No, no coalitions. An implicit deal, yes, but not a formal coalition. There are areas of common ground, the sort of legislation we can push through with the votes (or abstentions) of LibDems. Might help push an emergency budget through, since that being blocked could lead to financial meltdown.
Yes, there are disagreements, electoral reform being one of the major ones - why not put it to the House? We have legislators for a reason, they just aren't used properly enough. And in fact the 2010 Conservative manifesto had something of an old Liberal feel about it - might some Lib Dems actually feel comfortable with a good lot of what's in the manifesto?
As for electoral reform, I'll talk about that in a future blogpost. But it's probably worth Cameron going it alone, getting some stuff through, showing he's serious and he's taking the decisions, then calling a second election. But first, he also needs to sell conservatism to a sceptical public, sell the fact that government is not the answer to everything.
(in other news today, a load of youngish (7-11) kids decided to jump on me and make lots of noise because I said I voted Conservative. The poor souls seem to think voting Labour/Lib Dem is better for unemployment, or is somehow 'helping the poor'. They're young, I'll let them off.)
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
Monday, 19 April 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Fraser Nelson on Cameron and the Conservative Party
Fraser Nelson hits the nail on the head with this article in the Times (as a follow-up to his Keith Joseph Lecture, readable here - I recommend it).
One thing I found interesting was his link to Ted Heath, who got booted out but whose manifesto was then delivered by Thatcher. I might just be speculating, but could Cameron be a Heath, who then gets replaced by a 'proper' conservative after a one-term government? Daniel Hannan comes to mind, but I doubt it (he's more of a libertarian anyway). On second thoughts, even David Davis?
Cameron needs to start being a radical conservative (however much that phrase sounds like an oxymoron). Stop using Labour's language, Labour's ideas, Labour's values, and give a real change, a conservative change, a change that supports people and really transfers power to them, not just some words that actually create more state power.
Read Fraser Nelson's speech. He's got it spot on.
Truly to take power, he said, one had to set the terms of debate. He had a phrase for it: the “verbal snares” that Labour sets for Conservatives. If a Tory party takes power yet uses Labour’s language, judges success by Labour’s yardsticks and confines itself to Labour’s ambitions, that’s not change. It’s more of the same.He's got it right - Cameron seems to shudder every time a criticism of conservative values comes in (generally in defunct New Labour newspeak) and I'm not totally sure what the Party currently stands for. The Conservative Party needs to embrace conservative ideology and conservative values, not Labour values. The schools reform is a start, but this needs to be our attitude to governing.
One thing I found interesting was his link to Ted Heath, who got booted out but whose manifesto was then delivered by Thatcher. I might just be speculating, but could Cameron be a Heath, who then gets replaced by a 'proper' conservative after a one-term government? Daniel Hannan comes to mind, but I doubt it (he's more of a libertarian anyway). On second thoughts, even David Davis?
Cameron needs to start being a radical conservative (however much that phrase sounds like an oxymoron). Stop using Labour's language, Labour's ideas, Labour's values, and give a real change, a conservative change, a change that supports people and really transfers power to them, not just some words that actually create more state power.
Read Fraser Nelson's speech. He's got it spot on.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
On Lisbon, referendums and UKIP
I think we should have a referendum on the EU - in fact an in/out one. I'd rather see us in a trading agreement, since that's a more suitable way of doing things for Britain; the British political and economic model is not the same as the EU/continental one. Can we hold a referendum on Lisbon? Not really - it's been ratified by all member states. I suppose we could hold one before it comes into practice on the 1st December, but that's not going to happen.
I think the current situation is disappointing, and I'm not completely thrilled with Cameron's speech, but it'll do. Having reflected on it a bit, I think it sets the right tone - power from the EU to Britain. But will that happen? It'll take strength on Cameron's part. The best he can do is argue that Britain will be a 'better' member of the EU if it has an arrangement with it that suits Britain, i.e. the free trade agreement as I said earlier - that's just the way Britain is, a freedom-loving country. The possible second term referendum if negotiation doesn't go the right way will hopefully scare Brussels, but I still think Cameron needs to be stronger on that one. Some bits are meaningless, like the legal guarantee to future referendums (Lisbon is self-amending). But I think it's generally the right direction to be going.
On the referendum - Cameron has not reneged on anything. He made the commitment (cast-iron guarantee) in 2007, on the eve of a potential snap election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives supported a Lisbon referendum when it came to Parliament. Promise kept. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on a manifesto pledge (as opposed to something in the Sun) when it was possible to hold the referendum. Now it isn't possible, this is a new position - Lisbon is in place, and a referendum would be meaningless. I understand the view that it would be a strong mandate on renegotiation, but a Lisbon referendum? No - a referendum on renegotiation specifically - I like what David Davis said about a double-referendum to give the mandate, and approve the plan. As well as this, how hypocritical for Labour to claim that the Conservatives are reneging on their promises? They reneged on the referendum when it was actually possible.
