis in the winter of 2008-09

No not quite.  The real problem is that the Conservatives, especially early in this Parliament began to believe the propaganda that was coming out of 11 Downing Street about such things as "ending boom and bust" and having developed some grand new economic platform that virtually did away with inflation.  The removal of powers from the BoE and the setting up of the FSA allowed for the debt bubble to grow unfettered and was a big part of why there was a massive recession.  It was all lies, they should have rejected the premise of Gordon Browns claims.  Their language at the time regarding economics was to the line of "sharing the proceeds of growth" - they wrongly accepted the premise that there was unlimited growth to be had.  It wasn't that they built it at the wrong time, it was that it was built on a foundation of sand. When the credit cards were being cut up and we hit our limits, the Tories were just as lost as Labour.  When it went wrong, Brown claimed that "nobody saw it coming."  With a little more Tory caution, Browns best defence line would never have been accepted.

Buying into Labours falsehoods will prove to be the Tories biggest problem.  I have been saying for some time that the Conservatives need to disassociate from Labour.  By accepting Labours lies and building their policies on those same falsehoods they not only validate the Labour Line, they set themselves up for their own failures and u-turns.  The NHS, The EU, Public Schools, Devolution and Green Taxes are all areas where the Conservatives will have to unpick their position and set a new direction after the election, and all because they have built their policies, well defined or not on the New labour reality rather than the real world reality.

So how do I know the Conservatives will win and Anatole is wrong?

Assuming that the new Budget confirms these Labour plans for long-term fiscal consolidation, how should the Tories react? The answer is simple. Instead of quibbling about Alistair Darling’s figures and forecasts, the Tories should endorse his budgetary numbers and promise to carry out essentially the same macroeconomic programme.

All David Cameron has to do now is, not do what Anatole suggests and the election is his.

Now 44% Want Hung Parliament

The Guardian/ICM poll has been released early tonight - or at least I should say I am acustomed to seeing new polls at 10pm rather than at tea time.

The scores on the doors:

Tellingly the Guardian open their report with this line:

The prime minister's deep unpopularity is continuing to harm Labour's election chances...

It is a bizarre situation we are in today, the Guardian does not want Gordon Brown but does want a Labour win, Core Tories distrust David Cameron and hope that either he will offer some more Conservative policies, and are prepared despite their deep dislike of the Prime Minister to lend their votes to others or stay home because David Cameron is not Tory enough for their tastes.  The British Government that rightly fought to retain a degree of fiscal and monetary independence from Brussels because we feared that association with the EU would ruin the UK economy and yet it transpires that the EC is ready to issue a warning to Britain that it's sums don't add up and we need to cut our debt deeper and faster.  For the first time ever I find myself agreeing with the Commission.

Indeed we are in bizarro world. 

And it all leads up to what I have written in the past and have more polling on today that people are looking to engineer a hung Parliament because we ain't happy with what's on offer and do not wish to grant any party 5 years.  Sunday's polls put it at 34% in favour of a stalemate, today's ICM has it at 44%.  The Guardian know that Labour made the mistake in not actually having the stomach to oust Brown, and it is hurting them in the polls still; but the door should not be considered slammed shut for the Conservatives they can move and increase their share of the vote still.

Certainly the first party to strike a real chord could make big gains.  Labour seem content to Tory bash, and make announcements of policy based on how they feel they can frame or more often deflect the arguments during Prime Ministers Questions.  The House of Lords reform announcement is clearly to set up Browns attack this Wednesday.

The Guardians mood tonight stems from the personal polls between David Cameron and Gordon Brown where David Cameron spanks Brown in every category including a 14 point lead on the question of who would make a more competent Prime Minister.  Cameron has a 31 point lead on the man who has the support of his party which given the plots against Brown is unsurprising.

It is of course crazy that the Conservatives are polling 40% to Labour's 31% and stare still at a Hung Parliament; further more it is deeply unfair.  For all the talk of a Hung Parliament, it is shocking that this is not a more prominent story in the papers.

