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.

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. 

Does David Cameron Need A New General Election Coordinator?

The Conservatives are stuttering and those of us watching from the sidelines can see they are flying blind and without a wider strategy in place.  This is effecting the polls, I have taken the below PoliticsHome graph from the All Seeing Eye which shows the narrowing.  If there is a strategy or a wider message it is getting lost.  We are not yet into the real midst of things; The Conservatives should be miles out in front.  All of the reversals on policies, and contridactory messages make the Conservatives seem unorganised and amateurish. 

The current General Election Coordinator is George Osborne, who is also as we all know Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.  But with the economy the way it is, and the importance of getting the economic record right for this election I am wondering if David Cameron should not reconsider this and appoint someone else to take over the General Election Organisation freeing up George Osborne to get across the message of just how bad the economic situation is.

If Cameron were to heed this advice he would need to act exceptionally quickly as the election could be as soon as five weeks away, and with the latest it could be in June it is going to require someone to get up to speed very quickly.  This also means it will likely need to be a promotion from within the Shadow Cabinet, rather than a new appointment.  

It would also be a move that will come under attack from the opposition parties, but no matter when such a change would have occurred this would have been the case.  Better to highlight that George Osborne's workload plotting to repair the economy Labour destroyed has him busy enough.  A change now can still be sold as a decisive decision from Cameron and should the Conservatives win the election and it will be viewed as a masterstroke (providing the job is not handed to Ken Clarke!)

To me the real reason behind the slide is the abandonment of what I would consider core Tory principles and of the supporters who believe in those principles.  But this campaign sloppiness is not helping.  Cameron's limpness on the EU and the manner in which he changed his position on Lisbon has damaged his standing.  But, I still think people would rather have Labour out, and would be happier to take their grievances to Cameron rather than Brown who is as responsive as a brick wall.  Which brings me to my final point, would the Conservative core like to see a change in message and in the coordinator? I think so, though they may share my concerns about the perception on a switch. 

The main stream media has not turned on Labour and Brown completely, and some traditional Conservative Newspapers are only lukewarm when presenting the Conservatives.  Time after time I see the TV news apologising or rationalising Labour.  This just should not be the case, what is left of the print media should be fired up and abrassive.  The only reason they are not is because the Conservative have not stoked the fire enough. Yet.

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.

Election Thoughts (1)

Lots of twists and turns this week, and there have been nudges and winks indicating that there will be, or won't be, or will be or won't be......... a General Election in February.

Twists and turns isn't the start of it, on two occasions this week I have sat down and tried to put some thoughts onto the blog about where this all might be leading, but news kept breaking taking the story in a different direction.

I do not think there will be an election in February, I of course can not be certain, but I wouldn't completely rule out an election in 2009. By early 2010, general consensus is (for what ever that is worth) that the economy will be bottoming out and the pain of the credit crunch will hitting families hard. Additionally, having run down the clock on a full five year term, Labour know the public psyche recall Brown "bottling it" in 2008.

Having said that, February 2009 could be, just maybe, the best possible time to have an election, if you are a Labour MP, Minister or of course Prime Minister. Look ahead, in your own mind to what we know, or strongly suspect will happen next year, and as the year goes on the news will just keep getting worse and worse for Mr Brown and Labour. Local and EU elections which will [probably] be bad news for Labour, a second Irish referendum on The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty will rightly bring a poor spotlight on Gordon Brown and on the EU, increasing unemployment, declining £, lower returns on savings, increasing public debt. And of course from February Mr Brown will have to curtail use of his favourite line about our economic problems stemming from the US, or risk being the first European leader to fall out with President Obama.

So on that rationale, February starts to look good, get it in before all of the above sets in, and there are potential benefits as well. Mr Brown will be absolutely aching to be the first world leader to get to the White House, and if he can, he will be writing his own headlines in early February. An unknown will be the performance of the High Street over Christmas and the January sales, if based on turn-out at my local shopping centre last week, Mr Brown can be spinning about his VAT cut stimulating Christmas Sales. However, if based on my local shopping centre today, he will it will not be good news, and the Conservatives will have something tangible to add to their assault on The PMs economic record.

I suspect that because February could be circled as a possible time to go before things get worse, Peter Mandleson, and some in his circle will have engineered a few stories and leaks to see what the polls will say. Polls do tend to return different results when an Election is looming. Especially, when the poll is asking respondents what issues they most care about, these will be the key policy areas. It is hard to see anything topping the Economy as the key factor, especially for young families.

