Voting UKIP strengthens the Eurosceptics hand

Things are getting desperate over at Conservative HQ, as they are now trying the trust me I get it ploy.

Here's the thing; the best way to force Cameron's hand is to vote UKIP.

I bet some conservative MP's are, I know many Conservative party members are as they've told me.

It makes no difference to Cameron's ability to deliver on the EU if he has no MEPs !

But it will put enormous pressure on him and his europium CCC federalist supports if UKIP weeps board on may 22nd.

Stay calm and vote UKIP.

PS remember Cameron is reported as having so little honour he's not even planning on resigning if he losses Scotland ! The last thing he is is to be trusted. If you want anything from him you need his feet to the fire first.

Never making the argument means never winning

Paul Goodman is making a somewhat anxious argument over at Conservative home that David Cameron is 16 points more popular than his party. ( It is perhaps a more nuanced peace addressing the popularity of David Cameron, rather than the lack of popularity for true Conservative policies, which many of us despair of ever seeing. )

This had me thinking - is it desperate stuff? Perhaps the high profile defections to UKIP have CCHQ and their buddies rattled. ( And they should be. )

Leaving aside the fact that in this world of presidential politics any half decent leader should always be ahead of the support of their party - whatever their politics - and lets look at what is really being said here.

Its the argument the 'modernisers' use to shut up party members. You can't argue for stuff because it scares the brain dead floating voter and/or Independent reader.

But of course if you never make the argument, no one changes their minds. If you never argue your case then the metropolitan elite wins by default - especially with their strangle hold over membership of the media class and political class.

If you never argue for an objective/policy you believe is right, you will certainly never achieve it.

And of course to the modernisers that's the whole point ... they like winning by default.

The ambush of the 1922 committee by Cameron is his first bad mistake

Everyone who makes decisions and provides leadership, makes mistakes.

And David Cameron has just made his first large one, trying to destroy the 1922 committee on backbench Conservative MPs with his wrecking amendment.

There is already bad feeling in the party about some of the compromises necessary to build a coalition with the Lib Dems, but most of us understand the nation is under threat of financial disaster and the National interest means compromise for strong government is needed.

But at the same time that Lib Dem MPs and party is being courted and canvassed by its leadership David Cameron is trying to shut down descent. It won't work and it will be counter productive.

At least with the 1922 committee there is a safety valve - if its destroyed then there will be secretive factions and campaigns that the party can't reason so easily with.

Many Conservative party members will note how the Lib Dems have to be kept on side, but Conservatives told to shut up. This means serial appeasement of the Lib Dems and bad deals for Conservatives.

Pay attention Mr Cameron we won't stand for it.

Update: The results are in and the govt won, but with the payroll vote. Legal challenges are being discussed as they should not have been voting.

But whatever the result - the trust has been savagely broken and the party betrayed. Mr Cameron has just blown a very large amount of the good will and credit at his disposal.

The X-Factor election could be a national disaster

Well the news for those of us who think Labour have wrecked the country and if they get another five years will finish the job wasn't good this morning.

Even as the newspapers, all of them - with the possible exception of the insane Daily Mirror, drip with stories that prove Brown is unfit for public office the polls tells us the great British public is moving in the other direction.

The start of all this was Piers Morgan's crying game interview where Brown backed down on yet another one of his promises by prostituting his emotions for votes. ( Lets remeber Browns savage snide attack on David Cameron from the Labour party conference. )

Ever since then there has been no end of stories about Gordon Brown - almost all terribly bad - in the media.

The public's response ? To increase its support for him.

All publicity would appear to be good.

I think the key here is the public is viewing the general election through the prism of "Strictly come dancing", "The X-Factor" and "Big Brother".

They are supporting the character they want to see crowned winner at the end of the show. They like seeing things change around during the show. The best dancer doesn't win, but the one who comes from the most popular TV show - or whom the Grannies have a crush on.

So what should the Conservative response be ?

I think we are doomed if we try to play this game. Labour have spectacular support in the media, and plenty of media types who can help them pay this game. And the storyline they would present would be very popular in peoples minds.

The Conservative response must be a bucket of cold water with ice floating in it thrown over the electorate.

This is not a game or a TV show - though it has been made to look like one. ( And in this sense the TV debates may prove to be a costly mistake by CCHQ ).

Labour won't be able to manage the sky rocketing national debt ( even the part that's official - ignoring the massive hidden off balance sheet items that make us as guilty as the Greek government has been ). We know this as a fact since:

1) They haven't delivered on the efficiency savings they promised.
2) They haven't reformed the public services because "The Road Block to reform" is Prime Minister after having been Chancellor.

