If there was a general election tomorrow...

[mykeyb]

Seems to have been the days for tears doesnt it.

[tonyh29]

PMQ's this week was interesting .. Labour and the Lib Dems seem to have already made their pact in the event of a hung parliament

[mjmooney]

PMQ's this week was interesting .. Labour and the Lib Dems seem to have already made their pact in the event of a hung parliament

Excellent. Things looking up.

[tonyh29]

only problem is Brown will need a new soundbite .. he can hardly carry on calling the Tories the "Do nothing party" when he is partnered with the "nothing whatsoever" party

[Gringo]

PMQs"]"Surely it is in the interests of this House we are united in the treatment of old people in their own homes?"

That was one of the PM's heavily freighted questions. Let's unpack it: I think we are meant to take out of it that the dignity and authority of Parliament is being undermined by the Conservatives' instant tribal response to anything Gordon Brown proposes – but in this case it will degrade and possibly destroy old people's lives by forcibly removing them from their homes (that's what Conservatism means).

Ditto when he says, "I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are opposing our Cancer Guarantee!"

Thus: You will get cancer and the Conservatives don't care if you die of it as you have less money than they do.

There will be those who see in this the "noble calling", the mission to alleviate suffering. Me, I think, "Is there nothing the Prime Minister won't say or do to get re-elected?" He wouldn't... break down on television sharing a personal tragedy with a celebrity compere, would he?

Cameron talked about the chorus of disapproval that hit the airwaves yesterday about the "free care in homes" Bill (now in the Lords). Labour and Tory councils are saying it's unaffordable. Others say of it... cruel deception, disorderly, doubly objectionable, classic Brown dividing line – and so forth.

Brown's return of fire began with the accusation – Well, you voted for it! – and went on with more familiar flyting.

Cameron has no policies whatsoever. He has no substance. Why can't he talk about the policies!

Actually, he was asking about the policy, or a part of it. Would people ever be required to pay for their free care?

Read the White Paper, the old Slugger responded. That was an enterprising answer, followed by no policy, no substance, no judgement.

Cameron read out the part about the £20,000 levy, and got a mouthful about having misquoted it and having no policy, no substance, no good ads.

But then he quoted the whole passage and Brown looked a bit silly, refusing to discuss the policy while demanding a policy discussion.

[Gringo]

So this week it the tory party machine dropping in career politicians at the expense of 'real people'. If democracy isn't local it's lost

grauniad"]Battle of alpha females pits old against new thinking in Tory party

Cameron moderniser upsets 'dinosaurs' in London constituency battle

It was London's equivalent of Norfolk's Turnip Taliban, variously billed as a battle between the Cameroon modernisers and Westminster North's "dinosaurs" or the clash of two alpha females.

It pitted high-powered libel lawyer, Joanne Cash, against constituency chairman, Amanda Sawyers, both accustomed to getting their way. Unlike South West Norfolk's clash over candidate Elizabeth Truss's affair with an MP, this could not simply be portrayed as resistance to change.

So this week's clash in the key London marginal has evolved into yet another wobble over Cameron's grip on his grassroots party, the direction he seeks to take it in pursuit of a general election victory – and the MPs he wants elected with him.

On Monday night Cash, married to a millionaire businessman, used her contacts (she calls the Camerons "Dave and Sam") to prevent Sawyers, married to a wealthy banker, winning a fourth term as local chair in the rich-and-poor Labour marginal.

The two women did not get on and Cash, an A-list Cameron supporter with little political experience, had rubbed some activists up the wrong way. She had also got pregnant for the first time at 40.

When Sawyers agreed to quit at Monday's fraught and crowded meeting, the constituency's president, Lord Strathclyde, the shadow leader of the Lords, stepped down too so that she could succeed him. Cash promptly resigned as candidate – only to signal a change of mind on Twitter next day.

"Lots of rumours flying around distracting from business of electing a new govt! Go, go, go people!!! We have work to do," she added. Some accounts have blamed the pregnancy for her "emotional" state.

But, 80-odd days from the likely election such a dispute is unsettling to the Tory high command – and a gift to Labour.

