A Conservative Blog Aggregator

A blog aggregator for Conservative Party Affiliated Bloggers

Tory U-Turn?

The BBC is gleefully reporting a Tory U-turn because they have announced that they will spend less than Labour following an election. The pledge "to match Labour spending plans for 2 years" was made in the expectation of a 2008 election. Thus the wriggle that the Tories had been using was that it did not, in fact commit them to anything should there be a 2010 election. It was a useful pledge to shield themselves from charges of "Tory Cuts". Dishonest for sure, but not egregious by the standards of politicians.

No-one expected that the Labour party, under pressure would so catastrophically abandon any sort of fiscal responsibility. Anyone who said that the moment the economy slowed a bit, the British Government would be running a 4% budget deficit (forecast to rise to 7.5%) and be planning an even more massive spending splurge than during the boom, whilst simultaneously offering a transparent giveaway via a tax-cut, would have been called a Tory fantasist. To be offering this absurd policy, whilst simultaneously calling anyone offering funded tax cuts as "imprudent". What is even more surprising is that the people (if the polls are to be believed) seem to be eating Gordon's shit. On this, more later.

I welcome the unequivocal abandonment of a political line which had served its usefulness. It frees Tory politicians to talk about what is actually needed to deal with the economy - which is to fire diversity outreach co-ordinators and similar parasites across the whole of Government, cutting spending and headcount. That is to cut taxes, and cut spending in order to do so. Thus the next election will be an old fashioned profligate Labour party versus a Conservative party which will be steeling itself to clear up the mess left by a decade of socialist lunacy.

The Tory front bench should welcome the polls such as the recent Ipsos Mori poll showing the Tory lead down to 3%. This may tempt Brown into calling an election. The Tory share is holding in the 40-43% range. The Labour share is volatile, and trades at the expense mostly of the Liberal Democrats. Further more, most of the rise in the Labour share is as a result of Labour voters declaring an increasing certainty to vote, rather than more people saying they'll vote labour. If Labour is doing anything, it is piling up votes in its heartlands whilst not really making headway into the Marginal constituencies. It needs to do this to survive the next election. On the polling, the Tories will outperform a uniform swing, (Tories polling consistently in the 30s should make the Conservatives worry), and should win a comfortable working majority even if this poll is accurate.

Watching Prime ministers questions as I write this, I am amazed at the doublethink on display from the Labour party shouting CUT CUT CUT at David Cameron. Does anyone think that public spending should continue on its profligate course? Only those ignorant tribal buffoons on the labour benches think the public will believe that a tax-cut now would be anything other than a pre-election giveaway, because they cannot get it throught their soviet-issue, steam-driven brains that the taxpayer is not a bottomless money pit.

Once again, cheered on by stupid Labour Backbenchers, for whom a Labour Government can do no wrong, the Government has spent all the money, leaving nothing left to deal with the crisis. When asked specific questions, on the currency particularly, he failed to give an answer and retreated into a bunker of petty partisan points scoring, accusing anyone asking the question of "talking down the pound". When asked about policy, the Prime minister seems to think that "cross party support" means "everyone must agree with me". He seems to think that repeating the Lie that this is an "international crisis, which started in the USA" and therefore is not my fault, will be believed if repeated often enough. Well, 60% of the electorate doesn't believe him.

The outcome of the next election is certain - a Tory victory. Let's have a policy platform which will actually help this country: Sacking parasites in the Public sector and offering a package of small tax cuts, starting with raising thresholds to help the low paid. The Conservatives are in opposition - this is the opportunity to call the Government on what it has done wrong and what you will do differently - change is not just a new face in #10, but a new way of doing things. This is the opportunity you have to solidify your right flank and attack the Government to your left and do so by offering the right policy.

The policy is simple enough for The Sun "Cut taxes AND spending". Let's hope the polls are good enough for that coward, Brown to call an election now. Let's hope he is rejected with the Lanslide he deserves.

