That Cameron

[DodgyAgent]

not as clever as you would think

Yes by his agreement , he split the Labour back bench on the Education Bill.

Canny.

Anatole kaletsky sums him up nicely in todays Times. The man is heading for a fall

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...916783,00.html

[Fungus]

Anatole kaletsky sums him up nicely in todays Times. The man is heading for a fall

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...916783,00.html

I think Kaletsky is completely wrong. I wonder if he has a blue rinse? Cameron seems to be concerned with substance rather than image, though the media like the image. We will see whether that is the case.

Hague and Howard routinely got one up on Blair in the Commons, and look how much good that did them.

Under Howard and Hague the Tories strategy was to criticise anything New Lier did. It meant that they looked stupid (like little children) and no-one took them seriously. Many people are genuinely worried by the health/schools vouchers scheme which they see as the first step in replacing the NHS and state schools with private versions. (I don't think it is.)

Another problem is the Thatcher era. It is so easy for New Lier to quiet a Tory by referring to the T era. Young people today associate Tory with unemployment and union strife and Labour with jobs and cute fluffy things. Yet Mrs T. was a response to the Winter of Discontent, union militants etc, which most people under 35 do not seem to know about. They have failed to explain what gave rise to Mrs T., unemployment etc.

IMO Labour will be re-elected but under Brown, and then NL will fall apart as they discover that Brown is an arrogant bully with few of the social skills that allowed Blair to usually get his way. Or maybe when the time comes for a leadership contest, the teeth will come out, and Brown will have a fight on his hands. After all, it is in their interest to pretend not to be competing while Blair is still in charge.

Yawn

Fungus.

[DodgyAgent]

I think Kaletsky is completely wrong. I wonder if he has a blue rinse? Cameron seems to be concerned with substance rather than image, though the media like the image. We will see whether that is the case.

Hague and Howard routinely got one up on Blair in the Commons, and look how much good that did them.

Under Howard and Hague the Tories strategy was to criticise anything New Lier did. It meant that they looked stupid (like little children) and no-one took them seriously. Many people are genuinely worried by the health/schools vouchers scheme which they see as the first step in replacing the NHS and state schools with private versions. (I don't think it is.)

Another problem is the Thatcher era. It is so easy for New Lier to quiet a Tory by referring to the T era. Young people today associate Tory with unemployment and union strife and Labour with jobs and cute fluffy things. Yet Mrs T. was a response to the Winter of Discontent, union militants etc, which most people under 35 do not seem to know about. They have failed to explain what gave rise to Mrs T., unemployment etc.

IMO Labour will be re-elected but under Brown, and then NL will fall apart as they discover that Brown is an arrogant bully with few of the social skills that allowed Blair to usually get his way. Or maybe when the time comes for a leadership contest, the teeth will come out, and Brown will have a fight on his hands. After all, it is in their interest to pretend not to be competing while Blair is still in charge.

Yawn

Fungus.

The point that Kaletsky makes is that the ideological challenge is how society copes with the challenge of delivering public services in the future. There is no doubt that the current system of pouring tax payers money into these is doing nothing to help anyone except buy labour votes.

There is no question that in terms of value for money the public sector fails miserably. This is fine (sort of) in a society that is self supporting but the world is changing and the UK needs to compete in a global economy and cannot afford to squander vast amounts of its wealth on failing public services.
Nor can the UK afford to continue its slide towards the EU model of unemployment and static economies.

Public services can no longer be run as a means of redistributing wealth and for the prime benefit of those working in them. With high tax levels pushing up the costs of doing business in the UK more and more businesses will move to countries where the business environment is more favourable.

Cameron does indeed talk of "social justice" but this cannot be delivered (as has been proven) by the state delivering education health and housing to the many poor who are trapped in a cycle of welfare/state dependency.
He is fighting Blair on dangerous ground because he will end up trying to support a system of the left that is clearly unsustainable.

[BobTheCrate]

"...but all these erroneous beliefs stem from one fundamental misconception: the idea that the Tories will be returned to government on the basis of what they look like, rather than what they stand for."

I too wouldn't be surprised if Cameron was headed for a fall. However ...

I think this is where Anatole Kaletsky may be mistaken. Whilst I much prefer substance to image and Cameron has yet to demonstrate the former; Kaletsky must resolve one of the biggest Tory dilemnas.

