I thought this looked quite nice.

Change needs to be Change

I would argue that the reason why the change message worked for Obama is that he worked very hard to assure people that he really would present a change. Ignoring for now the doubts many have about what he has and has not done, most people in 2008 believed that he was a chance to break with the flawed policies of W. That is one thing that got him elected.

Cameron, by contrast, sought for much of his time as leader to make the Conservatives for most purposes indistinguishable from Labour. The message of “Change” failed to stick because people found it lacked credibility – Cameron may have changed the Tories, but he changed them so as to provide less of an alternative to the Left. Little wonder, then, that anti-politics parties like the Lib Dems and the minor parties are capturing the change vote – they actually provide something different.

Of course, this does not mean that we should forget -

Change is not an end per se – it is a means to an end – nor is Change inherently good

The politician’s fallacy goes something like: “Something must be done. X is something. Therefore we must do X.”

This flawed logic leads to the incorrect conclusion that action is always better than inaction, that change is necessarily better than the status quo ante. Mr. Cameron seems worryingly close to seeking change as an end in itself, rather than saying why that change is needed.

Conservatism makes sense because we recognise that even the most intelligent of us cannot seek to approach the evolved collective wisdom of humanity. Our meddling may have effects beyond our comprehension – as the Democrats in the U.S. learned recently when dozens of companies that were supposed to benefit from Obamacare had to make massive writedowns to account for costs no-one predicted even days before – and therefore we should tread carefully. Things do need to change from time to time – but trying to achieve grand visions frequently leads to unforeseen and counter-productive consequences.

Mr. Cameron – Tell us that if it ain’t broke, you won’t try to fix it. Tell us that you’ve had enough with bureaucrats trying to deal with the picayune details of our lives. Tell us that you’re willing to see how things go, and only where the current system is intolerable (which in many areas, it is) will you make changes and then only the minimum intervention necessary.

When you’re backing a horse you know (or think you know) that it is more likely to have a favourable outcome than the alternative, but you take the risk that it won’t and you’ll lose what you put in. With Change, you’re taking a similar gamble, but in a world where even achieving your goal and ‘winning’ might lead to unexpected consequences. As Conservatives, we know that it’s not always worth that risk.

So, Mr. Cameron: go on TV on Thursday and tell us that you bring the change we need, not just change for its own sake and not just more of the same repackaged.

I put in CUCA. The result, via Coca-cola, Porridge and Barley, was “The Messiah”

The Conservative Party came out as “special”

Rather strangely, Brown comes out as Messina, which is in Sicily. I therefore conclude that Gordon Brown is a mafioso.

We can also find an important message about the direction in which the party has moved under Cameron: Tory becomes Left.

Let’s examine that claim.

1. On what planet is giving money back to the people and the productive sector taking money out of the economy? Even Keynesians accept that taxes take money out of the economy. If Labour really believe that fiscal stimulus can “save the world”, why aren’t they applauding this fine action to stop money leaking out of the economy? Economy comes from the Greek οἰκία, meaning house. The economy is simply every household in the country put together. Put another way, the economy is the people.

2. Moreover, National Insurance is at heart an appallingly inefficient tax on jobs. We have very high unemployment in this country, especially once you take into account all the fiddles used to massage the numbers. What Labour proposed was to make it more expensive to hire people and keep people employed. Tory policy will now save and create jobs. Each of those people who wouldn’t have a job under Labour has income, and pays income tax. Each consumes more, and pay VAT. It’s entirely possible that even the Exchequer will benefit from this.

So, what does this episode tell us about Labour?

a) They are arrogant statists who believe that the Government IS the economy. Labour’s massive expansion of the public sector has made them believe that there’s nothing else out there, or that it doesn’t matter. They are no longer New Labour, willing to tolerate economic freedom for the sake of prosperity. They are now hard left Socialists – they extol central planning, compel private companies to go along with the plan (see the banks) and view the free private sector as a non-entity.

b) They don’t trust people to make their own decisions. People make mistakes – that’s the nature of freedom – but the failures of liberty are eclipsed by the failures of government.

c) They think that people are fools, and will be taken in by a claim that makes no sense even under lefty economics

This is why I am Conservative: I believe that the route to prosperity for all who want to attain it is through a largely unencumbered private sector, with government only intervening where an additional cost to wider society exists. I believe that people spend their own money in a way that’s better for the economy than central planning. I believe in liberty. Labour does not.

There is just one Conservative MP in a Scottish constituency, out of 59. There are just three Conservative MPs out of the 40 MPs for Welsh constituencies.

Repealing the Union Act would significantly reduce Labour’s majority, significantly increase the forthcoming Conservative majority, and prevent Labour from governing England ever again. It would cause the centre-ground of politics to shift back to the Right.

Furthermore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more tax money spent on them than they pay in taxes. England would be better off not having to subsidise them. But Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may well end up better off themselves. For example, half of all the money spent in Scotland is spent by the State, and one in four Scots are employed by the State. Independence could be the spur Scotland needs to become vibrant and productive again. It would also create tax competition, which would be beneficial for all. If they wanted, the Scotch could position themselves as a low-tax, low-regulation country and out-compete England.

