Parris versus Nelson

denis cooper

Be bold and brave, and proclaim that it won't be good enough to merely halve the budget deficit - the longer term aim must be for the government to learn to live within its means, which means that it should normally balance its budget each year without recourse to borrowing.

General Zod

Cameron and Osborne have indeed been unacceptably weak on the need for cuts. The news just gets worse and the need to cut the deficit quickly is beyond doubt. Matthew Parris is right, however. There is still a massive block of voters who are dumb enough to be scared by Labour's nonsense, so it is important not to give Labour he framework on which to construct their web of lies about Tory economic plans.

DavidDP

Given Parris worked for Thatcher and was an MP, I'm inclined to go for him rather than someone who is just a journalist.

Frank P

Parris v Nelson?

Nelson v Paris (and its Navy)had a better outcome. Can't see that being repeated when Cameron gets into power. If the current rumbles are indicative, he intends to surrender our Navy, Army and Air Force to the Frogs. Perhaps he wants to defend our sovereignty, most of which is already lodged in Brussels.

Dennis Sewell

It's a tough call.

There are merits in both arguments.

IMHO, what clinches it in Fraser's favour is when he says this:

.....the greatest political deception: we should be cautious now and do what we want to do later. This is the mission statement of every failed prime minister - because when does this moment for radicalism come? At what point will the Tory party NOT be in election mode?

It's now or never.

R King

At last someone is talking sense!

Sorry Fraser but your ideas are just vote losers.

General Zod

You completley ignore Parris's argument that Margaret Thatcher did precisely this.

TGF UKIP

Hold the front page Parris backs Cameron! Amazing it is not. Both are socially liberal, One Nation progressives who can honestly only use the "C" word with a capital letter as Parris does in his first para when describing his state of mind.

There are three huge differences between 1979 and now:

1) Denis Healey had done Mrs T a huge favour by already having administered much of the nasty cut medicine. Within a year or so sterling was skyrocketing; anyone forsee that now?

2) Mrs T had a team of recognisable, heavyweight grown-ups round her. Contrast that with The Clique and bunch of no-marks that make up the Shadow Cabinet. (And was there ever one that was more "shadow.")

3) If you ain't going to be strongly for summat, you've got to have summat to be strongly agin. Mrs T had the unions who had comprehensively demonized themselves and were closely allied with a Labour government that was moving quickly more leftwards and out of step with the public mood. Blair got away with a very sketchy manifesto in 97 because he had no need of such, so comprehensively had he demolished and demonized the Tories. Dave on the other hand is strongly for nowt and has not even attempted to damn and demonize the Brown gang - quite the opposite in fact, being ever willing to praise them it would seem and adopt their ground and their language.

The Nelson Drys 5 - the Parris Wets 0.

Rhoda Klapp

We have a right as voters to know what they intend. A bloody RIGHT. There need be no debate as to whether to not frighten the horses. If they intend radicalism, put it in. If they don't, don't.

Unless, of course, they haven't got a clue. Which is how it looks right now.

Rhoda Klapp

Oh, on a historical note, Thatcher was generally supposed to be scary as hell before the 79 election. Scared me, she was so right-wing. I only got to appreciate her afterwards. I voted Liberal, as I recall, but I lived in Ely and we had Clement Freud, good value.

The parallel with today is not all that clear. NOBODY thinks DC is scarily right-wing. Most of us here don't think he qualifies as a tory at all. Not on his utterances, anyway.

Liz Brown

Fiona Miller - would that be bad Al Campbell's missus then? I do so love Liebour nepotism

Jerry Hayes

Matthew Parris was absolutely right. Thatcher always talked radical, but was far more pragmatic than was given credit for. We always talked about cuts in those days, but in reality public spending was increasing in real terms. Politicians should be wary of radicalism for radicalism's sake. The radical perception of the first Howe budget gave birth to the SDP, which nearly destroyed the Labour Party and gave us serious grief in the marginals. What people want is government that works, delivers at a reasonable cost what it says on the tin and honesty of purpose. Cameron has decontaminated the Conservative brand and dragged the party back to political reality. So no more suicidal talk of people wanting radical government and a renegotiation of the Treaty of Rome please.