Time and again when polled with right of centre policies such as immigration, over 60% support the policies. But if the same policy is associated with the Tories, the support plunges to barely 30%.

This speaks much more about the electorate than it does the Tories but explains why the Tories have little option but to spend much effort trying to change their image.

Because maybe the chavs and social butterflies rarely see the substance behind the image.

Other than that I'm one of the few who think it is the electorate who need to wake up, not the Tories.

New Labour sold its soul for power. It will eventually pay a heavy price for that. The Tories should not abandon their soul likewise whilst they're seeking to create a new image for themselves.

[Fungus]

[snip]

I agree with most of what you say (though what you say is not what I read from Kaletsky). I sort of agree with the last part but his problem is perception. The Tories have been coming up with some genuinely good ideas to improve delivery of services but New Lier have successfully portrayed them as robbing from the poor to give to the rich. New Lier are still in the old soviet style command economy mode and that can't be good.

I am often impressed by how NL ministers respond to Tories. I get the impression that they have as a group rehearsed the arguments, and worked out a common story line which they all stick to. Presumably this is strict control from the top, which is not necessarily good for us, but it does mean that they can keep the upper hand. If the Tories raise the issue of massive Polish immigration, New Lier unanimously label them racist. If they criticise Brown, NL all refer back to unemployment under Mrs. T. Etc. They have better tactics if you ask me.

But image does matter. There is still a tendency for the media to portray Tory as slimy fat cat and NL as soft and fluffy. Despit the fact that inequality has increased under NL.

Fungus.

[DodgyAgent]

I agree with most of what you say (though what you say is not what I read from Kaletsky). I sort of agree with the last part but his problem is perception. The Tories have been coming up with some genuinely good ideas to improve delivery of services but New Lier have successfully portrayed them as robbing from the poor to give to the rich. New Lier are still in the old soviet style command economy mode and that can't be good.

I am often impressed by how NL ministers respond to Tories. I get the impression that they have as a group rehearsed the arguments, and worked out a common story line which they all stick to. Presumably this is strict control from the top, which is not necessarily good for us, but it does mean that they can keep the upper hand. If the Tories raise the issue of massive Polish immigration, New Lier unanimously label them racist. If they criticise Brown, NL all refer back to unemployment under Mrs. T. Etc. They have better tactics if you ask me.

But image does matter. There is still a tendency for the media to portray Tory as slimy fat cat and NL as soft and fluffy. Despit the fact that inequality has increased under NL.

Fungus.

I think the Tories need to destroy the myth that socialism has some sort of moral integrity . I was speaking to my local MP (Tory) last weekend (poor sod) and he was very quick to point out that he was in many ways "left wing" as if he felt guilty about representing a party that believes in individual responsibility and freedom.

This is the problem, the middle classes feel guilty that they are so well off and the socialists have basically milked this mercilessly. They have pretended that the public services financed through taxation to fund them somehow has an ideological morality about it. Yet every day throughout history proof is given that socialism destroys everything. The middle classes buy this because they think that paying taxes is like giving to charity; I never ubderstand why so many people are so ready to give up so much of their hard earned income yet fail to care what is done with it. The answer is guilt. Whilst some may argue that this is a good thing, it is not. The reason is that by chucking tax at societies problems they believe that not only have they done their bit but that they also have themselves gained moral high ground, and thus feel better about themselves. (Bono and Harold Pinter are classic examples of these types)

What happens is that the problems are not dealt with and that because we pay tax these social problems are regarded as not their problems. I prefer to call this cowardice.

By giving consumers of public services the same choices (in health and education) that we enjoy (who is looking at a voucher system to empower the poor to choose the best place to send their kids?) , and by putting public services into direct compettiion with private providers then everyone will have the start they need in life to not need to depend upon welfare.

There is nothing more irritating than sitting next to some self righteous rich leftie who would never dream of sending his kids to the local comp.

Problem sorted

[xoggoth]

Agree totally with that.

Nowt wrong with society looking after some less able individuals, even primitive societies do that and in the UK 500 years ago there were systems for aiding the "deserving poor".

But now we so often make no effort to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving. In granting "rights" to all and sundry we no longer appear to consider requiring any duties or obligations in return. When an individual requires help from the state we never consider what that individual has actually contributed when and if he was able to do so.

