Claiming the future

Maggie

I really wish I could get interested in the nitty gritty and ins and outs of economic policy but I can't. Its all numbers and just too boring.
All I know is that Gordon's made a monumental mess of everything.

I want to spend my money on second homes and holidays and pension plans and downsizing to help the next generation and generally enjoying the fruits of my labours but Gordon has stolen all my plans for the future and replaced them with colossal national debts.

How dare he assume that his debts are more important than the health, happiness and well-being of me and my family.

TGF UKIP

Peter, can I take you back almost a fortnight to Robert Simpson's excellent New Year's resolution for Dave:

"To resolve to produce 5 core reasons to vote Conservative which every British voter is familiar with by the next election."

Not only have we been assured in times past that Team Cameron trawl this blogsite but you may also recall that the first comment following your post was from William Church asking you to put this suggestion to Dave and to quote his reply on Coffee House.

Plainly being asked to provide "5 core reasons" beyond Vote Blue Go Green is causing confusion and consternation among Team Cameron.

However, I will await eagerly and with anticipation of some amusement to come.

Pete Hoskin

TGF UKIP: William Church's suggestion has not been forgotten. Will see what I can do...

Frank P

While we are talkng about the future I would be interested to know why the Middle East eruption over the past few days seems to be an uninteresting subject for those that guide the conversation in the Coffee House. While Melanie is doing a good job over on her blog, it would be interesting to know what the other staffers of the Spectator feel about the biased media coverage (or in the case of this magazine, the lack of any coverage at all). It would also be interesting to know what their friends in the top echelon of the Conservative Party think about it too. It seems that only Michael Fabricant is the only one who has dared open his mouth on the subject. What is party policy on this issue? It is important to know, as David Cameron seems to think we are nearing an election sooner than later and didn't mention it in today's otherwise very good speech.

Polly and Alice's mum

It is rather satisfying to see that Gordo is now being referred to as our Dear Leader. This is the sort of thing that will enter the subconcious of your average Sun reader, and hopefully get their brain cells working.

Susan Hill

It could be, at least hereabouts, that the whole situation in the Middle East is so darn complicated and muddled that it is beyond anyone but the experts. It could also be that in my adult lifetime it has blown up so often - well, I remember the Yom Kippur war which was, I think, 1968 that we tend to sigh and say 'here we go again' - like a new famine in Africa. Every time one of those starts up I am reminded that in 1960 I stood outside the gates of my college - King`s College in the Strand - holding a placard with pictures of starving Biafrans on it, demanding that Something be Done. I do not wish I sound cynical. I do hate both starvation and war, of course I do. But it just seems to keep coming round in the same old places. Korea happened. It stopped. Over. Vietnam happened. It stopped. Over. The Balkans ditto (mind, don`t hold your breath there...) But the Middle East ? I want to bang their heads together only they`re doing a good job of that by themselves.
I think the very wearying neverendingness of it, added to the political complexities, make it difficult for our politicians - and journalists - to comment with any authority.

Dean

One of the reasons Brown "appears" to be more statesmanlike is that he has a coherent analysis of the international dimension of the crisis (ie that it arose from failings in the free market system and the regulatory framework that is supposed to prevent those failings). The Tories have completely ignored the international dimension, choosing instead to depict the crisis as entirely home grown. This is bad tactics, because voters can clearly see that the crisis is affecting many countries. It is bad strategy because it inhibits the Tories from developing a broader economic vision that responds to the popular mood of shock and uncertainty.

The Conservative front bench need to accept (and acknowledge publicly that they accept) that the credit crisis is a major, historically significant event that will result in ideological and political re-alignment.

Ten years ago, it was possible to scare voters with the spectre of a return to '70s "socialism". These attacks ring hollow in a climate where the government has had to take majority stakes in high street banks (at those banks' request) to prevent them from collapsing. Events like this don't happen very often - in fact, it has never happened in the UK, even in wartime - and when they do they are almost invariably hugely significant in ideological terms.

The Tories need to do some hard thinking about what the credit crisis means for their economic philosophy, in particular for their belief in free markets, which for many Tory activists appears to be an unquestioned article of faith.