Is Cameron's determination to impose more women, ethnic minorities and gay candidates in winnable seats a necessary ingredient of success? Friends insist it is. But do attempts at dictation from party HQ alienate activists whose doubts about the Cameron project are assuaged only by the prospect of ousting Gordon Brown.

The party website, ConservativeHome, and the rightwing Spectator magazine are at loggerheads over the affair.

A Spectator account pinned blame on Eric Pickles, Cameron's bluff party chairman who attended the Monday night massacre, but failed to reconcile opposing factions. "Other candidate disasters" may blow up during the campaign, it warned.

Unfair, replies Tim Montgomerie, founder of ConservativeHome, and a protege of Iain Duncan Smith, who is critical of Cameron's A-list fast-track as elitist and likely to offend working class activists. Pickles's office settles many local disputes quietly, but this one contained too many big egos, ones with access to the London media.

As of tonight the local agent had resigned, Sawyers is no longer president and Cash, the "Cameron cutie" whose selection was meant to symbolise the "new politics," has survived. The big test remains polling day.

At least the newtories aren't obsessed with image more like bliar by the day

[leviramsey]

Daniel Mitchell (Cato Institute)"]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has done a terrible job and is widely unpopular.. But even if the opposition party wins control later this year, it may not make much of a difference. The leader of the Tory party, David Cameron, is a British version of a RINO. He has not pledged to reduce the burden of government spending (which, as the chart illustrates, has skyrocketed). He has not pledged to reverse Brown’s dramatic increase in the top tax rate. And now the Conservative Party is expressing support for a huge increase in the value-added tax. The UK-based Times reports:

A rise in VAT is looming whichever party wins the general election, as Labour and the Conservatives draw up plans to balance Britain’s books. Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, are both considering raising VAT to as high as 20 per cent — the European average — from the current rate of 17.5 per cent, The Times has learnt. …One City source close to the Tory tax team said: “There is a view across the Conservative Party that VAT is going to have to go up.” The Chancellor is also keenly aware that Britain needs to retain the confidence of the credit-rating agencies. He has privately ruled out either raising income taxes or increasing the scope of VAT, but has deliberately left open the possibility of increasing the sales tax in the next Parliament.

[Gringo]

Cameron is copying every blair trick in their pursuit of the disenfranchisement of the electorate

grauniad/observer"]The debacle last week regarding the Conservative candidate in Westminster North is the latest example of what happens when Central Office interferes in local associations. In the 45 years I have been a member of the ­party, I have never known it to be more centrally controlled. Members have virtually no rights, and a small group dominates.

The changes started in 1997. William Hague began a reorganisation. He set out a democratic vision. He spoke of giving power to members, but by the time his proposals were finalised his vision had been watered down. The parliamentary party was determined to retain its power, and if possible increase it. The only concession the voluntary party got was a say in future leadership elections. The party got a constitution. We were now one party, but the voluntary part paid a heavy price.

The constitution cannot be changed without agreement of an electoral college of MPs and the National Convention, which consists mainly of constituency chairmen. In this college, an MP's vote is worth five times that of a constituency chairman's. The real power is with the parliamentary party. The party chairman and treasurer are appointed by the leader, so are unaccountable to members.

There is no annual general meeting of members, so there is no formal forum to raise questions. Annual accounts are not tabled for approval at an AGM. Selection of parliamentary candidates is controlled centrally. The board can and does take control of any constituency association that does not toe the line. The infamous clause 17 of the constitution states: "The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and ­administration of the Party." This makes the rest of the constitution meaningless. ­Interference in constituencies started when Michael Howard intervened in Arundel and kicked out Howard Flight MP just before the 2005 election. It has ­escalated since.

From 400,000 in 1997, membership has fallen to about 180,000 today, and is still falling. Does the decline matter? Of these, about 18,000 are activists. Today these consist primarily of 10,000 councillors, their families and friends.

Within a couple of months, there will be an election at which it is probable the Conservatives will form a government. Because of the state of the economy, tough and unpopular decisions will be taken. At a time when we are likely to be most unpopular, there will be local elections and many of our councillors will lose their seats – not because they have performed badly, but because of the national position.

