[The Tory] attitude to liberty does indicate, though, a refusal to understand the modern world. If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them

- Tony Blair

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

- Benjamin Franklin

Excellent article in this weeks The Spectator - quoted in sections below - on the victory of big government in Britain. Its quite a boot in the face, even suggesting the situation may be so bad that the victory may be ultimate.

New Labour has, then, entered its psephological promised land — where no party can win power on a platform of radical cutbacks in government. Worse, it has dragged the Tories with it. Rolling back the state, once the leitmotif of Conservatism, has become the mission that dare not speak its name.

[...]

Cameron’s present policy, drafted by the repentant Letwin, is that the Conservatives will ‘share the proceeds of growth’ between tax cuts and public spending — which, on close inspection, involves proposing no meaningful tax cuts at all. His view of the electoral landscape is similar to Blair’s. ‘I don’t suppose anyone gets up in the morning thinking, “I wish the state were smaller”,’ he declared during his leadership election — and, with those words, cemented the big-government consensus which Letwin shaped at the last election. Cameron has adopted Labour language, referring to health spending as ‘investment’ — in other words, a good thing of which there should be more. Like Brown, he plans only to moderate the growth of spending. Any talk of cutting spending has been banned, by high command.

[...]

Thatcher declared that New Labour was her greatest legacy and [Tony Blair] can step down knowing his victory has been just as profound: to have Cameron abandon the quest for small government and join him in pushing forward the frontiers of the state.

So if we accepted that the struggle for smaller government in Britain is truly lost, where does that leave us, and in particular the Tory party? Where do voters go to express support for smaller government when the major parties attempt to win elections by promising to outspend each other?

David Cameron has a tightrope to walk in this regard - how can he effectively balance the need for popularity and electoral support with the need to keep fundamental conservative policies on board?

So we have heard it from our leader. But what exactly does it mean?! Well tonight the BBC has received a document that tries to re-define what we stand for. Cameron is attempting to radically change what we believe in, called the "Built to Last" document.

He hopes to sell this over the next few months to both members and MP's to vote on. Some commentators are suggesting this is the Conservatives Clause 4 moment. This is probably a watershed moment in Conservative History - when was the last time we have ever tried to go back to the drawing board and re-shape our own thinking?!

Here are some of the major proposals:

1) Economic stability before tax cuts

2) Policies must help the least well-off, not the rich

3) Women's choices on work and home lives will be supported

4) Public services will not necessarily be run by the state

5) Party will fight for free and fair trade

6) Tories will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security

7) Government should support home ownership, saving, families and business

8) Government should be closer to the people

Know doubt this will be the hottest topic yet since David Cameron was elected. In some sense I see his logic: he has to really re-brand the Conservative Party to show to the people that we really have changed and that we are different to Labour.

Probably one point that might get changed is 4 (Public Services might not be run by the state) If he is speaking in reference to the NHS then I’m worried that we wont have really proved anything, in the sense that we have changed. However, a lot of these issues are logic and coherent. I'm sure more will be discussed in the next few weeks!

Today a major report from The Power Inquiry which suggests Democracy in British is at a ‘Meltdown’! If you are interested in the report it can be found at http://www.powerinquiry.org/ It simply states that that Political trust in politicians is in a secular decline citing the 2001 and 2005 General election poor turnout. Interesting to note a paradox here because while there has been increasing amount of party pressure trying to get people into politics over the past decade it has also demonstrated lower participation in elections. The problem that academics as well as politicians have is trying to figure out why and how best to improve it. However, the document also suggests major changes that will help solve this. (This is where it gets debatable!)

Major changes include:

1) Donations on political parties to be capped at £10,000
2) A "voter vouchers" system, where individuals indicate if they wish to allocate £3 of state funding to a particular party
3) Voters given the chance to put forward laws
4) The voting age, and the minimum age where people can stand for Parliament, to be reduced to 16
5) A 70%-elected House of Lords
6) Monthly logs to monitor ministerial contact with companies, lobbyists and pressure groups
Restrictions on the powers of party whips

I believe some of these changes are too radical (as a Conservative would always say) For example, the voting age has always been a contentious issue for me. I believe in the words of Oliver Heald, Shadow Constitutional Affairs secretary:

“Lowering the voting age would do nothing to address the underlying problems of political disillusionment, and would just lead to young people abstaining from an even earlier age”

I don’t think that people at the age of 16 really have a satisfactory understanding of the political climate that gives them the right to vote. Although, at the same time, there are a lot of older people that don’t have a clue. But in proportion 16 is to low an age to vote in an ever complex political system. Maybe you guy’s disagree – be nice to hear your comments!?! Those who argue they pay taxes and so they should get a vote only reinforces the argument for students to stay in education (to 18) so we can live in a more educated society.