People might tell me to go off and vote UKIP; after all I disagree with party policy on Europe. In fact I disagree with party policy on many things, but I will not join a single-issue party that will not gain power and in fact may stop a party that holds similar principles to it gaining power. They say they want to stop 50 or 60 Conservative MPs winning seats - so they want a Europhilic Labour government instead of a not-quite-as-Eurosceptic-as-them Conservative government? The Conservative Party shares my conservative principles, and since it's the best way to get the principles into government, I'll support the Party. Voting UKIP will do nothing except let a Labour government in that will sell us out to the EU even more. Conservative MPs are generally Eurosceptic, Labour MPs aren't.
You go and support UKIP if you want, but they won't gain MPs, you'll just let Europhile Labour back in.
I think the current situation is disappointing, and I'm not completely thrilled with Cameron's speech, but it'll do. Having reflected on it a bit, I think it sets the right tone - power from the EU to Britain. But will that happen? It'll take strength on Cameron's part. The best he can do is argue that Britain will be a 'better' member of the EU if it has an arrangement with it that suits Britain, i.e. the free trade agreement as I said earlier - that's just the way Britain is, a freedom-loving country. The possible second term referendum if negotiation doesn't go the right way will hopefully scare Brussels, but I still think Cameron needs to be stronger on that one. Some bits are meaningless, like the legal guarantee to future referendums (Lisbon is self-amending). But I think it's generally the right direction to be going.
On the referendum - Cameron has not reneged on anything. He made the commitment (cast-iron guarantee) in 2007, on the eve of a potential snap election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives supported a Lisbon referendum when it came to Parliament. Promise kept. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on a manifesto pledge (as opposed to something in the Sun) when it was possible to hold the referendum. Now it isn't possible, this is a new position - Lisbon is in place, and a referendum would be meaningless. I understand the view that it would be a strong mandate on renegotiation, but a Lisbon referendum? No - a referendum on renegotiation specifically - I like what David Davis said about a double-referendum to give the mandate, and approve the plan. As well as this, how hypocritical for Labour to claim that the Conservatives are reneging on their promises? They reneged on the referendum when it was actually possible.
People might tell me to go off and vote UKIP; after all I disagree with party policy on Europe. In fact I disagree with party policy on many things, but I will not join a single-issue party that will not gain power and in fact may stop a party that holds similar principles to it gaining power. They say they want to stop 50 or 60 Conservative MPs winning seats - so they want a Europhilic Labour government instead of a not-quite-as-Eurosceptic-as-them Conservative government? The Conservative Party shares my conservative principles, and since it's the best way to get the principles into government, I'll support the Party. Voting UKIP will do nothing except let a Labour government in that will sell us out to the EU even more. Conservative MPs are generally Eurosceptic, Labour MPs aren't.
You go and support UKIP if you want, but they won't gain MPs, you'll just let Europhile Labour back in.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Cameron's speech to the conference
It was by no means his best speech, but was definitely a good one.
His attack on big government was welcome; he has shown that he believes in conservative (small-c) values of trusting people to help themselves, rather than government doing it for them. He seems to have some sort of vision, some sort of way forward. He recognises the tough choices he's going to make.
Obviously we don't have plans at this stage, because we don't know what state we'll be in next May, but they would be a welcome addition when the election comes around. Cameron will need to show that he recognises that the fundamental issue is the relationship between the individual and the state, and indeed the size of the state; it must be tackled straight away. The state plays too big a part in everyday life, and Labour have made it the solution to everything, even when it really shouldn't be.
The economy will grow on enterpreneurs' and the private sector's backs, not off the government. Government just recycles money taken from productive sectors, wasting bits of it in the process.
His attack on big government was welcome; he has shown that he believes in conservative (small-c) values of trusting people to help themselves, rather than government doing it for them. He seems to have some sort of vision, some sort of way forward. He recognises the tough choices he's going to make.
Obviously we don't have plans at this stage, because we don't know what state we'll be in next May, but they would be a welcome addition when the election comes around. Cameron will need to show that he recognises that the fundamental issue is the relationship between the individual and the state, and indeed the size of the state; it must be tackled straight away. The state plays too big a part in everyday life, and Labour have made it the solution to everything, even when it really shouldn't be.
The economy will grow on enterpreneurs' and the private sector's backs, not off the government. Government just recycles money taken from productive sectors, wasting bits of it in the process.
