To avoid or to confront?

Rosemary Martin

Agreed- it is a risk, but the time has come to take it. If the electorate aren't ready to hear it, they deserve what they get- but to be fair, I think they are now. To duck the issue will give hostages to fortune down the line.

Mark Reckons

I agree they should not be frightened to take on the government and I actually posted about that myself today: http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/04/spending-must-be-cut.html

They should not allow the government to frame the terms of the debate. Spending needs to be cut and the sooner politicians are honest about this, the better.

David

I'm not convinced. Labour had to avoid being seen embracing tax rises and huge spending in the run up to 1997. Ken Clarke is I believe on record as saying that his almost hairshirt like budget proposals were designed merely to box Labour in and he had no intention of keeping to it; the point here being that the party in government does call the tune.

Conservative need to do the same I think, otherwise the narrative explodes against them.

Jennifer Ballantyne

One of the numerous cuts the Tories could make is in the use and abuse of British Embassies by the usual freeloaders. Tony Blair is no longer employed by the British taxpayer and his wife never has been. Preventing the continued abuse of British Embassies round the world by this appalling couple would be a very popular move.
The Foreign Office should be compelled under FOI to reveal the extent of abuses by Labour politicians, their friends, families and their sleazy benefactors. The tax payer should be not required to provide free bed and board for anyone who asks for it.

Mike, Brighton

Does Cameron and Co realise how potent is the expenses weapon against Labour.
They have all been at it e.g. Conway & Spelman.
...But no leading Conservative frontbencher has been building his or her property portfolio at public expense through living cost free in a grace and favour apartment whilst claiming ACA on "one" of their houses to maximise the expenses take, whilst perhaps renting out another of their houses to their departmental staff approving the staff expenses to do so.

This is devastating stuff and could spell then end of a number of ministerial and parliamentary careers and maybe the government?

Nicholas

"According to Liam Byrne, the "mask has slipped" from those nasty, old Tories."

Seems to me that it has slipped from those nasty, old Reds too.

Tories need take no lectures about subterfuge from the worst, most deceitful and most damaging government in British history, especially one that has spent 12 years demonstrating that "what you see is never what you get".

Andy

On the economy, it's time for the Conservatives to give Brown both barrels. Make it the continuing theme straight after the Budget (which will create its own headlines) and ride that wave all the way to the election.

On all other issues, they should keep relatively quiet unless they have new headline policies to announce or if crisises arise (e.g. Baby P). Like a company of redcoats aiming at a mass of charging enemies, they should hold their fire until the last possible moment, then letting loose with maximum possible effect.

Oscar

Say it loud and say it proud. The electorate wants straightforward honesty and no more weasel words.

Summer

They'll get more votes and credit for saying honestly what needs to be done and why. And yet more still for 'defeating' the Labour party by throwing back in their faces all the 'evils' they've brought to this country.

If the wet Tories defer to the Labour 'narrative', at best they will have a smaller majority if any, and at worst they will lose - God help us all!!

I have no problem with where people went to school, but I cannot abide cowardice and crawling!!

Gawain

My opinion is that they would be best advised to bide their time. The problem the Tories face is that most of the nomenklatura and commentariat in this country don't think in the same way as they do. They see themselves as "progressives" and "rationalists" whose dirigiste world view is by definition and obviously right. It has taken two years for Cameron to get to a position where he is listened to. Loose talk now that feeds into old perceptions and allows Labour to spin their pet "narrative" about the Conservatives endangers this. Brown has managed to get space to be heard as a result of all the G20 broohaha and the favourable press coverage. So Osborne is right to be careful and Hannan (who I am a great fan of) needs to learn when he is saying things that the mainstream will regard as distinctly, oddball. But, remember, the Budget approaches and Brown and Darling are going to have to fess up to the mess we're in. All our concentration should be on putting them on the spot on debt and drilling into them on how they intyend to get us out of it. My guess is that Brown will then trip himself up as he's been doing since he arrived at No. 10 !

David

Good way of raising £14 billion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Hawkeye

Attack is the best form of defence.

Simply state that Labour is trying to deflect criticism from its troughing ways and steer the conversation back to Smith, Hoon, Darling and Brown.

Mark Demmen

Cameron can only avoid giving details if he starts landing heavy and repeated punches on the Government. But I'm beginning to think that the Cameroons just can't do hard-ball politics - they're a bunch of political scary cats who revert to triangulation at the slightest challenge.

If they want a narrative, then take a look at Wat Tyler's latest blog; it they want proposals to put the government on the back foot, then look at John Redwood's blog (or, better still, bring him into the shadow team to 'balance' Clarke).

It's not that difficult, Dave - just get on with it!

Hysteria

why was the Dan Hannan piece popular? - Honesty...

Why are the public pissed off about the expenses nonsense? - Honesty (lack thereof).....

People are paying down personal debt (that's why the economy is shrinking) - because folks are facing up to the reality in their own budgets......