What The People Want

A few days ago I posted:

In the absence any Conservatism from the Conservative Party and in despair at Labour the voters are seemingly looking for a do over. We are not getting the options we want or need so we are engineering a hung Parliament as a vote of no confidence in both Labour and the Conservatives and we are hoping one or both will come out the other side and start listening to what people are asking for.

Now it seems the Sunday Telegraph has some polling that shows I am on the right track:

A surprising 34 per cent of voters think that Britain’s interests would “best be served” if the election resulted, as most polls now predict, in a hung parliament, despite warnings that such an outcome would gravely hamper the country’s ability to recover from its economic woes and record deficit. More than half (56 per cent) want one party to win a clear majority

.
I don't think it is surprising at all.  The problem that most commentators not writing from loyalty to Labour or the Conservatives have cottoned on to is that neither party is presenting a compelling case to be allowed a majority.  This should be coupled with the knowledge that Labour has abused it's mandate in many ways, not least on smokers and on the Lisbon referendum that did not happen.  We favour the Conservatives more, because of distrust of Gordon Brown and Labour, but we do not want the Conservatives on present form and message to have control of Parliament.

I still think the Conservatives will win with a narrow majority, but I think David Cameron is making things tougher for himself with some of his decisions and policies.  It could ebb away, as I said before they could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  I know what I want to hear, and have been vocal about it; as have others. 

Conservatives are out on the doorsteps now, I hope some of the messages filter back to CCHQ.  The polling shows that David Cameron is trusted more than Gordon Brown on the Economy, on the NHS and on Schools I think if David Cameron came out and gave the base a better pledge on the EU, was clear that he intends to substantially roll back the size of the state (and our tax burden), offered a public debate on English votes and devolution including a dialogue on a split from the union and agreed to put the 50p tax rate in question he will win comfortably.  The EU issue will not happen with what he and more recently William Hague have said, but the rest is there and available to him. The question is, will the go for it or not?

Shuffling The Deck

I linked earlier to David Blackburns piece, regarding David Camerons mini reshuffle before the election heats up.  I read it last night and was tempted to pass comment, decided against and have had another change of mind now.

David starts by claiming that James Fortsyth had three weeks earlier laid blame for the Tory downturn at the door of Osborne, Hilton, Coulson and Bridges for the incoherent and dismal message.  I had actually published two days earlier then James that the blame lies with David Cameron, and that he needed to appoint a dedicated General Election Coordinator to take charge and control the messaging.  That is after all what leaders do; they lead and establish a chain of command and have people observe it.  Having four or five people working somewhat independently was always a recipe for disaster.

So, it would seem that common sense has prevailed, and that George Osborne is taking on that exact role.  I am about as much a fan of Osborne as I am Cameron but it is the right decision and should help focus some mind and steady the ship.  I am genuinely looking forward to hearing what the Tories have to offer, and I hope this will mean they can get in control of the agenda now.

Unfortunately this also means that, quelle surprise, Cameron's other buddy Ken Clarke, who is nobodies favourite Tory will now "step up" and become the face of the Conservatives Economic Policy.  I would think that Ken Clarke will put in a better show than George Osborne who I don't think comes across too well on TV.  However, Ken Clarke is not the big hitter that he was billed to be.  He has completely failed in every way in his current remit which was to neutralise Mandelson and give him a bloody nose.  As Mandelson is delighted to remind people, in private he and Ken Clarke agree on just about everything to do with policy.  So, from a meritorious point of view, an unwarranted promotion for Ken. 

What is more worrying to me though is that I suspect Cameron is considering making the position more permanent, and installing Ken Clarke as Chancellor should he win the election. This would be, for me a great disappointment as Ken Clarke has betrayed the Conservative Party in the past over issues of the EU and he will surely do so again.  He is a regular at the Bilderberg meetings and is certainly one who see's the anti-democratic international bodies as the way forward for global governance.  Clarke as Chancellor would be a great recruiting poster for UKIP.