Saturday, 26 September 2009
The BBC is factually wrong
This in a report about the English Democrats:
The party wants to end subsidies from Westminster to Scotland and Wales and abolish the regional assemblies supported by the three main parties.No, the Conservatives don't support regional assemblies, in fact Cameron has said he'll scrap them if he wins the election.
The BBC should sort out its sources, and stop presenting the Balkanisation of Britain as some sort of "common direction".
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Eurofederalists support a Lisbon referendum?
Really? I doubt it.
Cameron, as far as I can see, is no EU sell-out. Obviously when and if he gains power, it'll be something to watch, but I don't think the party will let him - it's generally too Eurosceptic.
"Hand the decision to the BBC"? Sounds far too conspiracy theory-type for me. British people are generally fiercely independent, we know about BBC bias.
And it is a necessary referendum, as I explained in my last post - it involves transfer of political power. Not only that, but 70% of the population want it. As well as this, the general call for a referendum was because that was what the three main parties promised (and only one kept to) - there was no "wrecking amendment" in the manifesto.
I think the important thing will be to withdraw ratification, then hold the referendum, then re-ratify or withdraw altogether depending on the vote. Otherwise some funny things could be done in other countries to make the referendum practically invalid.
Cameron, as far as I can see, is no EU sell-out. Obviously when and if he gains power, it'll be something to watch, but I don't think the party will let him - it's generally too Eurosceptic.
"Hand the decision to the BBC"? Sounds far too conspiracy theory-type for me. British people are generally fiercely independent, we know about BBC bias.
And it is a necessary referendum, as I explained in my last post - it involves transfer of political power. Not only that, but 70% of the population want it. As well as this, the general call for a referendum was because that was what the three main parties promised (and only one kept to) - there was no "wrecking amendment" in the manifesto.
I think the important thing will be to withdraw ratification, then hold the referendum, then re-ratify or withdraw altogether depending on the vote. Otherwise some funny things could be done in other countries to make the referendum practically invalid.
Cameron and the EU
Ireland could still vote either way (despite the propaganda the EU has flooded them with) but there could be another way that Lisbon is taken down: with the help of Vaclav Klaus. David Cameron has written a letter to him in support of Klaus' position of not signing the treaty, promising to hold a referendum if it has not been ratified.
If Klaus and Cameron pull this off, could it be a modern day Thatcher-Reagan pact? In fact I'm quite interested in Ashley Fox MEP's comment on ConservativeHome that the Czech MEPs in the ECR are saying that Klaus is simply going to refuse to sign it. For the UK to withdraw ratification of the treaty would surely be its death knells, due to the UK's sheer economic weight. It should have been put to the people in a referendum across Europe anyway; it is about the transfer of political power (and we had referendums for elected mayors).
But what if it is ratified when Cameron comes to power? I will ignore UKIP and co's arguments that Cameron doesn't want a referendum as scaremongering, but would it actually be possible for revision after ratification? This being the EU, probably not, but it would take a strong man to stand up and withdraw ratification unilaterally (and potentially be acting illegally). A more sensible promise would be to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been ratified, and a referendum on EU membership (since they have ignored the will of the people) if it has been ratified. Not only would that get the Eurocrats worried, but it might stop Lisbon too.
If Klaus and Cameron pull this off, could it be a modern day Thatcher-Reagan pact? In fact I'm quite interested in Ashley Fox MEP's comment on ConservativeHome that the Czech MEPs in the ECR are saying that Klaus is simply going to refuse to sign it. For the UK to withdraw ratification of the treaty would surely be its death knells, due to the UK's sheer economic weight. It should have been put to the people in a referendum across Europe anyway; it is about the transfer of political power (and we had referendums for elected mayors).
But what if it is ratified when Cameron comes to power? I will ignore UKIP and co's arguments that Cameron doesn't want a referendum as scaremongering, but would it actually be possible for revision after ratification? This being the EU, probably not, but it would take a strong man to stand up and withdraw ratification unilaterally (and potentially be acting illegally). A more sensible promise would be to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been ratified, and a referendum on EU membership (since they have ignored the will of the people) if it has been ratified. Not only would that get the Eurocrats worried, but it might stop Lisbon too.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Banking regulation
First of all, I apologise for not posting in a while - although exams are over, life has been hectic.
David Cameron hits the right notes with the briefing for his speech on regulatory reform. Having already been told by Osborne that the FSA would be scrapped, we have an idea of how banks would be regulated.
It makes sense for the central bank to regulate - it knows how much banks are borrowing, knows what the economy is doing, and so on - after all it has to set interest rates every month. Not only this, but we are told that the Bank of England warned the FSA about the risks taken, but the FSA took no action - incompetence.
Breaking up RBS/HBOS is a welcome step too - no bank should become too big to fail, and no bank should be bailed out by the government - the economy is better off without bad banks.