Dave and Yvette

First of all let me recommend the latest article by Peter Riddell on developments in economic policy. As always, he talks very good sense: The Economy

Yesterday I had Yvette Cooper on Radio 5 attempting to defend government policy. It was a classic series of examples of politicians not answering the question asked. She repeatedly failed to answer a question about why there should be speculation against sterling rather than any other currency.

She also claimed that the Government was able to pump money into the economy now because it had reduced debt. Well, it all depends on what you mean by debt. Do you count all the projects funded under PFI arrangements which will have to be paid back? Do you count the amounts used to nationalise Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley as well as to buy shares in various banks? To be fair, it should be possible to recoup most of that money when the recession comes to an end.

Dave Cameron has now said that he will no longer stick to Labour expenditure plans should he gain office. I can understand why he needs a 'not me guv' defence against unpopular tax rises and public expenditure cuts.

What he will not say is where the public expenditure cuts will fall other than on 'central government waste'. Now, of course, there is always some waste in such a big operation as government which is why we have a National Audits Office and a Public Accounts Committee. One could save quite a bit of money by not proceeding with the identity cards project. But that wouldn't be enough.

Equally, Yvette Cooper would not specify what combination of tax increases and public expenditure cuts will occur in the future, as they will have to. It's going to be an interesting pre-budget report.

I think that the Government has to give a major fiscal stimulus to the economy. Already the CBI is talking of 9 per cent or 3 million employed by 2010. If no action was taken, the recession could be much worse than those of the early 1980s or early 1980s. But the Government also has to be honest about how it would rebalance the public finances - and so does Dave.

It also applies to Vince Cable as well, except that he is unlikely to be in government, so he can continue to make admittedly very shrewd attacks on policy from the sidelines.

A “totally unacceptable” leek

Plaid Cymru are not happy with Wales being portrayed as a vegetable:
So, pity the poor Welsh on their discovering that the official emblem of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (itself a newly invented fabulous monster) undersells the principality.

In the emblem, a red rose stands for England, a purple thistle for Scotland, a blue flax flower for Northern Ireland.

All the Welsh get are three thin leaves as of a half-grown leek, grafted on to the rose stem. Hurt, they demand daffodils.

You can see the design here.

And I think I’d agree it looks pretty er...weedy, but still isn't this just the tiniest, little bit of an over-reaction?:
...Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru's leader in Westminster, told The Daily Telegraph that it should be scrapped. He said: "This is yet another example of Wales being forgotten about, and its totally unacceptable.

"I would urge them to review the emblem. It's startling that it has been approved in the first place.

"Surely Wales deserves to be treated equally? It's hardly fair that we're left with a few shabby leaves to represent our country when everyone else gets a colourful flower.

"I hope the emblem selected for the UK Supreme Court doesn't reflect how it will regard Wales. Allegedly, Wales is represented by a leek but you really have to struggle to find anything remotely resembling a leek in the emblem.

"And if there is a leek there, then it's the most pathetic looking leek I've ever seen. You certainly wouldn't find any like that being sold in Wales.

"If every other country is represented by a flower, rather than a vegetable, well why not include a daffodil for Wales?

Because they’re out of season perhaps?

Yet more burning intolerance.

Words almost fail me:
Wreaths laid in remembrance at a County Armagh war memorial have been set on fire.

About 16 Royal British Legion wreaths at the memorial in the mall in Armagh city were damaged on Monday.

Scum.

Quote of the day

Rhodri Morgan speaking about the Union flag in January:
The flag should be a symbol of unity and part of a modern expression of patriotism too.

All the United Kingdom should honour it, not ignore it. We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion.

He was right then, not so sure about his latest pronouncements.