It also therefore begs the question of who exactly is supposed to be countering Peter Mandelson now in the run up to the election?  If the lesson has truly been learnt then tackling the economic message is in itself too much of a job on it's own, there is no way Ken Clarke can shadow the Chancellor and Peter Mandelson at the same time.  Mandelson will be the king of the campaign and we all know he is a master of electioneering, he simply can not go unchallenged.

I hope Cameron has actually thought of this, because Labour has a number of other big hitters in the background ready to step forward and electrify their core base.  Next to Mandelson will be John Prescott, Alastair Campbell, John Reid and the granddaddy of modern elections, Tony Blair.  These guys have largely kept out of sight in the last year or so from mainstream TV news and will be chomping at the bit to get on the telly and talk up "an historic labour fourth term" and they will all do what they need to to make Gordon look human.  They will sell Gordons lies a million times better than he can.  Outside of Osborne and Clarke only William Hague and Boris Johnson are fairly well known on a wide scale for the Conservatives and they need to rectify this quickly.  Boris will probably not feature too much until nearer Election Day.

My recommendation to David Cameron is to bring forward John Redwood to counter Mandelson who has torn Labour's record to shreds on his blog.  That would provide a counter-balance to swivel-eyed-right-wing-loonies like me who will bash him for the Clarke elevation.  I would ask Liam Fox to be on telly as much as possible and I would advise Cameron to make good with David Davis.  Chris Grayling, Michael Gove and Dominic Grieve should be told to raise their own profiles and join in the fight a bit more also.

Having a few Conservatives of a more traditional mould in front of the cameras will do them the world of good.  I guarantee that the Conservatives will not win this election unless there are many faces on TV proving that as a party they are willing to fight for the right to govern. 

None Of The Above Please

So we are to have a budget in two weeks time, or at least we are to have Alistair Darling on TV in two weeks time telling us how he is going to spent yet more borrowed cash on swing voters in order to buy Labour another election.

Here is some of what Gordon Brown said today:

"We are weathering the storm; now is no time to turn back.

"We will hold to our course. And we will complete this mission. We have got through this storm together but there are still substantial risks ahead.

"There will be bumps in the road. And I believe the only way to overcome them is by displaying the same strength and resolve as we did during the crisis."

He then (with a straight face) declared that he had the “character” to lead Britain to economic recovery and attacked the Tories for planning to cut spending and bring us back into recession.

I am glad Gordon Brown mentioned his character because it comes up time and time again and two things are immediately and resoundingly evident to everybody not wearing a red rosette (and too many that do).

1. Gordon Brown is an indecisive bottler, incapable of making tough decisions. In fact, I would suspect that he has problems taking the not so grand decisions also. So he has surrounded himself with bullies and blowhards who by being vocal and aggressive to others have fooled the dim-witted PM into believing that they are decision makers who can compensate for and disguise his own failings.

2. Gordon Brown is prepared to put The Labour Party, The EU and himself before the general welfare of the UK. He is a selfish man in the midst of constructing what he likes to call a new system of world governance and never once have people been consulted. History will not view Gordon Brown kindly, nor should it.

Clearly his attribution asymmetry is way-off if the bullying allegations are to be believed, which I think the overwhelming majority of people do. In success, people will naturally attribute success to their own abilities and talents, but in failure we look to attribute this to external factors and bad luck. Other peoples fortune is down to their good luck and others failure are down to their mistakes. So when the debt bubble that Gordon Brown helped to create came crashing down it was all the fault of the American Sub-prime market. When the expenses scandal broke it was the fault of the Conservatives 1983 legislation and a retired pensioner. When he inherited a golden economy borne out of the backbreaking labour of the Conservatives self employment revolution he stood at the dispatch box and proclaimed to have ended “boom and bust”.

If the election is decided on Gordon Browns Character there will be a funeral for the Labour Party on 7th May.

It is telling that despite everybody in the country being very aware of Gordon Brown and Labours failures that the Conservatives are not 30 points clear and that we are not talking about the Liberal Democrats assuming the mantle as the new second party of the UK. I have written before of my dislike and distrust for the Conservatives new direction.