The Scotch, Welsh and Northern Irish could be given the choice of whether to keep the Queen as monarch. Scotland could keep what’s left of the North Sea oil.

The principle is localism — that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect. Devolution is localist, but current devolution has not gone far enough, and has created problems like Scottish MPs voting on matters that affect only England. This is wrong. Furthermore, at the moment, the Scottish Parliament can spend money without electoral consequence. True devolution must put tax raising powers in the hands of those who spend the money, in order to make them truly accountable. Taxes should be raised locally. True devolution must give them complete control of their budgets and taxes. It should even give them control of the laws of the area.

And for it to really be effective over the long-term, it must not be reversible. The Westminster Parliament must not merely devolve these powers to the nations. Future Parliaments would always be tempted to overrule national decision-making about various things until, gradually, all decision-making had returned to Westminster. We’d end up back where we started. For localism to work, Westminster must give up the powers completely and irrevocably. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England must become independent, and the Westminster Parliament should become the English Parliament.

That would be true localism, as if we meant it.

Independence for England would not make us weaker. How could it, when in the absence of the other nations’ draining the taxpayer, we could spend more on our armed forces?

Independence would make England stronger. It would also make Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland stronger. The Conservative Party should embrace it.

We are portrayed as a ‘lost generation’ of graduates, entering the market burdened with personal debt and without the employment prospects to match. The outcome of the next election will be crucial for us. It will determine whether we finally have a government willing to free the economy from the burdens of punitive tax and ill-planned regulation, so it can offer us the opportunities we need.

The Conservative Party is calling for immediate action to help graduates hit by the recession. ‘Job Clubs’ will provide human support for applicants where bureaucratic job centres are failing. Postgraduate education will receive all the funding government can afford. Tax breaks on new jobs and proposals to encourage loans to businesses through a temporary National Loans Guarantee Scheme should also be crucial in preventing further graduate unemployment. 

Ultimately, such proposals are constructive but limited by the state of the economy under Labour. With the next government facing a public debt of over £800bn, it is impossible for any party to realistically suggest it can bank-roll an expansion of public sector graduate jobs. The comprehensive and realistic plans for economic recovery proposed by the Conservative Party are the real solution to helping graduate prospects.

Our economy can be rebuilt and strengthened through greater fiscal responsibility in government, and greater international competitiveness. The debt burden that the Labour government has imposed on our economy is acting as a dead weight on recovery and expansion. The Confederation of British Industry, which represents a third of private sector businesses, has highlighted a balanced budget as a critical factor in achieving future growth and stability. With studies showing cuts of up to £96bn are possible through targeting waste, the Conservatives will remove the burden of debt from the economy while maintaining all necessary services.

In a fiercely competitive global economy, our graduate opportunities also rely on the creation of an attractive market for employers. The Conservative Party will overhaul our complex and expensive tax system, where so much is wasted on bureaucracy. In its place, straightforward and lower corporate taxes will restore Britain’s international competitiveness to ensure the best companies settle here. 

The employment opportunities we aspire to cannot flourish in an economy burdened by debt, regressive corporate tax and knee-jerk over-regulation. Nor can they be conjured up with short-term, expensive government schemes.Only a Conservative government will restore the stable and competitive economy that will bring real, productive jobs to Britain.

A very sensible decision by Mr Cameron – Duncan is insufferably smug and never fails to give the impression that he’s in politics for all the wrong reasons. He was recently rated at negative 65% in a ConservativeHome survey of Party members.

BBC Article

The classic (and simple) fairytale of electing a group leader was twisted and stretched somewhat by EM-S’s decision to put his own interests ahead of the interests of the Party and his constituents. In the original story, Michal Kamisnski would take the throne (namely the Vice-Presidency of the Parliament) and Timothy Kirkhope would battle Geoffrey van Orden for leadership of the ECR block.

However, the Tories’ old allies in the EPP-ED decided to punish the British Conservative Delegation by electing EM-S as Vice President, effectively denying the approved ECR candidate, Michal Kaminski the post. It’s a fairly ridiculous sort of group that plays such silly politics, and it’s a fairly ridiculous sort of “parliament” that facilitates nonsense like this.

Gallant as ever, Timothy Kirkhope stood aside as leader-designate of the ECR group and let Kaminski take the helm. Consequently, ECR is the first europarliamentary bloc with a leader elected from one of the accession states. Perhaps more importantly, he is a sound anglophile, eurosceptic and free marketeer. As Dan Hannan explains, “When Michal made his first speech as an MEP, he hymned the praises of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to the unfeigned horror of the EPP. He is, in short, the closest thing to a British Tory outside the Carlton Club.”

Although an apparent hero won the day, the villain still had his revenge. Although EM-S had the Tory whip removed (quite rightly), he’s a five-year season ticket for a first-class seat on the gravy train. Perhaps more selfishly, he’s given more fuel to critics of the Tory European policy [both inside and outside the party] and shattered Cameron’s fragile facade of EU-unity.

By behaving in such a reckless and self-centred manner, EM-S has served only to prove that the European Parliament is little more than an irrelevant talking shop, little more than a third-rate panto for dames, jokers and villains.

=> Link to Tim Montgomerie on why EMS should be expelled