However the MPC especially has to look at the prime cause of the financial crash - keeping interest rates too low for too long and encouraging over-borrowing. The only viable solution would be to allow the market to set interest rates, since it is more efficient than nine central bankers. That way, as demand for borrowing increases, interest rates are raised by banks to get a greater return and to encourage saving to build up a capital base; in the same way interest rates will fall if banks want to encourage borrowing. I know it isn't a perfect theory, but should be more efficient than the current macroeconomic consensus we have today.
David Cameron hits the right notes with the briefing for his speech on regulatory reform. Having already been told by Osborne that the FSA would be scrapped, we have an idea of how banks would be regulated.
It makes sense for the central bank to regulate - it knows how much banks are borrowing, knows what the economy is doing, and so on - after all it has to set interest rates every month. Not only this, but we are told that the Bank of England warned the FSA about the risks taken, but the FSA took no action - incompetence.
Breaking up RBS/HBOS is a welcome step too - no bank should become too big to fail, and no bank should be bailed out by the government - the economy is better off without bad banks.
However the MPC especially has to look at the prime cause of the financial crash - keeping interest rates too low for too long and encouraging over-borrowing. The only viable solution would be to allow the market to set interest rates, since it is more efficient than nine central bankers. That way, as demand for borrowing increases, interest rates are raised by banks to get a greater return and to encourage saving to build up a capital base; in the same way interest rates will fall if banks want to encourage borrowing. I know it isn't a perfect theory, but should be more efficient than the current macroeconomic consensus we have today.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Cameron is showing some leadership
We'll have to see the result of this, but it's good to see David Cameron showing some leadership in the expenses row. Gordon's ducking it, the Speaker's pathetic, and before we get the Lib Dem revelations tomorrow to know that MPs are paying their expenses back is a good sign.
I'll be the first to check that they will be paying them back.
I'll be the first to check that they will be paying them back.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Cameron electoral broadcast
The electoral broadcast did impress me, straight to the point.
"Bust open the monopoly" - nice! Along with many others, but that one does stick in my head. As long as this is substance and not just words, he's impressing me more and more.
What I need to see to fully convince me is Cameron in power; the policy is going the right way, but I need action to back up the words - and it's pretty simple, if he doesn't live up to it, I won't vote for him again in 2014 (ish).
"Bust open the monopoly" - nice! Along with many others, but that one does stick in my head. As long as this is substance and not just words, he's impressing me more and more.
What I need to see to fully convince me is Cameron in power; the policy is going the right way, but I need action to back up the words - and it's pretty simple, if he doesn't live up to it, I won't vote for him again in 2014 (ish).
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Dave at a rave?
Is it him? Is it not? Does it really matter?
Chances are Labour will try to discredit him, but if it's him it shows he's more "normal" than people think and he's certainly got more respect in my eyes.
Also funny that someone who "admires" Thatcher went with what she tried to stamp out, but it was before his political days, so as with the weed-smoking is irrelevant.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
A bad day for savers
So the Bank of England has decided to cut interest rates to its lowest level since it was set up in 1694 - 1.5%. While cutting them from October's 5% to "encourage lending" has done nothing to ease the ability to lend, cutting them again is hardly going to help.
Has the BoE fallen into the government's trap of borrowing and debt? Banks are unwilling to lend because of the likelihood of defaulting (as has caused the crisis in the first place) and instead needs to encourage saving.
If more money is invested in banks in saver's accounts, banks will now have more money to lend out - so more financial security. They will be more willing to lend, and will be more confident that borrowers will have savings to fall back on. As well as this, with savings, when times get hard people will have more money to spend, and will be less likely to go straight to the dole office for help.
This is exactly why saving should be encouraged - it is a long-term solution for financial security and to reduce welfare payments. That is why I am pleased that David Cameron has promised provisions for cutting income tax on savings, and although I'd hope for them to go further, it's a good start for stopping the country's spending binge and could also produce greater economic stability.
Has the BoE fallen into the government's trap of borrowing and debt? Banks are unwilling to lend because of the likelihood of defaulting (as has caused the crisis in the first place) and instead needs to encourage saving.
If more money is invested in banks in saver's accounts, banks will now have more money to lend out - so more financial security. They will be more willing to lend, and will be more confident that borrowers will have savings to fall back on. As well as this, with savings, when times get hard people will have more money to spend, and will be less likely to go straight to the dole office for help.
This is exactly why saving should be encouraged - it is a long-term solution for financial security and to reduce welfare payments. That is why I am pleased that David Cameron has promised provisions for cutting income tax on savings, and although I'd hope for them to go further, it's a good start for stopping the country's spending binge and could also produce greater economic stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