Janet Daley has been having one of those tediously boring back and forth’s with Danny Finkelstein that generally is not interesting to anybody but those involved, however this one may have (finally) reached an interesting conclusion vis-à-vis the modern Conservative Party. The Tory modernisers it would seem have been hired from the New Labour School of misdirection. They seized upon some polling which suggested that Conservative Policy on Immigration during the 2005 election was deemed popular or welcomed in the polls, but only when those being questioned did not know that it was a conservative policy. When the Conservative brand or Tory name used, people disassociated with it. This was of course to do with the BBC witch (or Warlock?) hunt on Michael Howard and the BBCs rather successful attempts to show all Conservatives as bigots.

When telepromterless Cameron landed in CCHQ sans tie and pin-stripped suit the “modernisers” took the Immigration Polling and used it as the basis for the need to “detoxify” the brand. Thus ensued photo shoots with Huskies, policy meetings with Bob Geldof, and explains why Cameron was in East Africa whilst his Witney Constituency was under water. The Party was hijacked by the policy wonks on the basis of a poll that showed that if the BBC’s editorial policy is biased and vindictive enough the Toris wil flinch; clearly the BBC has too much control over the TV News arena in the UK. So instead of picking a fight with their mates at the BBC Cameron the new team were given their own dodgy dossier of research (also done by the BBC) that showed that people don’t know or care about things like “back benchers” they don’t even know what terms like that would mean. They care about gay weddings and Eastenders and thus the Conservatives need to modernise and use pollsters and rock stars in their policy formulation, and stop relying on voters and party members to tell them what they want. Janet edges us to the conclusion that therefore as a result we now have a Conservative Party fit for the post democratic era. Not as she says because the whole conservative brand was tarnished, but simply because of the public view on Immegration after the BBC assault.

The problems of course begin with and end with So What? This would have been useful information two years ago or even a year ago, but with Cameron tight lipped on policy back then there would have been hardly any concern from the grass-roots. It is the emergence of Team Dave’s direction and the recent u-turns and revisions that have planted the red-toryistic concerns in voters’ minds. So it doesn’t really matter so much now how the Conservative Party got where it is today there is an election in six weeks. The decision needs to be whether to vote for it or not. The perplexing question is having taken the Conservative Party away from conservative voters, will a Tory Win be used as confirmation of the new Tory Brand and strategy thus abandoning Conservative voters for at least a generation or would a defeat or hung parliament force the party to where the Conservative Grass-roots are?

There are some in the Conservative Party that are just now realising why Tony Blair won in 1997 and are determined to use their new found knowledge in an election in 2010. It is only because there is an empty suit in 10 Downing Street that they are not being spanked completely in the polls. Tony Blair would have turned the polls already – he would have done it a year ago and we would be into a fourth Labour term.

In the absence any Conservatism from the Conservative Party and in despair at Labour the voters are seemingly looking for a do over. We are not getting the options we want or need so we are engineering a hung Parliament as a vote of no confidence in both Labour and the Conservatives and we are hoping one or both will come out the other side and start listening to what people are asking for. We need and want a severe reduction in the size of the state and of our overall tax burden, we want our finance put in order, we want a tax break to make the cost of living in this poorly governed country easier, we want fuel bills to go down not up, we want to smoke in the pub and we want government to concentrate on governing, rather than what I put in my wheelie bin.

For the benefit of David Cameron’s aides I have translated this message into some graphs that may be confused with polling data and therefore can be slipped into the radar as a hint to the current Tory Leadership about where their current problems lie.

Monday Fisk And Rant

There has been a gradual change in the tone of support for David Cameron's Conservatives, I would say it traces back to the dropping of a particular cast-iron pledge, others may care to trace it back further.  However, there is a consistent change in tone right before one gives up all together the Cameron project, I have been through it, loads of other bloggers have, Fraser has, Gerald Warner and Simon Heffer probably went about 20 minutes after Cameron assumed the leadership.  The change in tone though is important as it is about consistent through everyone who has exhibited it.