Pirates

I know, it's a terrifying ordeal for the crew and their families. It is a huge amount of oil, and may have served to arrest the slide in the crude price. It is a symptom of a failed state, with all the human misery that brings. I know, but the news that Pirates hijacked a ship with millions of tons of (black) gold has my inner 8-year old boy shouting "COOL!" and secretly hoping for a daring rescue mission by Royal Marine Commandos of the SBS...

I can't help thinking that whilst the Blue-water navies in the region can condone piracy when it is restricted to tramp freighters carrying guns and urm... tanks, but they must deal with the hijacking of something so vital as the MV Sirus Star. Thankfully for my concience, and all involved, this sort of thing is normally dealt with as "just another cost of doing business" and will be dealt with by wads of cash from insurance companies rather than flying lead from fellows in Black.

On the other hand...

Never mind your Gold Medals, look at all the tax I’ve saved

But the tumbleweed really blew through the stunned banquet hall when Sir Sean Connery was named as International Scot of the Year, ahead of Britain's greatest Olympian and hero of Beijing, Chris Hoy.

That'll teach the traitor for wrapping himself in the Union flag.

Marriage IS KEY to the safety of our society - what is the media playing at?

The last couple of days' headlines are typical liberal media prejudice from journalists who can't bear the 'awful truth' that marriage between two adults is the best way to raise children and defend our society.  Even the Telegraph headline yesterday was 'Tories will make divorce harder'......

When will the media stop belittling those who are trying to save the desperate lives of some of our most vulnerable children?  And in doing so, defending the safety of our society from children who grow up so dehumanised by their experiences that they in turn destroy everything around them.

Jill Kirby's excellent recent article on 'looked after' children, talks about how adoption into a loving family is so much better a solution than the care system for those children where staying with their natural family is impossible. 

She writes "A generation is paying the price for the authorities' tolerance of drugs and alcohol on our streets and our culture of acceptance of casual relationships. Rectifying this should be a priority for any Government serious about improving the lives of our most vulnerable children".

It's only when the media get behind the importance of solid, enduring adult relationships supported by the law that we can begin to rectify the damage being done to thousands of childrens' lives in this country.  Why else did UNICEF find that British children are the least happy of all children in the 21 most developed nations?

The self indulgence and carelessness of non-committal adult relationships is, as we've just seen in the extreme case of Baby P, proving fatal to the next generation. 

My tribute to a bunch of punks.

Hurrah! It looks like the DUP and Sinn Fein have made a grubby, self-serving, back-office deal reached out for peace and soon we'll be all back to being "governed" by the Toytown Parliament.

In honour of the return to meaningful business at our very own Happy House (aka Stormont), our two tribal chieftains, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, have released an updated version of the Siouxsie and Banshees classic:
This is the happy house-
We’re happy here in the happy house,
And it'll be such fun to ruin the cops,
We’ve come to play in the happy house
And waste a day on full pay and expenses
In the happy house-it never rains.

We’ve come to scream sectarian abuse in the happy house,
We’re in a dream in the happy house,
We’re all insane.

This is the happy house-we’re happy here,
There’s press-accreditation for you if you say:
"A new dawn for peace "
But don’t say "no, they're all a bunch of useless bigots"...
Or you’ll have to go,
We’ve done no wrong with our communal blinkers on,
It’s safe and calm if you sing along*.

This is the happy house-we’re happy here in the happy house.
To forget ourselves-and pretend all’s well,
There is no (except if you live beside one of the increasing number of "peace"-walls, but that's nothing to do with us. Obviously.) hell.




I'm really sorry Siouxsie:(




*To "The Sash" or "Amhrán na bhFiann", you choose.

Tax cuts should be for life, not just for Christmas!

It has to be said that is one hell of a soundbite, and indeed David Cameron has a point.

Here is the scenario:

You work, you get given a tax cut. It will last one year or maybe two. Taxes will rise after that. What would you do?

What is more what will the money markets do? They will know that there will be but a temporary boost to the economy and crucially they will know that nothing is yet being done to solve the debt bubble both private and public that there is in the UK economy.