The effect on membership will be catastrophic. Why should anyone now want to be a member? Prior to the reforms of 1998, there were a number of reasons. There were meetings at which you could raise issues of policy or organisation. Conference was run by the voluntary party. It had motions for debate. Constituency associations were effectively autonomous. There were checks and balances in the distribution of power. All these were swept away in 1998, but the members held on to one right – selecting their ­parliamentary candidate. This has now gone.

At the board meeting in July 2009, new rules were brought in. The chairman now decides whether an association selects its candidate through a meeting or open primary. From the beginning of the year, the chairman's office also determines the names for selection. The chairman, with a small number of others, will now determine the candidates, and consequently the future party in the Commons. This oligarchy will have determined many MPs who will form the government.

Change to this system will only happen if it is imposed. That is why I have put a petition on the Downing Street website. It calls for legislation so the Electoral Commission cannot register a party unless it has a democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of members on the basis of one member, one vote. A similar motion on internal party democracy is on the Power2010 site. Vote for them.

There is much talk about electoral reform, but if our parties are wholly undemocratic, electoral reform is meaningless. Democracy RIP.

[snowychap]

Ah, the 'burden' of government spending.

[mjmooney]

I'm guessing a "RINO" is a Republican In Name Only?

That make Cameron a Conservative Undertaking New Tactics.

[LondonLax]

I'm guessing a "RINO" is a Republican In Name Only?

That make Cameron a Conservative Undertaking New Tactics.

[bickster]

always thought Morgan stunk of Tory, not sure why. Oh well.

he was editor of the Mirror for yonks guess that would be the clue ... but yeah i always assumed he was a Tory as well

He is a Tory, he's just a red Tory as opposed to a blue Tory

[stevenavfc1874]

Have voted Labour always, power corrupts them all but they are still the only party with any interest in the common good, Cameron and his ilk are directly descended from the 'F U jack I'm in the dinghy' mentality which Thatcher epitomised. If it turns out that it's the 'Sun wot wun it' then God help us!

[leviramsey]

I'm guessing a "RINO" is a Republican In Name Only?

That make Cameron a Conservative Undertaking New Tactics.

Correct. Such accusations are of course a consequence of the FPTP system's creation of coalitions before the election: Labour, the Tories, the Republicans, Democrats, etc. are all coalitions of various groups that to a certain extent would rather not be in coalition. IMO, the fact that coalition membership is declared before the votes are cast is an argument for FPTP over PR.

[leviramsey]

More from Mr. Mitchell

Did Republicans lose in 2006 and 2008 because they were too far to the left or too far to the right? And which approach should they adopt if they want to regain power in 2010 and 2012? Some people think the GOP needs to be more moderate. David Frum, for instance, says Republicans need to mimic David Cameron in the United Kingdom. And at his website, Frum highlights this (rather disturbing, as I will explain below) video of Cameron making a pitch to the British people.

First, the good news about the video. It is possible that Cameron intends to do good things about education and welfare policy. Unfortunately, it’s also possible that he intends to do bad things. But we don’t know since there is nothing but rhetoric. Speaking of rhetoric, it is troubling that he also has lots of language about a “fair” society and the gap between rich and poor. This doesn’t necessarily mean he intends to push bad policy. A policy of smaller government and free markets, after all, will boost economic growth and help poor people climb the ladder. Shrinking government also will reduce the power of special interests, which will make society more fair. But it’s also possible – and perhaps more likely – that he is using this rhetoric to signal support for more redistribution.

What is most troubling, though, is that Cameron sides with government and against taxpayers whenever he gets specific about policy. About one minute into the video, he endorses the minimum wage and higher fuel subsidies. Fifteen seconds later, he wants more redistribution for food programs. The worst proposal comes around the 2:50 mark, when he endorses wage indexing instead of price indexing for the U.K.’s version of Social Security (which would be grossly irresponsible and undermine one of the best achievements of Margaret Thatcher). Last but not least, he then endorses more spending on government-run healthcare.

These proposals are all bad policy, but they’re also bad politics. If an election is decided on the basis of which party is more excited and more sincere about redistribution, that benefits left-wing parties. That doesn’t mean that a (supposedly) right-wing party will never win an election. Indeed, Gordon Brown may very well lose to Cameron later this year. But that will simply be a case of the electorate rejecting an incumbent party for doing a terrible job. There will be no mandate for better policy. Indeed, it appears that Cameron wants to be like Obama – a big-spending politicians who takes over from another big-spending politician. In the long run, this is a recipe for the Tories to be a minority party. And if Republicans follow the same approach, they also will be a minority party.