So, having noticed this, I am deducing that it is again not going to be a good week for Dave nor, his top team (if you will excuse me calling them that) as I am now detecting the same wobble from one of his closest and previously most staunchest allies in the press, Ben Brogan.

Let’s try again, shall we? Last week was mostly a write-off for the Tories. You will remember it started with Dave’s Brighton speech that was supposed to steady the blues after several weeks of wobbles. The idea was to move swiftly on to a week spent demolishing Labour’s economic record and in particular the dire state of the debt. Yet on Monday a line-drawing operation turned into an ordeal that shows little signs of abating. Labour has successfully shaped the Ashcroft business into its ’same old Tories’ narrative, and drowned out anything else the Conservative wanted to speak about. I say ‘mostly a write-off’ because the only success was Michael Gove’s series of education events and announcements that made headlines and showed that someone in the operation was still focused on making the Tory case. But the overall effect was fairly dire.

A little tetchy, one can sense the frustration of someone who has invested much personally to the Conservatives and is feeling a little let down.  There's more...

So why is it so dire? And why is there no sign of it getting any better?

Oh dear Ben, why is it not looking like it is going to get any better?

Looking back over the past eight days, it is difficult not to wonder whether the fight has gone out of this operation. The most startling thing, to my mind, has been the way Team Dave has let itself be kicked around daily by Labour.

"Let itself be kicked around daily by Labour"  Hang on Ben, that's the kind of thing you would expect myself, Heffer or Warner to be saying.  Next you will be mocking Cameron....

It’s as if they don’t have a dog in this fight, as if they have walked off the battlefield sniffling because – sob – those tewwible bullies are too wough

Ohhh, too late.  OK well welcome aboard, better late than never.  Now, what can the Conservatives, or David Cameron even to turn things around?

The best defence is a good offence, as Vince Lombardi used to say (or was it Yogi Berra?), but offence we have had none. The Tory communications machine has not been, well, communicating. Instead it has let itself be bitch slapped by Peter Mandelson, including this morning in the Guardian.

Exactly right.  And why is this?

In the past we’ve heard the whisperings that the Tory high command is directed by a sense of entitlement, but I reckon the real problem is that the leadership is not sufficiently directed by an all-consuming, nail biting desire to win.

So what next?

Like the Terminator reduced to grabbling bits of metal, he is still coming for you Dave. And what cheers him? The kind of self-satisfied complacency shown by Ed ‘Friend of Dave’ Vaizey. Another week gone and the best the Tories can do on a Sunday is suggest Sam Cam votes Labour. Nice. Team Dave needs to snap out of it and get stuck in.

Ben Brogan, welcome to the view from the outside looking in, it ain't pretty but now your out here you can understand the frustrations and the angst of watching the Cameron machine stall like the little engine that could, but just didn't.

So I would think there is a bit of a voting dilemma going on out there.  I think Ben is nearly there, and many others will be too.

Firstly, I have pledge personally not to vote for anyone who will not place country before party, as per the Albion Alliance and their pledge system.  This instantly rules out a Conservative vote for me, as when I wrote to my MP asking if she would pledge, she had the work experience staff at CCHQ copy & paste me the standard response to Albion Alliance enquiries, and of course failed to answer the question (so, I take it that the answer is no, she will not put country before party).

But what about others who have not, or not yet undertaken a voters pledge, but are in a similar predicament as I would have been.  Here's the balancing act, and the dilemma.  The country simply cannot take another 5 years of Labour, and even if they sneaked through there is no way in hell that Gordon Brown will not be challenged over and over agian much the same as he has been in his two-and-a-bit years as Prime Minister to date.  However, the Red-Toryism on offer seems very much like it has been proof-read by people resembling low-grade bank clerks in Brussels.  It is sanitised, and has been carefully revised to be EU friendly.  With Osborne and Clarke at Camerons side, we have two Bilderbergers and two EU-Philes of the highest order.  As someone who would argue that our greatest problems today stem back to our inability to legislate and govern freely because of the EU and to be able to make the tough choices necessary free from EU control, I look at team Cameron and wonder aloud if it would not be better for them to be beaten, so that the Conservative Party can be seized back from them in the ashes of their leadership ready and ready at the next opportunity to make the tough and lasting changes we really need.