In short the markets will tank. They are currently in headless chicken mode already.

The BBC has this on the debate.

So what is happening to the pound?

So what of George Osbourne's reckless undermining of the pound that Labour were so concerned about?

Well as Guido points out, the pound has rallied. When I wrote yesterday the pound was at $1.47, and had in the last few days hit a low of $1.45. Now it is currently trading at $1.50325 up some 3 cents since yesterday. (Current price is here)

Quite impressive and clear proof that Labour were talking rot in saying that George Osbourne's comments may damage the pound. In fact the way the reporting went over the weekend changed and started to highlight both the drop in the pound over three months and the level of the current budget deficit in such a way as to force to government to stop saying they will borrow and spend, replacing that with affordable borrowing. In many ways that tone change may have helped today's rally and would not have happened without George Osbourne's efforts.

What will sink or save the pound though is the pre budget report next Monday. Then we will see how the markets view the government.

Cllrs Harriott and Gilry wed

Many congratulations to two of Twydall’s local Councillors, Paul Harriott and Dorte Gilry.

It was announced at last week’s Full Council meeting that the pair had got married last week.

Here’s hoping they continue to be very happy together.

Talking down the Pound

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, Gordon Brown accused George Osborne of breaking a convention to not talk down the pound, and even more astonishingly is accused of breaking a promise to support the Government over the financial crisis. Let's look at these two charges shall we?

There is no convention that Shadow Chancellors don't talk about Stirling. In a democracy, the opposition is there to question government policy, especially a policy as reckless as the one being persued by this Government. There was no promise broken. The Labour Government's charges are merely deflecting the public gaze from the train-wreck of the economy. This is why the Government's statement in response to Osbourne's comment contained such blatant ad-hominem, without addressing what was said. That means Osbourne was right.

What is actually going on? Well the Pound has fallen to its lowest ever level against the Euro and the lowest for some time against the Dollar. Whilst this is not a problem in itself, it is mildly inflationary, and means the fall in Oil is not passed on in full to UK consumers, but may help exporters; it does reflect the world market's opinion of the British economy's relative performance. Contrary to the Ex-Chancellor's assertion that "the UK is well-placed to weather the storm", the markets clearly think we're more fucked than other developed economies. I know who I believe. We're in a worse position for reasons pretty much laid out by Osbourne - that the stimulus package won't work because it just raises long-term interest rates. Osbourne's charge that the stimulus package is nothing but a "scorched earth" policy is nothing new. Conservatives have been saying this since Gordon Brown's first budget as Prime Minister (I know that's not constitutionally the case, but does anyone believe Darling is anything other than a sock-puppet?).

Osbourne may be politically weak following the Oleg Deripaska affair, and the feeling that he's not making any running on the economy now that the wheel has come off has led the more excitable elements of the Tory party to call for his head. Gordon Brown presenting himself as some sort of economic Yoda is a piece of political sophistry of some skill, but the truth will out, eventually. The media has lapped up the narrative presented by Labour, but Osbourne should be praised for sticking to his guns - safe economic management does not entail massive deficit spending, yet the electorate still has not made the leap to demanding the swingeing spending cuts that everyone knows is going to be nessesary, whether or not tax-cuts are delivered. If he started saying what was needed, he would jeapoardise the "de-toxification" of the Tory brand. He has to tread a very fine line between offering tax cuts that make sense (he has not really achieved this) and advocating spending cuts, which will be presented, apparently without Irony as "Tory Cuts" to pay for them.

He also has the problem that in 2010, he will have to do what he says now. That is not a problem which faces a Liberal Democrat, or even Labour politician. George Osbourne is doing a OK job on policy, has the broad strategy right, and just needs to get the short-term Brown Bashing on target too. My guess is that this will come. It is, after all, a big target.