Join up the dots folks - the Tories should NOT be on the back-foot over this. The fact that they cannot come out with clear opinions and messages on this is deply worrying.

lawrence greek

David above is right - Cameron must avoid scaring the electorate. Those on the Tory right don't appreciate the general unease amongst the middle ground about the prospects of a Tory government. This is partly because people like Garnier are filling the vacuum with nonsense about repealing fox hunting. That is one reason why the Conservatives support is not solid. However, Cameron must maintain the modernised image he has cultivated, and that absolutely means steering well clear of things like the hunting ban. To suggest such a thing shows a remoteness the ordinary voter will not empathise with.

On cuts, Cameron needs to be resolute and strong - he has the room. If the IFS is predicting a £40 billion hole, Gordon must be made to account for every penny, cuts or tax rises, how will he fill it. The Tories can then position themselves from there - do you want tax rises and waste from Brown, or an efficiency drive from the Conservatives.

Fergus Pickering

David. You are being ironic aren't you? You don't actually think that legal heroin and cocaine is the way to go? No, of course you don't. It's a gag. I mean the stuff kills people, not in forty years, like fags, or twenty years, like booze, but like now, or next month, or next year. Smokers and drinkers (mostly) work to pay for their habits. Druggies don't work. They just sit on their fannies and take drugs.

lawrence greek

Hawkeye - expenses are ultimately a sideshow, and potentially hurt the Tories just as badly - have you noticed how little stern criticism there has been about expenses from opposition parties? That tells you something.

No, the Tories need to corner Brown on his plans for getting the country out of the fiscal black hole he has created. Then all they have to do is appear more credible than Brown, which really shouldn't be difficult given that he is a charlatan. However, they need to walk a fine line between now and election day, reverting to hard right Tory instincts would definitely be counter-productive. Now, more than ever, people want to see the Tories aligned with your average man in the street, not the banker, lawyer or fox hunter.

Kevyn Bodman

Attack.

The Conservatives want to be in government after the election.
Tell us, loud and clear, what they will do in government.
Then do it again.
Then do it again.

Remove my doubts and worries that they don't really know what they want to do, but just think it would be jolly spiffing to have red boxes anyway.

I don't know who Edward Garnier is but well done that man. Of course the hunting ban should be repealed on the simple grounds that it is none of the government's business what people do in their leisure.
Just like it's none of their business where your car is at every minute etc. etc.

There are plenty of areas where Cameron and the others can make clear policy statements.
And keep doing it.
Get on with it.

lawrence greek

Kevyn Bodman - if the Tories come out and say 'we are going to slash both jobs and pay in the public sector' they will probably lose the election. Everyone knows this is exactly what they need to do, but politically they cannot turn the election into a referendum on individuals' livelihoods. That kind of rhetoric plays straight into the hands of Labour. George Osbourne is in a completely different place to Vince Cable. No voter will take Cable's suggestions as ever having any impact on their own lives. The Tories have to be much smarter than that.

john miller

I would be interested to know exactly how much public spending has actuially been accelerated to count as a fiscal stimulus. It seems to me that anecdotal evidence from aircraft carriers to Railtrack to colleges with half finished buildings, that there just is no more public money available.

The Tories need to point out that , as usual, Labour are all mouth and trousers. They say there are no cutbacks, but there are, simply because the money isn't there.

Someone cleverer than me - and more sober, for it was an heroic lunch - needs to encapsulate this into a concise memorable slogan.

Hysteria

Huzzah! for heroic lunches........

Chris lancashire

The argument needs to be shifted onto that contained in Peter Hoskin's last paragraph - How is Labour going to balance the books?

Verity

Mark Demmen says he doesn't think Cameron's Tories can do hardball politics, and I agree. If they keep Cameron on, they will lose the next election. Or it will be a hung Parliament.

Another campaign idea might be called "It's none of their business" ... illustrated with examples of the removal of private life onto public sector computers under this government. Why, when one keeps a hospital appointment, do you have to tell them what race you are? How is it their business? Your blood type yes; but your race? Why are they collecting these figures? To what purpose?

Why can the government step in and stop a comedian making a joke about some gays? How is what people joke about the business of the government?

(Besides, if you jailed people who made jokes about gays, the streets of Britain would be straight tomorrow. That must be so annoying ... A designated victim group that doesn't feel like a victim.)

Why are they tracking your car?

Why the highest percentage of CCTV cameras in the world after, I believe, N Korea?

Why is it against the law to make jokes about Muslims or any other group? It may be bad manners but since when are manners a matter for government legislation? What is next, yappy garbage like Jacqui Smith making rules about manners, with punishments for infractions?

Yet they don't want to know the important things - the strings that hold a society together. Like "Name of Father" on a birth certificate. Why not? The don't prosecute boys and men who have sex with underage girls. Why not?
All these omissions have been slipped in under the radar and designed to weaken a once coherent society.

While I'm on a roll, as disconnected as this may sound, the BBC should be privatised or closed down on the basis alone that it has made spying into people's homes, via their detector vans, acceptable and normal. Big Brother Is Watching You. Bear it in mind at all times. You're being monitored.

David

"David. You are being ironic aren't you?"

No.

"You don't actually think that legal heroin and cocaine is the way to go?"

Yes.

