The Times they are a-changin'

Dennis

I was persuaded by Finkelstein's arguments 2 weeks ago on the perils of laying out too much policy detail.

But I'm persuaded by thrust of this argument too.

Must be the way Danny writes 'em.

I'm scratching my head wondering whether the two approaches need be mutually exclusive after all.

Kevyn Bodman

Today's article is right;the article of a couple of weeks ago was wrong.

Part of the reason people despise politicians is that they deceive the voters, either by saying that they'll do things they won't do, or by not saying that they will do things that they know they are going to do.

Clear policies are to be encouraged and admired.

Mark

The Times leader is just rubbish. Its author concedes that the Tories have plenty of detailed proposals, but complains of a lack of inspiration holding these proposals together. What we want is (i) competence; (ii) honesty; (iii) less tax (which means spending cuts e.g. the £800 million spent each year advertising government jobs); (iv) less interference; (v) better education and health services; (vi) no more European integration. Simple.

Dave B

Ed Vaizey's written a riposte on the Guardian's website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/daviddavis.davidcameron?gusrc=rss&feed=commentisfree

Tom

There's a difference between outlining policy that cna be picked apart and outlining genuinely different aims to the current government.

Ray

Tory vision is desperately needed to put more meat on the bones of the party's response to the three biggest challenges David Cameron will have to face:-

1. Repair the 'Broken Society'.

2. Repatriate parliamentary sovereignty back from Brussels.

3. Eject the nanny state from those areas that New Labour has allowed it to creep into where it doesn't belong - including the creeping loss of our civil liberties.

Jo

Yes, but leader writers have to write such pious nonsense because the public hardly reads the leaders and the paper has to at least look principled.

The piece with a byline on it was better.

I never know with you James if you're just silly or like knocking copy for copy's sake?

Slim Jim

Following on from the earlier post about the spraying of laws onto the statute book, why don't the Conservatives pledge to a serious review of the laws passed to date, with a view to trimming them substantially? I would favour a proposal to repeal 2 existing laws for each new one passed! Could Brown match that? I think not. Here's a great chance to show some clear water between the parties, without divulging any great detail. It's a vision thing.

Following the outbursts against Harlot Harridan's 'equalities' bill,one has to ask just what is wrong with existing equality law? Is it ineffective because it was forced through for political expediency? Because it was guillotined and there was a lack of reasoned debate? If the new legislation is the dog's rear undercarriage, should existing (ineffective) legislation not be repealed? We need to know.

Kiffa

Here is a message to the Conservatives, just in case any of them tune in:
Be in no doubt how sick of political correctness in all it's manifestations, Britain(of all social groups) are; and how tired we are of social engineering and the nanny state. WHO do you political elites actually represent? Because it isn't us.
As you have Camerooons have signed up to all the centre-left BS, that makes for consensus politics. How are you going to be any different? What is the point of voting?
Just remember the last period of consensus (Heath). It was dire.

Kiffa

Another point: the Rowntree Foundation published the minimum income that people need to live on.
Funny how it coincides with Charles Murray's proposals to get government out of people's lives, isn't it?!
I urge all Speccie readers to dip into his book How to Reform the Welfare State - all he advocates is Giving The Money Straight To The People (and then leaving them alone).

John

Mark is right. And 99% of the time, the Times leaders are full of ignorant nonsense.

Paul B

Agreed James, I will be voting Conservative, as I am a true beliver in a free market & small governmentsociety. I believe the Conservative Party offers the best & most realistic chance of achieving that (UKIP does have a certain allure, but realistically has no chance electorally , a vote for them would be a waste imo- (despite our illustrious contributor to this -who I, more often than not, agree with wholeheartedly)

For the rest of the population though I do believe DC needs to offer positive reasons to vote Conservative and to outline the policies he will bring in. Its important that the public starts to become used to the idea of smaller government with a smaller (much smaller) safety net.

That said , theres nowt wrong imo with a protest vote going to David, after all, it counts the same as positive vote, just like a 2 yard tap in football counts just the same as a 30yard screamer.

Verity

Kiffa- Well said that man or woman!

Slim Jim - I would argue that the public would respond well to a cull of all laws passed by the socialists because they are all against the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

One big whack! Every ridiculous or malign law passed by the ticks in the Labour party, gone!

Next up: a leaf out of America's book: a written Constitution and a written Bill of Rights that is rock solid. The Americans enjoy absolute protection from two of the greatest documents ever written. We should not be too proud to copy them.

Tiberius

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2902.xml&page=1

There is more to be concerned about for the man who is actually going to be in the saddle than merely filling the pond with clear blue water.

J H Holloway

When the Conservatives came in back in 1979, they did have a bonfire of regulations. One of them, famously, was a law requiring all bicycles to have a bell.

Guess who brought the important bell law back a few years ago?

TGF UKIP

I am sorry you guys but I am more than sceptical. This piece appears on Wednesday just after Fraser Nelson's piece in the mag last Friday "Very discreetly, Cameron is writing his first Queen's Speech." Read together they really do stink of media placement through willing and pliant media acolytes.

But there again what was Dave's previous "job."

MAPA

What were going to see is NU_Con the opposite and yet the same as NU_Lab. blah blah