AAE

Mrs Thatcher's 1979 manifesto may have been short on specifics, but she made it perfectly clear that the post-war consensus was over and that economic strangulation by the state was dead and buried. The problem for Cameron is that he shows himself incapable of fighting even where the other side has made his winning arguments for him - e.g. the Treasury itself has said that the 50% tax rate will bear no fruit!! His criticism of UKIP as a bunch of fruitcases and closet racists was inept and hardly likely to diminish the effect of splitting his vote come polling day. His only achievement so far is in making his appeasement the metropolitan lefties so convincing, that his core voters think he is one.

Frank P

AAE

Good post.

" His only achievement so far is in making his appeasement of the metropolitan lefties so convincing, that his core voters think he is one."

Rather than "think" I would have used "strongly suspect" or even "conclude". If it is a subterfuge,it is so superficial as to be transparent and therefore insulting to the electorate at large. If he really means it, then I want an alternative leader and shadow cabinet - or will seriously consider voting for another party. If the essence of politics is now dishonesty and contempt for the electorate across the spectrum (we have suffered it for the past twelve years) then a plague on all their houses. It is little wonder that our enemies see us as a clapped out civilisation that is ripe for the taking.

Frank P

Jerry Hayes

You were one of the buffoons who helped to put the Conservative Party in the wilderness for (?) years (how many still to be decided it seems to me) - assuming that you are Jerry Hayes MP. And there will remain many people and much talk about the Treaty of Rome, I hope, and about the covert European Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty.

TGF UKIP

Where's my early evening post on this?

JohnRS

Cameron is (definitely) not Thatcher!

I thought they had a bit of backbone, but the current leadership bends with each passing opinion poll breeze. Policies flex to meet the headline writers needs (what happened to "savage cuts"); budgets are suddenly ring fenced if it looks like a bit of heat is coming and so on.

Some strong, passionately presented positions on the tough topics are needed otherwise voters will continue to see no difference between Conservative and Labour and stick with the devil they know. The poll lead is now half what it was, another poll tonight just confirms it.

He might lead the Conservative Party but Cameron isnt conservative, neither now is the party he's built.

John

Your use of the term "Tory wobble" feeds the narrative initiated by Mandelson.
Another useful idiot.

JohnAnt

Look, this isn't a game - there's a General Election coming up, and "this is no time to go wobbly" to quote Mrs T.
Leave the theorists till later.
As Humphrey Bogart said, "We'll always have Parris."

Chris lancashire

Parris, as usual, was spot on - say as little as possible, get elected, then act.
For those of you remember back to 1996, do you remember Blair and Brown telling the electorate what they were going to do other than follow Tory spending plans for 3 years?

mitcheltj

The dilemma facing all political parties is that whilst the voters may favour cuts in principle, they will scream loudly as soon as they are adversely affectd when it gets to specific policies. So any party advocating specific policies is on a hiding to nothing. Hence all the promises to"ring fence" such things as NHS etc, and the general feebleness of overall cuts packages - but, in turn, such feebleness damages confidence in the party. Catch 22.

Both Mrs T and Tony Blair started with three huge advantages compared to the current incumbents. First, the voters were so sick of the Government that they might have voted for a party of chimpanzees to get rid of them; second, the economy was on the mend (less so for Mrs T); third the opposition were unelectable for a decade afterwards so tough measures could be taken through (though Mrs T needed some help from General Galtieri and Dr Owen for splitting the left to get her second term).

So what should our Dave do?

First he should adopt the principle that he will ensure better Government for less money. Instead of saying that he will maintain spending he should focus on improving quality and effectiveness of Government. When asked for specifics he should respond that he needs to get in first, take a view of the books and the general situation, but these are his principles.

Second, he should argue that the Government does not need to deliver services itself but ensure that they are properly financed with the voter having as much choice as possible on how things are done - decentralise. Here, he should major on the serial incompetence the Government. Goodness knows ther are plenty of examples - hammer this point relentlessly.

Third hammer the point that in the long term we must reduce the structural budget deficit and the overall level of debt. Mrs T would have been in her element in making this point. Timing etc is dictated by circumstance but we dont want to end up like Ireland or Greece. Avoid specifics and appeal to the need to examine the books.

If he is to get in with a decent majority, Dave has to get the public to trust him. But before this, he needs to convince them that he knows what to do, that he is competent to do it, and that he will not sacrifice vital interests.

Is Dave up to this? I am not holding my breath. Nor are other voters, it seems. Hence the narrowing in the polls, I think.