One final comment. It should go without saying that right-leaning parties should always be figuring out better ways of selling the message of liberty, freedom, prosperity, and responsibility. And they should be finding the candidates who are best able to articulate that message in an optimistic, forward-looking way to average voters. But that’s not what Cameron represents. From what I can tell, he’s Richard Nixon with a smile.

P.S. Cameron also has surrendered to the left on the global warming/climate change issue, though maybe the absence of any rhetoric in this video is an indication that he realizes the tide has turned and there is nothing to be gained electorally by imposing that particular piece of awful policy.

P.P.S. And he has refused to say that he will undo Gordon Brown’s reckless decision to raise the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzj_EMwZ4Bc... anybody care to wager on the makeup budget for this video?

[snowychap]

Ashcroft finally admits to being a non-dom.

Lord Ashcroft, the multimillionaire deputy chairman of the Conservative party, today confirmed for the first time that he is a "non-dom" and does not pay tax on his earnings abroad in the UK.

His confirmation puts to rest a decade of speculation about his tax status and raises serious questions for the Conservative party, which has been part of cross-party moves to ban non-doms from parliament.

He made a statement on his website (pdf) in anticipation of the release under the Freedom of Information Act today of the promise he made to the government when he was made a peer in 2000 to "take up permanent residence in the UK again".

He said: "In subsequent dialogue with the government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation in the first undertaking of the words 'permanent residence' was to be that of 'a long term resident' of the UK. I agreed to this and finally took up my seat in the House of Lords in October 2000. Throughout the last 10 years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue.

"My precise tax status therefore is that of a 'non-dom'. Two of Labour's biggest donors - Lord Paul (recently made a privy counsellor by the prime minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also 'non-doms'."

The statement reveals that his promise was made to William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, raising questions about his responsibility to confirm in the past decade details of Ashcroft's tax status.

Hague has consistently refused to answer questions about Ashcroft. Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, accused the party of being "evasive and obfuscatory" on the issue when he ruled that the Cabinet Office should reveal the details of the promise Ashcroft was known to have made at the time of his ennoblement.

Ashcroft today confirmed that he will comply with cross-party moves to prevent people who do not pay full tax on all their earnings from sitting in either house of parliament and will relinquish his non-dom status.

...

Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, who has campaigned for a change in the law to prevent non-doms sitting in parliament, said: "Ashcroft has been sitting for the last 10 years in the British parliament, he has been voting on British laws and British public spending when he has not been paying full British tax like the other 60 million of us. That's a democratic disgrace. He has been pouring millions into conservative campaigning when he is not paying full British tax. So you have someone who keeps his assets offshore out of the British tax system and trying to buy a British election.

...more on link

[mjmooney]

I'm guessing a "RINO" is a Republican In Name Only?

That make Cameron a Conservative Undertaking New Tactics.

Correct. Such accusations are of course a consequence of the FPTP system's creation of coalitions before the election: Labour, the Tories, the Republicans, Democrats, etc. are all coalitions of various groups that to a certain extent would rather not be in coalition. IMO, the fact that coalition membership is declared before the votes are cast is an argument for FPTP over PR.

I agree.

There is - almost by definition - no single candidate who would represent my views exactly on all issues (unless I stood myself, of course).

[snowychap]

There is - almost by definition - no single candidate who would represent my views exactly on all issues (unless I stood myself, of course).

Same here but I still don't think I could vote for myself. I know too much about the candidate to trust him in office.

[mjmooney]

There is - almost by definition - no single candidate who would represent my views exactly on all issues (unless I stood myself, of course).

Same here but I still don't think I could vote for myself. I know too much about the candidate to trust him in office.

:nod: Anybody who wants to be a politician, is - de facto - unfit to be one.

[bickster]

I might be being daft but this non-dom thing, it seems a bit mad to me, they do pay taxes on earnings in this country don't they? Its just they don't pay UK tax on earnings in other countries? Isn't that the correct state of affairs, you get taxed in the country where the money is earned? Seems like thats the way it should be, or am I missing something?