It is I believe what many voters are asking themselves and is in part reason for the narrowing.  What Cameron has carefully crafted as his message is that the Conservatives with largely offer the same policies as Labour, but with tweaks around the edges and with a new team in charge.  I say "in part" in reference to the polls, the other part is because of all the gaffes, which is never a good thing this close to a ballot.  I believe in Tennis they are referred to as "unforced errors" and is the first stat seized upon when analysing a defeat.  The person or team with the least unforced errors usually wins.

So, which is better?  Labour out, with little change in Government policy from an incoming Tory Government, or Tory loss, with the potential of some real detoxification of the Heath-ites and Clark-ites and the possibility that with Parliament much closer that Labour will not make five years next term with an election perhaps possible after two or three years?  Maybe then, we would have a Conservative Party that will make the tough decisions that are needed to slash the size of the public sector, deliver on the EU and put forward a solution to the inequality of devolution.   

Either way, as Ben Brogan points out, the Tories seem to have taken a victory for granted and relied too heavily already on the notion that we can all be sure there is some great policies in the pipeline, because when push as come to shove, no matter which side of the fence you are on, this is not an attractive Conservative Party, and as far as the Cameron project is concerned anything less than an outright win and comfortable majority is not a victory for his direction and policies.  It is Gordon Brown and Labour who after bankrupting this country financially, morally and politically and yet it is the supine Tories who lay on the floor getting the snot kicked out of them.  There is no good reason at all why the Conservatives should not be miles out in front; they were when people thought they were a Conservative Party in the traditional mould, it is their own announcements, revisions and clarifications that have caused the polls to narrow.  Labour has nothing new to offer, it is convulsing under the weight of the realisation that its ideology has failed, again.

I may disagree with Cameron on much and like I said, unlike many I am not sat on the fence.  But unless the top team starts putting in a fight, like the Conservative bloggers have, like the leafleters and the grass-roots has been then it is the team at the top that will lose this election.  I believe the bloggers and I believe the tory friendly media and I believe the leafleters I know what they stand for and I agree with them on most issues.  They want an honest to god revolution in the way things are done in the UK, and I believe they are the kind of people who will not be unquestioning of the hand of Brussels.  They are, or were my political kin.  I had envisioned two years ago being on the door steps and making the argument for the Conservatives, it is Dave & Ken that drove me out, that lied to me, that insulted my beliefs and stole my party.

So, last chance saloon Mr Cameron.  Do you want to win this election or not?  If you do, get off your arse, get your bloody messaging straight and start fighting for it.  If you don't get the hell out of the way for a proper Tory who is chomping at the bit to rip Labour and Gordon Brown to shreds.

EOR

No Need For A Conservative Panic

There has been a sharpening in the polls in recent weeks and at one point last week a poll which seems to be a rogue had the lead down to two points and things seem to be averaging out at about 5 to 6 points. For now, it looks like hung-parliament territory but I personally do not think it will last. There are lots of things that have not happened yet, and I actually think that despite the narrowing it is still the Conservatives election to lose.

Here are my 10 things that have not happened yet that might happen or will happen that will benefit the Conservatives as we get nearer to the election.

1. The Election Has Not Actually Been Called Yet
There are millions of people in the country whose involvement and interest in politics does not extend beyond election time. Many of these people are who David Cameron has been busiest courting and positioning hiself for when they do start taking notice. When we know for sure when the election is, the polls and public debate will I think move to firmer Conservative territory.  Until the election proper is called there is much that will not happen.  The real business in sport is when all the players are on the same field and the whistle has been blown and this election will be no different.  Get the election going and a lot of the narrative will change and people's minds will focus on Labours record versus Conservative promise.  Labours record this time around hands the Conservatives a head start with undecideds who are yet to start considering things from a political point of view.