Labour won't be able to manage the most savage cuts in UK history ( and those are the ones they themselves admit to having to make ).

They will instead seek to confiscate peoples wealth - just as they have destroyed private pensions and are bleeding private savings - so they will find new ways like the death tax and higher tuition fees for Tory voters and the English middle class families.

They will also deliver worse public services than a Conservative government will - because their aim is the votes that the client state can deliver and the funding from the Unite Union that owns the Labour party - not the good of the people.

To win this election the Conservative party has to be willing to lose it by spelling out to people how bad things are, and what is needed.

We need to explain the consequences of 5 more years of Gordon Brown ( who will by then be unconstrained by the sacked Alistair Darling and Peter Mandelson ).

Further: I would point you back at my post from 2008 "Winning the argument could be more important than winning the next election"

All token shortlists

David Cameron has said in response to questioning today that central office are looking at all token short lists and may well impose them before the next general election.

My guess is this will lead to widespread rebellion and might even cost him the election.

Be warned Mr Cameron - the members of the Conservative party want to appoint their own MPs and elect their own leaders. There have been many rumblings over the hand of central office in recent selections, but most of us have kept quiet. It wouldn't take that much for independent Conservative candidates to start running with the support of the people who provide the foot soldiers in local constituencies.

That won't last if you try to impose socialist token targets on associations.

PS Of course another problem with token shortlists of token candidates is how do you chose the correct token ?

Should there be more plumbers in parliament ?
More undertakers ?
More Engineers ?

When I see those from the those who argue for token shortlists but are themselves from groups that are they argue are over represented resign their seats to help re-balance the house then I'll take them more seriously.

Will David Cameron or George Osborne be standing down to be replaced by token candidates ? I thought not.

Other reactions:

Conservative home - All women shortlists are fundamentally unConservative and they have no place in a party pledged to meritocracy and localism.

Iain Dale - All Women Shortlists: Not In My Name

Nadine Dories MP- Every morning as I walk into westminster, I feel proud and humbled to be here. If I had been elected via an all woman shortlist I wouldn't
Be able to hold my head up as I would know the men I work with would be here on merit but that I had needed a hand. That's not equality.

The Unionist case for an English Parliament

A bit busy today, but let me recommend the article by Andrew Morrison over on Conservative Home who moves towards making a Scottish Unionist argument for an English Parliament.

I think this is an important point, and not addressing it potentially one of the greatest mistakes we may make if we win power at the next general election.

My comment to the article is repeated below:

Andrew - I think your article has a number of key insights and provides a warning to an incoming Conservative government.

The Unionist argument for an English Parliament is not heard often enough. It provides equality of respect between the home nations and a sense of natural justice.

It also removes one of the key drivers for the breakup of the UK which is the assumption that the now devolved administrations are different from the normal state.

The trap David Cameron is currently walking into is that of again sacrificing English interests to appease Scotland. It will fail on two levels - first the injustice to the English and second the insult to the Scots who sense they are being bought off by someone who is willing to sell his own nation short.

There is a great opportunity for the Conservatives to engage in UK wide constitutional reform, and establishing federal home nation parliaments should be part of that reform. And that means an English Parliament.

It will certainly be better than waiting for the next socialist administration to try its hand, as they will be far more vindictive due to their natural conceit about knowing what's good for people.

Winning the argument could be more important than winning the next election

Have I lost my mind ?

Well not as far as I can tell, let me try to justify such a worrying statement.

What matters is the changes that need to made to the UK. A slightly different shade of rosy blue will not sort our country's problems.

Having recovered from the drastic medical and painful surgical treatment of our economy that was needed to save the UK in the 80's ( remember Britain was known as the sick man of Europe then ), the patient let itself go in the late 90's and 00's.

New age treatments were tried ( the third way / New Labour et al ), the diets that allowed you to eat all you wanted and told you it would be OK ( the personal debt bubble, increase govt investment spending ) were pushed by a very slick sales organisation ( Messers Mandelson, Campbell, Draper, Wheelan & associates ). What mattered was people feeling happy (the narrative ), facts that hinted at other 'realities' were wrong and needed to be suppressed (helpful left news organisations like the BBC), bullied to silence (little old ladies complaining about hospitals ), arrests (using anti-terrorism legislation on a man who escaped the holocaust at a Labour party conference ).