Cameron's comments about the need for a more ethical capitalism were certainly welcome, but they came far too late, so he now looks as though he is making up lost ground. As other posters have commented, many of the Tories' detailed policies are admirable. It's the overall tone that is wrong.

Fergus Pickering

Five good reasons to vote Conservative: Brown, Mandelson, Bigbum Smith, Toynbee, Tony McNulty

teledu

We've no need to worry about Gaza, the Palestinians and Israel. I'm reliably informed that the EU has sent people over to kick some ass. Sorted then.

Hysteria

Dean - you have fallen into the trap set by the leftists "it arose from failings in the free market system"

No - the free market would not have allowed banks to lend on the basis that became the norm (i.e. sub-prime loans) - these were forced onto the banking system by left-wing policy makers, in the belief that owning a home is a Good Thing and will improve people's lot.

Other errors of policy (removing mortgage payments and mortgage rates from inflation targeting for example) and failures in regulation also undoubtedly played a part.

But we never had a "free market"

skooch

Dean –

Brown is in a position where he can ‘appear‘ more ‘statesmanlike‘, because he’s at the helm, which is nothing new - all other political peeps are to a greater or lesser degree subservient, for the moment, which puts them on the back foot, and always has.

He(Brown),in common with everyone else, doesn’t have a ‘coherent analysis of the international dimension of the crisis’. He, like everyone else, has an opinion.

If you want an apparently coherent analysis of the crisis (that is also completely unintelligible) read Willem Buiter at FT.com, 5th Jan. Talk 'coherent' after that, if you will.

Or just apply some common sense, and whilst shaking your head, wonder at it all.

The ‘free market system’ hasn’t failed; it has worked superbly – it’s what it does; good times, bad times - just not to everyone’s liking, (most’s disliking) in this instance.... oh dear, for those of us caught in the headlights.

The crisis is ‘homegrown’, in the sense that we (the UK) have a peculiar set of complications (as do other states; different complications), that requires us to address the situation in an unique way; they (the others) likewise. That’s precisely why there is no consensus. I can see why there ought/might be a ‘broader economic vision’, but I can see the dynamics that would prevent it, and in wider terms (more philosophical terms), why that should be a good thing – all go down the same road to Hell, disaster; somr here, some there, some will survive (that old capitalist chestnut!).

The ‘popular mood of shock and uncertainty’. Oh dear, what would that be? 24 hr TV? Internet?
I happened upon Sky TV at the outset of the first Gulf War; a great, rolling, grinding machine of a satellite dish, that cost a fortune. I seemed to be the only one in the district that could talk confidently about what had appeared, within minutes of it appearing. I saw that man on the bridge in Baghdad – the one who was the luckiest one – as it happened! Now, everyone has that facility. Shock and (awe) and uncertainty are with us every day, nowadays.

Different times, but only time-different, if you see what I mean.

Leading to quicker panic/euphoria.

Go away with your ‘historically significant event that will result in ideological and political re-alignment’. Tush.

Not sure where you’re going with the following:

‘Ten years ago, it was possible to scare voters with the spectre of a return to '70s "socialism". These attacks ring hollow in a climate where the government has had to take majority stakes in high street banks (at those banks' request) to prevent them from collapsing. Events like this don't happen very often - in fact, it has never happened in the UK, even in wartime - and when they do they are almost invariably hugely significant in ideological terms.’

Actually '70’s socialism was just that, without the apostrophes. There’s nothing ringing hollow in my ideological ears.

Banking systems need propping up occasionally/decadesionally – they are our stuff of life, all our lives – but car manufacturers/who else? Read Becker/Posner on the auto industry in the US.

Re: Ethical capitalism and free markets:
Not sure what this means.

For me, a business that wants to do the best it can, will always be ethical, in terms of consideration of all things – otherwise, it wouldn’t be doing the right thing by anyone, least of all itself. Apart from its market (which must exist), it is primarily its power-source (its workers, suppliers, widgets) and, ultimately, equally, its shareholders, who want the best for the company in any event.

So what’s wrong with that? You live, you die. It works, it doesn’t work.