Some concern for others is a natural human thing but to take so much of what an individual rightly and instinctively wants to keep for himself and his family to distribute without regard for deserts to total strangers destroys incentive. Worse, because the state takes so much from us, we feel it is just to turn to the state for what, in nature, should be our responsibility such as care for our own parents.

And worst of all, because it is so unnatural, socialism can only be imposed by suppressing the liberty of the most able who lose most from it. If you suppress the liberty of the most able you automatically suppress the liberty of all.

Socialism is a bloody abomination, it destroys incentive, erodes responsibility and is incompatible with democracy.

[stackpole]

Whatever else he is, Cameron is the tories best hope of winning the next election.

The electorate don't seem to like principles, but they have developed a taste for fluffy bunny politics, so give them fluffy bunny politics.

The clever bit will be turning that into substance near an election, or even after it, so let's see if he can. Not too soon though, or Blair will nick all the good ideas again and turn them into his own fiascos.

BTW I'm not sure Kaletsky is much of an authority. Until recently he was all for the UK entering the Euro and closer integration with Europe, and that was his specialist subject.

[Fungus]

Whatever else he is, Cameron is the tories best hope of winning the next election.

The electorate don't seem to like principles, but they have developed a taste for fluffy bunny politics, so give them fluffy bunny politics.

...

Not too soon though, or Blair will nick all the good ideas again and turn them into his own fiascos.

I used to sigh each time the Tories announced a good idea and then New Lier announced the same thing a few weeks later. Making the Bank of Englan independent was a Tory idea. Taken by Brown. In response to Tory plans to reduce bureacracy, Brown announced that he would cut civil service jobs. The odd thing is that he has in fact increased spending. In response to Tory criticism of increasing regulation, Brown recently announced a blitz on regulation. My money's on his increasing regulation.

Either the press are supine or they are on a fluffy bunny trip.

I suspect NL have learnt how to drip feed information to favoured journalists, to make sure they remain on message.

Fungus.

[hyperD]

Well Cameron certainly has the campbellesque spin machine on overdrive - a recently spammed email containing a laughable amount of soundbites for the hard of thinking:

<snip>

Hello,

I'm Jo, a Labour supporter and you may have seen me on telly. Have you noticed the big news this week?

David Cameron (Dave to his friends), an old Etonian distantly related to the Queen, has been elected leader of the Conservative Party.

At last, it has dawned on Tory members that they need to be in touch with the reality of the modern world and the lives of the majority of British people!

As his first step, Dave is bringing back that icon of the new century William Hague to the front bench.

So I'm asking you to dig deep into your pockets. Let me explain why.

No one seems to know a lot about what Dave actually believes in but we have a few clues.

We do know that he first emerged as a special adviser to Norman Lamont, standing right behind him on 'Black Wednesday' as Norm was announcing a "turbulent day on the markets", or 15 per cent interest rates to you and me.

In his four years as an MP, Dave hasn't been notable as a champion of change and modernisation of the Tories' policies. On the contrary, like his Tory colleagues he voted against the extra spending on the health service and schools, opposed the Winter Fuel Allowance and voted against increasing maternity leave and pay.

He voted in favour of keeping fox hunting. He didn't just support the Tory manifesto earlier this year, with the policies to subsidise private health care and private education and the irresponsible focus on immigration, he wrote it.

Dave is passionate about one thing, not saying what his new policies will be. The one glimmer we do have is that he is looking at a flat tax.

This is the new idea which means that nurses and home helps pay the same tax rate as the millionaire. Alongside that he wants a new spending rule which would have one result - billions of pounds of immediate cuts in public services, just when we are seeing real improvements working through.

The Tories think that they have the whiff of power in their nostrils and they will be willing to do and say anything to get it. The Tory press are lining up as cheerleaders and we can expect multi-millionaire backers to throw any amount of money at the Conservative Party if they sense a real chance of victory.

So we need our supporters to stay with us too. Spend a few moments and make a donation. A tenner to help keep the Tories out of government? It's cheaper than paying 15 per cent interest on your mortgage that's for sure.

All the best,

Jo Brand
Labour supporter

Author's note: Research, facts and figures clearly not done by Jo Brand as I am not that clever.