There were many in the private establishment who were willing to snuggle up to the new masters. Especially when favours in terms of light regulation or regulations that would help suppress competition from upstarts were on offer. ( The close relationship between finance and the Labour party is one of the great untold stories of the last twelve years. Since those who tell stories are signed up to "the project" it will be some time before we get to hear it. )

And finally, having tried everything else and having been smeared by an outrageous lie at the 2005 election about reducing spending by £4billion leading to every nurse and doctor getting sacked (copyright 2005 Gordon Brown - used without permission ) the Conservative party bowed to the peer pressure.

But now the real state of the patient has become impossible to ignore. Indeed the general public might ask themselves if they haven't been deceived not only by their politicians, but also by the 'professional media' and academics who never barked in the night.

Labour plans are for hair of the dog as the nations liver finally succumbs to the sclerosis of borrowing and debt.

Its time for the painful, and also unpopular news to be spelt out ( because they have been the same thing for over a decade - the messenger gets shot every time in UK politics now we have the marketing dominated professionalisation of politics ).

Only then, having been straight with the public, can the solution be proposed. I suspect this is along the line suggested today by Andrew Haldenby in his article Fiscal stimulus will prolong the recession.

It might mean we lose the next election. But at this time it might be worse to win but without the mandate to do what's necessary. If Labour cling to power they will be a minority government that will be too weak to govern effectively, they will also push their policies to the point that their bankruptcy is obvious to the voters. Such a government would not last two years.

What matters is not just winning - but winning with the mandate to save our country. Otherwise everyone loses.

I propose Country before Party and that requires a firmer economic and governing philosophy, that the pampered patient will not accept until they accept the charlatans for what they are.

I don't expect these views to be popular, especially with the hard working people who are standing for election and are giving their all. But nether the less we must be straight with the public about how bad things are.

( Of course Labour is doing damage in other areas than the economy. The destabilisation of society and the destruction of education need to be stopped - and are badly served by every further minute of this Labour government ).

Clear blue water at last

David Cameron has announced the break with shadowing Labour's economic plans.

The Conservative party is now going to oppose enslaving our children with debt piled on by worn out Labour politicians anxious top keep their public sector salaries and pensions.

The snap election borrowing bribe is now looking more difficult for Gordon Brown to pull off with impunity.

Indeed there are reports of a rift between the current Chancellor/Treasurey and Gordon Brown on this.

Politics is about to develop substance again ...

I am also starting to notice people losing their jobs in my locality. Again any tax bribe in peoples pay packets here will be hidden away like it has been grasped by a starving squirrel.

The Bust has finally come. The only question is how long Labour will leave the spending drunk Brown at the wheel.

Update: The Conservative poll lead is reported as at about 3% - given the bias in the electoral system that means Labour could win a general election. This means politics is about to get very lively indeed.

Policy should be based on principle not focus groups

Its looking like a bad 24 hrs for the Conservative party.

First there was George Osborne telling us the government should tell banks what to do ( popular right now - but where the philosophical underpinning ? It also means Labour are off the hook with what ever ham fisted attempt they use to apply socialism wealth destruction principles to the newly captured banks.)

Next Labour finally win a by-election in a safe Labour seat. This suggests to me that we have reached high tide for the SNP. Scots confidence has been fatally undermined by the fall of RBS and HBOS, and Labour will soon be viewed again as the guarantor of English money delivered north of the boarder.

Now David Cameron is suggesting that people who take out loans underwritten by their property should not have that property reposed if the sum is less than £25k. ( Again very popular with those in debt in the short term - but unhinged in the medium term and completely at odds with sound financial principles. What this will do, if it was ever in acted, is make the risk of issuing loans sky high - interest rates will go up and availability down . Now were told that those are just the things that we don't want. It is also 180 degr away from the personal responsibility that I thought Conservatism stood for. )

Finally, maybe - just maybe - , Barack Obama will turn out to be very left wing. Its going to be hard to object to his policies - which Brown may mirror - having 'sounded' so supporting.

Is the Conservative opposition to be a house built on the rock of philosophical underpinning and sound principles or the sand of populism, marketing and focus groups ? Because a storm is coming and we are going to be tested.

I'm not voting for the EPP

The usual deals, smokescreen and deceit is coming from Europe again as they try to keep the Conservative party in the EPP.

There is little party members can do about this. We elected a leader who promised to take us out of the EPP.

We are not allowed to deselect the Euro-Quisling MEP's who support the EU proto-super state against their own country and party.

All I can do is say I will not vote Conservative at the european elections if at the time of the election the Conservative party is a member of the EPP. ( Frankly I am no longer interested in promises - I want verifiable action ). It will be a shame not to vote for Daniel Hannan who is an excellent Euro MP - but the underlying issue must be addressed.

