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?

Hague Says No Referendum From Conservatives

He says no promises have been broken and that David Cameron will set out their new policy tomorrow.

What are your thoughts?

Catching Up

It has been a busy week, my manager has been over from the US and one of my in-laws has been unwell, so I have had very little time for the news, let alone to post anything on the blog.

I haven't been reading the papers, I haven't seen much news, I missed PMQ's, Question Time, This Week and my regular Thursday live-blog on B-BBC.

I did hear about Ronaldo's move to Real, but that is for another blog.

However, I was looking forward to the prospect of what might occur from the dissolution debate on Wednesday, so I made the occasional two second visit to Sky News and BBC on Wednesday, but these revealed nothing.

I half expected (well, hoped) to hear crowds spontaneously break into applause as a dissolution was announced, but it got to the end of the day and there was nothing in the news about what had happened.

I am struggling to find a comprehensive write up, but I understand that there was a poor turn-out, and by virtue of Parliament still sitting I guess the Government won the vote.

Very disappointing.

Anyway, I did stumble upon this clip from the debate, which is of William Hague in fine form.



I will easing myself back into blogging over the next few days.

Could Parliament Vote To Dissolve Itself

The prospect of a vote in Parliament for an early dissolution may be made next week when Plaid Cymru and the SNP get the chance to call for a debate on whether Parliament should be dissolved. It is an issue that leaves little debate in the wider country and both Nats parties receive my thanks for bringing the debate to the floor.

Parliament should be dissolved, I keep saying it but only a General Election and a fresh house can repair the damage done. More recently, Gordon Brown is making overtures that he wants to ram through Constitutional reforms, when he has never once faced the country and asked for a mandate to make such changes. It is also becoming clear that the Government is in chaos, and that the Labour Party could face another very long spell out of power and are risking losing ground to the Liberal Democrats.

In my opinion if the Liberal Democrats do the improbable and overtake Labour they can stay there for a very long time.

Since hearing this on the way home and reading around the blogs, I see that Conservative Home is already saying that William Hague has confirmed the Conservatives would back such a motion, now this is a relishing prospect. There are 350 Labour MPs, 3 Social & Democratic Labour Party Members, plus maybe Claire Short which Nick Brown will be looking to Whip. So a 30ish swing of Labour MPs could force the issue if every single other MP supported the motion.

Anyway, I will not get too ahead of myself there, as nothing is certain yet, but a hammering on Thursday and the continued implosion of the Cabinet will certainly bring wider calls for this motion to happen.

I will be the happiest man in the land if it is Parliament itself finds that the best way to fix itself is to consult the electorate.

What Is The Hurry?

There have been a few opinions in the blogosphere in the last week or so urging David Cameron to have his re-shuffle and be done with it. Where as I understand points being made and that it seems that Cameron is dithering a bit.

I say, why hurry?


There has been some good opinions and debate heard because of this speculation. The MSM does not deem much going on in Westminster to be sexy enough to write about, so we are getting re-shuffle stories.


When the talk moves to Osborne and the Shadow Chancellors job the points made are that Osborne is a good operative, but perhaps not best suited to this particular position. We See instead that the real big beast here is John Redwood, who is doing such a good job in a proxy-shadow chancellor role, especially through his Blog and newspaper work that David Cameron will probably feel safe enough to keep Osborne by his side as Shadow Chancellor.... until elected at least. The Tories are the party with a selection of people who can speak well on the economy. Point being, David Cameron could be viewed as making The Economy his top priority, so much so that he has placed his most trusted and valued advisor in the role to help shape that vision.


Discussion over William Hague has reminded Conservatives that they do have candidates who can play well in the North of England, and that there are people in David Cameron's circle that are not of the Bullingdon Club. Hague is is allowed to speak on EU Sceptic issues (If perhaps not as often as some would like to hear.)

Talk of Alan Duncan's position has reminded Conservatives of a few matters. Firstly he serves as an example of inclusion within the party. Secondly that inclusion is not trumpeted, and points are not attempted to be made off of Mr Duncan's personal business. His position was secured of professional merit, not to pad out the party manifesto or meet a quota. Thirdly, Mandleson's return, in the Lords requires someone to shadow him exclusively. And fourthly, how quick public opinion, especially at the grass roots of the Conservative Party will turn if personal attacks are conducted via the media.

Ken Clarke's heralded return reminds the Conservatives where they were in the 1990's and that if they do attain power they strive to rebut the arrogance that comes from holding office. I shudder at the notion that Ken Clarke could one day be making key decisions on the EU and The Euro - however, he is a conservative and they will get attacked on Europe forever more until the Conservative Party can find a way to talk about it without imploding. Having Ken at the table can remind the top team of the what they can and can not do because of the EU, and how they can avoid stoking the EU debate in the wrong direction. [Though i acknowledge, this is pretty much on Kens terms and for as long as he decides he wants to do that].

I do not share the opinion that Ken Clarke is "The Big Beast", I do not find him a convincing communicator, and I feel he serves as a reminder of a bitter past. Better then that he can talk to those issue directly. He also can bring in support that no other Tory can, something that might tip the balance between a hung parliament and a Conservative Government. As long as Ken Clarke is on board, and David Cameron is honest about the extent Ken Clarke can reach in terms of Ministerial position it may work.


The point to all this is that some of these issues in the recent past would have been very negative talking points in the MSM and the debate would possibly have made the Conservatives look bad to floating voters (EU, Economy, Party Inclusion, Ministers in the Lords etc...). That has not happened. David Cameron has stalled on the proposed re-shuffle, but he isn't having his hand forced on decisions, there is no real question of indecisiveness, only the fear of being perceived as such. Imagine how this would all be playing out in the media if it was Gordon Brown stalling over a re-shuffle.


It also shows that Conservatives do not know how to spin. The official line should be that David Cameron is wading through an extensive list of impressive CV's to determine, in his estimation the very best shadow cabinet available and one in which the people of the UK deserve. This is going to take a little time. The current shadow cabinet is functioning so well that the leader feels no need to make decisions in haste. There, simple really.


I am myself still an undecided voter, but the I just feel it was worth mentioning that the Conservatives are appearing more and more as an electable, desirable party.