However despite it all. Despite reckless borrowing and debt levels to fund yet more Public Expenditure, despite the possibility that Labour might just be able to squeak it in February, I don't think Gordon Brown will go ahead with it. I honestly think that the Prime Minister has concerns about how he will be perceived when electioneering. He will have to go around middle England and ask those people that he has taxed and regulated the hardest to vote for their local Labour MP when the mere sight of Gordon Brown is likely to have the opposite effect. I suspect, whether he would admit it or not that Gordon Brown views Middle England as his natural enemy, his polar opposite and I do not think he will be able to bring himself to go pandering for their votes. Instead, I think he will take one more year acting the role of statesman, travelling the world and seeking our bigger summits. Come 2010 there will probably be a juicy EU job on the table for him, in return for his implementation of the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty in the UK.

OK - all that being said, assume I am wrong for a minute; because if the idea of an election is being gently floated, if they decide to go for it, they will HAVE TO go for it... and I want to play out some more thoughts.

There is one area that might bring results for Labour, and I think it is an area they have moved the chess pieces on in the last year. A little over a year ago, the Conservative Party had two things going for them, a strong shadow leadership team fronted by David Cameron and George Osborne and the fact that the Conservatives are not in anyway associated to Gordon Brown.

A long holiday and a return to cabinet for Peter Mandleson has seen a rejuvenated PM and a more organised, more crafted message. Peter Mandleson has transformed the Conservative approach. They were briefly in the ascendancy, now they do seem to be very cautious, perhaps too cautious to attack Labour policy. My opinion is that there is a real fear that if they come out and say anything at all, they leave themselves in danger of being "SPUN". Thus, in recent weeks, there seems to be only David Cameron making appearances on MSM news, with careful narration following on from other key Conservatives. I am not sure if centralising the Conservative message will work for them. It may work well for Labour, but that is a core trait for them; 'Solidarity' and 'Co-ordinated Communication' on defined issues. The Conservative strength has always been the ability to be the party that can accept more than one line on most matters, it is why the Conservatives tend to be the party that best protects free speech and individual liberties.

Peter Mandleson immediately targeted the Cameron/Osborne alliance, and he has had some success there. George Osborne's position as Shadow Chancellor is under scrutiny. On Conservative and right-wing blogs the debate seems to have moved past if George Osborne should be replaced, to who should replace him. A double whammy hit for Peter Mandleson because the person most floated by Conservative Bloggers (and the Labour Trolls) is Ken Clarke.

Now, I am not a fan of Ken Clarke. I have declared on this blog in its short existence that I am an undecided voter as far as the next election is concerned, but if Ken Clarke is the Shadow Chancellor I will be quick to say I will definitely not be voting Conservative. I do not share the view that Ken Clarke is a "Heavyweight", some of his speeches have been very monotone and uninspiring. Ken Clarke voted against the Tory Line on Lisbon, and appeared with Tony Blair in support of adopting the Euro, which was damaging to William Hagues Conservatives. I do not think I am alone with my assessment, and though I am only speaking to my opinions, I do think that there are a lot other Conservatives who feel the same. I think it is too late to replace George Osborne and not hand Labour another five years; but if he is replaced, George Osborne needs to go to CC HQ for and get started on General Election Strategy and Planning. And if he is replaced, Ken Clarke is not the answer. If George Osborne has to go then I can see no one other than John Redwood being able to take over and be able to show up the Governments economic record, and being widely accepted by likely voters. Despite Ken Clarke and John Redwood having respectively chequered history within the party, when John Redwoods name is floated, there is no instant riposte. This might suggest that his past leadership bids have not left a negative effect on voters. A quick scan of the right-wing blogosphere will also show much admiration for John Redwoods economic predictions on his blog.

Ken Clarke is not someone I would want to see as shadow chancellor - or as chancellor, and despite me being a little bewildered how some Conservatives seem to think he is the missing piece of the puzzle, he would be a good addition to the shadow cabinet. But he would need to have a remit that does not cross into Economic or European matters. If the aim of David Cameron is to have the strongest Shadow Cabinet possible, then Ken Clarke, John Redwood and David Davis should be included.

David Cameron should get someone in the shadow cabinet to shadow Peter Mandleson full-time. Labour would simply be unelectable if Peter Mandleson was to again leave the cabinet under the full storm of a media frenzy. David Davis could return and fill this role, and would probably enjoy and excel in such a role.

David Cameron has done a good job of getting Conservatives of varying opinions to function reasonably well as a shadow cabinet, and has largely brought an end to infighting between Conservatives through the media. It would be too easy for Labour to turn the Conservative Party against itself if Ken Clarke was Shadow Chancellor, in fact, I suspect Conservatives would not need Labour help there. But Ken Clarke is best when he has a challenge, he does garner support from a small section of the Conservative party that seemingly can reach.

If pushed for predictions as to what I have written I would say this.
1. No General Election in February.
2. George Osborne not replaced as Shadow Chancellor.
3. Gordon will be invited to the White House, but with other EU Leaders - spoiling his golden photo-op.
4. Opinion Polls will widen the Conservative Lead in January.