"I mean the stuff kills people"

Lots of things do.

"Smokers and drinkers (mostly) work to pay for their habits. Druggies don't work. "

Some of the biggest users of drugs are the middle classes-see cocaine and ecstacy. They pay for it by working.

In all seriousness, the illegality of drugs does nothing but cost us. It doesn't prevent anyone from taking them (drug use continues to increase), it costs in terms of law enforcement (pointlessly) and in terms of treatment without generating any revenue for the exchequer. Legalise it, save on the enforcement costs, and recoup the costs of treatment and more through taxing consumption.

We do it for durgs like alcohol and tobacco, lets do it for the rest. No one would advocate a rerun of the Volstead Act based on what happened last time; it's beyond me why we don't apply the same lessons to other drugs.

Matt

Cameron personally supports hunting and there is a clear commitment for a free vote on the issue in a first term.

Not quite sure why you think that Garnier's comment goes against the leadership (I'm sure they'd rather he hadn't said it but that's slightly different....)

There are a lot of rural people out there who have campaigned long and hard for the Tories since 1997 as the best way of heading off the Labour threat. Hopefully some time in 2010 we'll see some return on our investment.

Athesius the Facilitator

The Labour party have nothing to say any more apart from Tory bashing. As for liam Burn, he is a buffoon. A career politician who spouts the party line. I seen him being interviewed on the daily politics and he started giggling like a little school girl when asked difficult serious questions.

As for George Osborne, he is just stating the obvious regarding public servants (i know, i am one) however he should be very careful about the way he says things so better say nothing at all.

Tiberius

Very well argued, Gawain.

The Hannan speech appeals to many people but not, I suspect, to a majority of British voters.

While Osborne's line is easily characterized (or satirized) as meek, it really is the result of a correct reading of the politics.

Ray

If Cameron was promising to double nurses' pay and offer free child care to every mother in the land Brown and his bathplug-claiming cronies would still call him a 'toff' leading a 'nasty party'.

So, as Oscar asserts, let the Tories "say it loud and say it proud". They might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

THX1138

Osborne has just climbed down from public sector paycuts/freezes.

"The Conservatives rowed back from a confrontation with police, teachers and nurses last night after appearing to suggest that they wanted to tear up three-year pay deals."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6048259.ece

The public sector isn't just community relations officers in Brent, it's the police, prison officers, teachers and doctors. Another half baked badly thought out idea from Osborne bites the dust.

All Labour need to do to win the GE is shut up and let Osborne & Hannan do the talking.

jaytt

Dan's piece is actually a quite moderate as a critique. I can't understand why such obvious targets for savings as the NHS are always converted into 'don't sack our little angels' and 'people will die.'
I remember when I first heard Margaret Thatcher's say 'The NHS is safe in our hands': I was so depressed at this concession of defeat. I had so much experience of the NHS, and knew it to be completely corrupt. The NHS was the obvious next target of radical reform, and it was the first sign that Mrs T had been sidetracked - probably fearing a mass confrontation with the NHS's big battalions and their left-wing hinterland.

TGF UKIP

Why would anyone wish to vote for a party that appeared to have no convictions or core beliefs? Why would anyone wish to vote for a party that calls itself The Conservative Party when not only is it patently not in the least conservative but has as its leaders people who are terrified of being associated with conservative views?

The next election is now Gordon's to lose. He has firmly established himself as puppetmaster with Dave and Boy George as his marionettes, dancing backwards to his tune.

And BTW Mike Brighton, you are being extremely optimistic if you believe the shadow Shadow Cabinet can't easily match and surpass the Government front bench when it comes to expenses and sleaze.

Just wait for the unedited receipts if they ever do see the light of day.

Robert Williams

THX 1138 "The public sector isn't just community relations officers in Brent, it's the police, prison officers, teachers and doctors. Another half baked badly thought out idea from Osborne bites the dust."

But isn't it ridiculous that whilst hundreds of thousands of private sector workers lose their job it is beyond reasonable for Osborne to suggest pay restraint for the public sector?

And comments I have seen on here about restricting the cuts target to local authority chief executives is ridiculous. Yesterday Evan Davies, interviewing Osborne on the Today programme, wouldn't let him get away with comments about the VAT reduction, pointing out that the cost was insignificant in relation to the level of debt being racked up by Brown. But the one year VAT reduction costs the exchequer £12.5 billion - that's quite a few Town Clerks.

David

"via their detector vans, "

Oh dear. You are aware they aren't real, aren't you?

THX1138

Robert Williams

"But isn't it ridiculous that whilst hundreds of thousands of private sector workers lose their job it is beyond reasonable for Osborne to suggest pay restraint for the public sector?"

Maybe so, so why did Osborne back down under the tiniest amount of pressure.

Dave & Osborne are all piss and wind on public spending reduction.

Hands up anyone who really thinks that at the end of the Tories first term that public sector spending will be meaningfully less.

Verity

David - "Oh, dear, you're aware they're not real, aren't you?"

Oh, dear! You missed the point! Their presence has conditioned the British people to believe that the government has a right to spy on them in their own homes.