2. The TV Debates
This is obviously new and may yet prove to have a phenomenonal effect on the outcome (or not). The leaders of the three factions of the Westminster Party will go on TV and discuss the fag paper that separates them.  For me this may not reveal much, but for others it may well competely and radically change their voting intentions.  Expectations will be spun low for Gordon Brown but David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be expected to come across better and more in touch. It will represent a move away from speaking in front of Labour audiences and Parliament for Brown, something Clegg and Cameron are more accustomed to.

Gordon Brown was typically reluctant to accept and will view not losing ground as a win.  Cameron and Clegg have ground they can seize.

3. The TV Debates
No, I am not repeating myself.  I think there is a chance of a fourth debate being added as the other parties are rightly upset that the Westminster three are going to get three prominent slots on Prime Time. I would expect now the deal is done and the rules announced for the SNP and/or UKIP to get busy and organise a competing debate or debates that will exclude the other three, possibly on a smaller news or TV channel, or maybe over internet broadcast which is certainly possible in the Internet age and would even perhaps appear to put the others in a more modern setting.  If the debate gets going, the primary focus will be on Labour’s record with no one from Labour there to defend it and attacks on Labour's record from any source will benefit the Conservatives.

4. The Sun
The Sun threw its weight behind the Conservatives during the conference season last year, but this support has been a little lukewarm since. They, like many are not fully convinced about Cameron, and I am not so sure that will change this opinion. However, having drawn a line in the sand, I fully expect that they have been quietly digging the dirt and have a few headliner stories ready to break once the election is called. I am expecting at least a couple of sleaze stories, and with MPs expenses having blown open this past year there is a near endless supply of material for a red top to use in its lampooning efforts. The Sun understands what to say to people whose interest in politics does not extend much beyond Election Day.

5. The Crunch
Every day, every week and every month things are getting tighter and tighter for families up and down the country. Few actually believe Labour when it comes to the economy. In 1979 the country was completely and utterly ruined, and everyone knew it. People took a look at two clear alternatives, more of the same or the Conservatives. In 2010, Labour have recognised this and are literally just trying to cover up how bad things really are and have applied a few band-aids to hide the wounds rather than to heal them. The economy is in many ways much worse than in 1979 and that is a message every party other than Labour will be repeating. People are feeling the pinch anyway, so Brown and Labour cannot spin this forever. Inflation is starting to kick in and prices are going up. The longer we wait, the more people will see more and more of the turmoil our economy is in and be feeling it more and more for themselves. The choice will again be for more of the same or a change.

6. Europe
The Conservatives are not well placed to talk about the EU, but Labour and the Lib Dems are in an even worse position. David Cameron and his shadow cabinet will be able to point to something EU Sceptic, even if people like me think it is a load of old pony. What they can also do is put out in front Daniel Hannan and William Hague who are still considered as people within the Tory Party who will somehow and some way eventually steer the party right. Europe will not go unmentioned during the election and though they will be taken to task here on the blogosphere, for those more inclined to make their decision from info gained from GMTV and This Morning the Conservatives will be seen as something of an EU Sceptic party.

7. Straw Poll
I did a straw poll in the office today, I asked my co-workers to imagine it was election day and they had the ballot paper in hand… who will you vote for? The resounding answer was “not Labour” all the people I asked have voted Labour in the General Election in recent years… The Conservative need to just show they are “Not Labour” to people who swung to Labour and now regret it and they are onto a winner.

8. The Phwoar Factor!
Apparently David Cameron is the most attractive of the three leaders to women. (Extracted as an unexpected answer to the aforementioned straw poll). The least unattractive candidate has some opportunities that the others will not with a dialogue to women when actually on a campaign trail. This has not yet been a major factor, but who knows.  Brown definately isn't going to do well if things ultimately become a beauty contest.