Another point that isn’t stressed enough in the papers is that it (report) wants to allow 16 year olds to stand at election. I think this is stupid, from my perspective at the age of 21 I think that I’m not old enough to understand the real issues that effect people. We have been in education (a bubble) all our lives and we have no real experience in the world and we cant really relate our experiences to the problems Britain faces in the 21st Century.

I think its absured that party donations should be capped at £10,000. I believe that any one in a society should be allowed to give as much as they like – talk about civil liberties!!

Finally, I think this report should be taken on board with the Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force – Restoring trust in politics. http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=democracy.taskforce.page
But overall the report only shifts the problems and does not deal with the real problems that faces politics.

By the way this is the 100th post !!

I like conspiracy theories. I can't help it, there is something so enthralling about watching a documentary that attempts to totally change your opinions on everything in an hour or so.

Loose Change: 2nd Edition is one of those. It takes one of the most emotional subjects in living memory and provides a radical slant on the 9/11 'terrorist' attacks on the United States of America. The director of the hour and a half long film would probably have a heart attack out of shock if he found it being advertised on a conservative outlet of information however I believe it is a very interesting watch for anyone who has some spare time on their hands.

By no means do I feel that the 9/11 attacks were an elaborate hoax. However i believe that this documentary opens up some very interesting questions that on paper do not seem to have been answered. I hold very little respect for people like Michael Moor but I find it very hard not to not have some form of admiration for the research that Dylan Avery has carried out about such a emotive subject.

Whether its right we will never know and perhaps its better we don't. But I would advise everyone who watched 9/11 unfold and supported the policies that followed both in the US and UK to give it a go and at the very least you will notice that there are some big questions that need answering.

Here is the link...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

In a poll for the News of the World, ICM have rated Gordon Brown over Cameron as a 'better Prime Minister'. However, as we all know this is a poll for a paper that would report anything pro-Labour.

The sample appears somewhat slanted towards Labour supporters according to a post on PoliticalBetting.com

"Telephone polls like this one involve making randomised unsolicited telephone calls with only about one in six resulting in interviews. For whatever reason this approach almost always produces samples that are heavily pro-Labour. To counteract this in its General Election voting intention polls ICM has pioneered weighting findings on the basis of how people said they voted at the last election. This has not happened with this poll."

I'm not really worried about this, I think it's early days and when it comes down to policy, after the 18 months policy review, people will start to come back to the Conservative Party.

I'm not easily phased by threats. In fact if I was prime minister I would be torn apart by the media and public for underplaying them. I tend to live by the pretence that if its going to happen then there ain’t much you can do about it. However bird flu has concerned me more than normal.

I don't think its my general ignorance of it. But rather my understanding that no one is capable of informing me. I doubt I'm alone. Listening to talk sport last night (the best radio station for giving a broad representation of public opinion) I noticed the complete confusion over the issue. On Radio 5 live, Simon Mayo made the comment along the lines of "Despite talking to tons of experts, I don't recall one of them mentioning bird droppings as a way of spreading the flu".

With bird flu now present only a few miles off of our own shores, should we worry? Well sometimes I believe that ignorance is bliss, however I fear that there is a distinct lack of clarity and planning coming from both experts and the government. I'm not claiming that a conservative government would be any different rather I think its a problem that we will have to wait and see what happens and then make a judgement on the response rather than the preparations.

But it would be nice to have some information. Set up a website with general instructions of what to do if you find a dead bird for example. Apparently there is a phone number to report any findings, however on ringing talk sport just received an answer machine on a 24hr help line.

Ah well, I won't be heading for my bunker yet or reaching for my tin hat. But when and not if it is discovered within Britain I want to see firm and direct action. Further I do hope that the supposed contingency plan of killing all birds within a 3 mile radius will be rethought. Why? Well maybe its because they have wings and can fly! Its all a bit of a mess.

If anyone cares to take a few minutes out of there time and write three facts about bird flu without consulting any resources then I would be appreciative. Let me start:

1) It can be spread through bird droppings
2) Only certain birds carry it
3) It mutates very quickly hence making vaccination preparations very difficult

That was hard. Further the truth of those points might be totally wrong. But give it a go and I think you will find that we really do not know what the hell we are facing.

Chris Huhne, who only became an MP last year is now the bookies' favourite to win the Liberal Democrats Leadership contest. The odds have dropped from 80-1 before Christmas to 4-6. Menzies Campbell is 6-4 and Simon Hughs is trailing at 16-1.

He is MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire but only has a 568-vote majority, falling from a 3,058 majority in the 2001 general election and a 9,239 majority in the 1994 by-election when the tories lost the seat. This by-election occured because of the death of Stephen Milligan. This majority of 568 risks being wiped out by the tories in four years' time. This insisted that a vote for Huhne would be a huge gamble for the Lib Dems.