It is my strong recommendation that if you feel the same way you do likewise and state as much.

Poll defies the Economist's Chirstmas wish

Man in a Shed, who has been reading the Economist for about 23 years, has detected that their journalists have started to really buy into the New Labour project - just at the point that its going out of fashion.

The problem may be generational as journalists who started at the end of the Major years and beginning of the Blair years start to dominate our press. Only those with a strong stomach for be denounced could have maintained a Conservative view point in those days.

Economist article talk about "the Tories" - with the easy going disdain that was so prevalent in those days when no trendy student would have been seen dead putting the interests of their country in front of personal popularity. ( I'm not talking down the genuine socialists - but those who travel with the crowd and take the path of least resistance. )

Today the are saying that "the Tories" ( the Conservative party ) hasn't really succeeded as their poll rating aren't high enough. This is standard Labour disinformation and spin right now - to try to undermine the idea of the Conservatives as a potential government. To say they don't have the talent (like Labour does ! ) and to hint at a hung parliament which all trendy lefties know means the Lib Dems propping up Labour.

Well the news today is the polls have reached 45% for the Conservatives . Its the tipping point. organisations that have provided cover and support for the Labour government are now going to have to think about which side their bread is really buttered on - perhaps this is the underlying message of David Cameron's wish to consider using the licence fee for broadcasters other than the BBC. The BBC is, by its own somewhat unique guardianista standards, trying to think wider thoughts, but keeps reverting to type.

It also means that all those soft left journalists, the like of which seem to know work at the Economist, are going to have to learn to think for a living.

I'll give you a brief extract from the toe curling New Labour toadying article in Dec15th's Economist ( UK edition ):

The state of the Tories - Coming ready or not.

DAVID CAMERON, who marked his second anniversary as leader of the Conservative Party on December 6th, knows the wisdom of at least one of Westminster's ancient maxims. A week really is a long time in politics: at the start of his party's conference in October, he looked likely to lose the snap election that Gordon Brown, riding high as prime minister, was expected to call; by its end, he had regained a momentum that has yet to desert him.

He must now hope that another grizzled saying is true: that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them the implication here - before its justified - is that it can't be anything the Conservatives have done - like their tremendous party conference where Gordon Brown's bluff was truly called by nerves of steel David Cameron - backed to a man and woman by the party and strong performances on all subjects by the shadow cabinet. Recent events have compromised the government's claims to competence (the taxman lost the personal data of millions of citizens) and probity (a party-funding scandal forced the resignation of Labour's general secretary). Labour's support has fallen to about 33% (see chart) - New Labour spin/Meme - if they're not doing well enough now - how could they ever win ?. Yet the Tories have not pulled away decisively: they are polling at around 40%, which is short of both the 45% mark that Mr Cameron has made his party's target and the 60% that Labour scored under Tony Blair in 1995 its just gone to 45%. Labour then was more than 30 points ahead of the governing Tories these were whole exceptional conditions - which shows the lack of experience of the journalist writing this stuff; today the Tories are less than ten points ahead of Labour.

Conservatives note that they face a stronger government than Sir John Major's. None of its recent mistakes has been as ruinous for voters as the recession of the early 1990s Do you think the Economist journalist has seen what's coming round the corner in 2008 ? . Neither is it as exhausted of ideas: Sir John never produced anything as vaulting as the children's plan unveiled on December 11th.The journalist who wrote this should receive immediate drug testing as they must be the only person, not a paid up supporter of Gordon Brown, to believe such a thing.

.....

To see the full thing in its, ahem, glory see here.

Reading The Economist has been one of the regular pleasures of my adult life. It really upsets me to see how the woolly and dishonest thinking and practices of the New Labour project has corroded its standards.

The Conservative party should support referendums on independence

I believe it is a mistake for the Unionists to try to deny the referendum on Scottish independence that the SNP say they are seeking.

Since consent should be at the heart of the United Kingdom, it is not pro-independence to affirm it. It actually damages the UK in the long term to be seen to be running away from it. ( They same applies for our relationship with the EU - as Ming Campbell to his credit finally realised.)

The Conservative party should promise referendums on the following:

1) Membership of the UK for each constituent nation, with a new federated constitution between the nations being offered.
2) Membership of the EU. ( If anyone leaves the UK then they can sort out 1) for themselves).

It should be understood that these referendums will be final for the next 50 years - and laws passed to ensure this.

They should take place about 2 years after the next general election to give full time for debate to develop.

These are not measures we should hide from. What we need to avoid is the exam retake options that Quebec keeps trying. These issues should be settled.