9. People Just Don’t Know
People are genuinely confused about Cameron and the Conservatives, but this has not translated to mistrust or dislike. Well, not yet. So, with a clear and concise message, they can still win many battles, if not the war. The flip side of course is that everybody knows what Labour is about, and there is a tangible and shoddy record that can be pointed to. Even if the battle is between the definitely incompetent party and the not quite sure party the Conservatives will not necessarily do so bad and are still, just about in a position to build on this.  Dave, better late than never but get yourself a dedicated general Election Co-ordinator!

10. Gordon Brown
Well Gordon Brown has “happened” but in terms of the campaign he is not in it properly yet; he is the Prime Minister and there are many who will not view him any differently yet. Clegg and Cameron can easily be described as campaigning whereas Gordon Brown will be described as governing. But, I think Gordon Brown is a liability to the Labour Party, we know he is disliked by people that have been appointed to work alongside him and in cabinet. Not even just disliked, but seemingly judged by those working closely with him as not up to the Job. Be it resigning the minute after a national election has taken place, or clear references to his incompetence in the national press, or the various plots against him which have all come from those who know him and have worked with him or even being on the unfortunate end of his office bullying. There is a clear verdict here from the people most closet to him, and it isn’t a positive one.

The UK population usually gets the decision right in General Elections, at least in terms of votes cast though that does not always translate across in terms of seats. It has almost be forgotten in recent weeks that Gordon Brown is the least competent, least liked, least trusted Prime Minister of recent times, if not in fact of all time; and he has got to be Prime Minister, and destroyed our economy without facing a national election and when it comes down to it and people focus their minds on it they will not like it one bit.



All of the above is my way of saying that I do not think an outright win is out of scope for the Conservatives yet, and that of the conceivable things that are going to happen between now and the election it is Labour who have more of an up hill battle, providing the Conservatives get themselves and their message straight.

Just A Bag

The cat is out of the bag, well, there never really was a cat was there was just an empty sack and the biggest non-secret in politics that Lord Ashcroft is a non-dom has made the news today and surprised nobody.  His statement today clarifies his tax position, and presumably he then took questions about bears defecating in the woods and the true political allegiance of the Pope.

“I am making this statement in advance of the release by the Cabinet Office of limited information about the award of my peerage and of the undertakings I gave at the time. While I value my privacy, I do not want my affairs to distract from the general election campaign.

“I have therefore decided to release a copy of the letter which I wrote to William Hague, and to expand on what actually happened. As the letter shows, the undertakings I gave were confirmed in a memorandum to William Hague dated 23rd March 2000. These were to “take up permanent residence in the UK again” by the end of that year. The other commitment in the memorandum was to resign as Belize’s permanent representative to the UN, which I did a week later.

“In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation in the first undertaking of the words “permanent residence” was to be that of “a long term resident” of the UK. I agreed to this and finally took up my seat in the House of Lords in October 2000. Throughout the last ten years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue.

“My precise tax status therefore is that of a “non-dom”. Two of Labour’s biggest donors – Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also “non-doms”.

As for the future, while the non-dom status will continue for many people in business or public life, David Cameron has said that anyone sitting in the legislature – Lords or Commons – must be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. I agree with this change and expect to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come.”

Lord Ashcroft mentions Lord Paul and Sir Ronald Cohen both of whom are Labour donors and Non-Dom's.  Iain Dale was very quick to make available a more extensive list.

Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.

• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street.

So, basically both parties are upto the same thing, whilst painting a picture that the other is doing something wrong or immoral.  There would appear to be no breaches in the rules or the laws on donations.  It does however seem that whilst Labour have been bleating on about Lord Ashcroft they have been unwilling to put forth any recommendations for rule changes; probably because they clearly have more to lose than the Conservatives from any changes in the rules.

It does not change the fact that the two parties are screaming at each other for doing exactly the same thing as each other for what basically boils down to nothing at all.  It really is time for Gordon Brown or David Cameron to get out in front of the pettiness and to start putting the country first.  My suspicions has long been that in a Post-Lisbon world, the Governing party has become so restricted in what it may and may not do, that elections have become about who has the blacker cat. 

Away from Westminster, we just don't care.