Talking down the Pound

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, Gordon Brown accused George Osborne of breaking a convention to not talk down the pound, and even more astonishingly is accused of breaking a promise to support the Government over the financial crisis. Let's look at these two charges shall we?

There is no convention that Shadow Chancellors don't talk about Stirling. In a democracy, the opposition is there to question government policy, especially a policy as reckless as the one being persued by this Government. There was no promise broken. The Labour Government's charges are merely deflecting the public gaze from the train-wreck of the economy. This is why the Government's statement in response to Osbourne's comment contained such blatant ad-hominem, without addressing what was said. That means Osbourne was right.

What is actually going on? Well the Pound has fallen to its lowest ever level against the Euro and the lowest for some time against the Dollar. Whilst this is not a problem in itself, it is mildly inflationary, and means the fall in Oil is not passed on in full to UK consumers, but may help exporters; it does reflect the world market's opinion of the British economy's relative performance. Contrary to the Ex-Chancellor's assertion that "the UK is well-placed to weather the storm", the markets clearly think we're more fucked than other developed economies. I know who I believe. We're in a worse position for reasons pretty much laid out by Osbourne - that the stimulus package won't work because it just raises long-term interest rates. Osbourne's charge that the stimulus package is nothing but a "scorched earth" policy is nothing new. Conservatives have been saying this since Gordon Brown's first budget as Prime Minister (I know that's not constitutionally the case, but does anyone believe Darling is anything other than a sock-puppet?).

Osbourne may be politically weak following the Oleg Deripaska affair, and the feeling that he's not making any running on the economy now that the wheel has come off has led the more excitable elements of the Tory party to call for his head. Gordon Brown presenting himself as some sort of economic Yoda is a piece of political sophistry of some skill, but the truth will out, eventually. The media has lapped up the narrative presented by Labour, but Osbourne should be praised for sticking to his guns - safe economic management does not entail massive deficit spending, yet the electorate still has not made the leap to demanding the swingeing spending cuts that everyone knows is going to be nessesary, whether or not tax-cuts are delivered. If he started saying what was needed, he would jeapoardise the "de-toxification" of the Tory brand. He has to tread a very fine line between offering tax cuts that make sense (he has not really achieved this) and advocating spending cuts, which will be presented, apparently without Irony as "Tory Cuts" to pay for them.

He also has the problem that in 2010, he will have to do what he says now. That is not a problem which faces a Liberal Democrat, or even Labour politician. George Osbourne is doing a OK job on policy, has the broad strategy right, and just needs to get the short-term Brown Bashing on target too. My guess is that this will come. It is, after all, a big target.

If it ain’t nativist, then it ain’t coming in…

United Nations cultural attachés,
Edinburgh v Glasgow,
and...
"Narrow-minded nationalism is crushing Scottish Culture?"

Stormer of an article in The Times from Jenny Hjul:
The Year of Homecoming is, increasingly, a nationalist propaganda exercise, complete with clan gatherings, to mark the 250th anniversary of Robert Burns’s birth, and what it has to do with musical excellence is anyone’s guess.
But in the new Scotland, culture is only culture if it is cloaked in a Saltire and plays the bagpipes. Ministers will find money to support the arts if they comply with the nationalist mission statement.

None of the cash-strapped festival directors sniff at £200,000 hand-outs to “promote and extend the involvement” of Scottish artists, but they are not in their jobs to celebrate Scotland.

And nor are the directors of the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Scottish Opera and the other national arts companies. And neither is their goal increased sustainable growth, nor social inclusion, nor Scottish independence.

If the nationalists had their way, future festivals would open with Braveheart: the Musical; Scottish orchestras, directed by Scottish conductors, would play works by Scottish composers; Scottish paintings would replace the Titians in the National Gallery; and Scottish authors would hold national conversations among themselves in Charlotte Square.

I'll finish off with a relevant quote on the subject from Gandhi:
No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive.

And no "national" culture can thrive if its proponents attempt to exclude others.