The Tories are already planning to pour massive resources into the constitiuency. This could result in Huhne spending the election campaign fighting to save his own seat instead of leading the party.

The Lib Dems contest will end on Thursday but you got to remember that the favourite doens't not always win. David Davis in the Try leadership and Paris in the 2012 Olympic bid were the favourites but didn't win. I still want Simon Hughes to win. Roll on Thursday.

Since Cameron became leader, Conservatives have not been short of cash. "so much so that Conservative fundraisers are no longer seeking individual donations of more than £50,000". After a spurt of large donations, the Conservative Party have decided to rely on smaller donations after being inundated with funds.

Jonathan Marland, Tory treasurer explained that "you don't want to feel that one person is owning the party." Despite some controversial policies, Cameron has encouraged some massive donations which has far exceeded that of the Labour Party.

Mr Marland commented that the first months of 2006 were set to look even brighter than the month straight after Cameron was elected.

In newsnight tonight a new journalist took to the stage and wanted (no sorry told by his editor) to become ethical. So what does this mean? There seems to be alot of debate on its definition as well as how to become one. For example, is it ethical to buy coffee beans from Kenya to support their economy or do you not buy them because oh the environmental cost of shipping them over? Another example, do u fly on holiday to Indonesia which was hit by the Tsunami in 2004 to support them or because it would cause environmental damage flying over you don’t bother going? But if you want to help against Climate Change do you as an individual think you can make any difference? Lets face it we need states (i.e. US, Third World, China) to make serious action. You need a collective agreement rather than individuals doing something. If you’re asking well if we all did it then it would be collective. Well in a way yes, but ideally it should be the individuals voting politicians in that have policies to deal with these issues. That argument was put forward in the programme so maybe its time the Conservatives (which i think they are) to get policies that are environmentally friendly. I've only spoken about climate change but there are other issues out there. So what do you think: How do you become ethical, or more to the point can u be ethical?! I have probably opened more questions than answers can u answer them?

The Office for National Statistics today released on paper a shocking statistic that 42% of children are now born outside of marriage. This is compared to 12% in 1980. Its important to note that many are now born within cohabiting couples but still the statistics do ask questions about the current state of society. Specifically the growth in a lack of respect for others.

Does marriage form the answer to anti-social behaviour? Well no, but still you cannot help but raise an eyebrow at these statistics.

Well it’s been a while since I posted a blog and what better than to assess our current leader. Although I don’t want to get into making bold statements I think we can all agree he has had a significant impact on our performance. The problem though is trying to examine if has had a positive or, what I hope not, negative impact. Of course I believe he has had a fundamentally positive impact on Conservative rejuvenation. This piece is more a critique of an article in the spectator, which Fraser Nelson posits 4 reasons why the Cameron honeymoon is over!

It all starts with the 6th of December (a day after my birthday) when our leader shone though both winning support from MPs and party activists. The following month saw what political commentators called the Cameron ‘honeymoon’. So what does this entail? Well firstly, as mentioned in an earlier blog we gain 16,000 new members and he comes in the top 100 of ermm… sexiest men (but I want to move away from that debate)! Fraser doesn't think that there is a crisis but he argues that the Tories have progressed less than supporters might have hoped. Firstly he argues there has been “modest” progress in opinion polls. He suggests that the Cameron factor has hardly had any effect out of Westminster. This may be the case with opinion polls at the moment shifting between Cons and Lab – with no one really knowing how to assess them. Leading in this debate is Sir Bob Worcester of MORI who suggests that there are too many “don’t knows” and it is premature to judge Cameron’s leadership. Although the opinion polls may be modest we have to take this in perspective, the General election was only in May last year and to suggest that the opposition could overturn what was some times a 7 point leader to labour was difficult in itself. To actually beat Labour (albeit modestly) demonstrates the true impact Cameron has had on our party.

Secondly, he suggests the major donors have “whispered” dissatisfaction. The issue here is really about Cameron’s slogan “Win for Britain, Change to win.” The problem with many of our right of centre members is that they want one thing but when it happens they get annoyed. Cameron made it very clear during his leadership election that if the Conservatives wanted to win they would have to change, and I’m afraid Thatchrites that means change a lot! The policies implemented during the Thatcher reign are no longer applicable to the modern 21st century Britain. I think that what Cameron is putting on the negotiating table is sensible and plausible for the Party image to change. If we are to be re-elected we need to show that we really are different from the past, and I think with no members on the Shadow Cabinet who were part of the Thatcher era this is a watershed moment in Conservative history (I thought I wasn’t going to make bold statements!)

Thirdly, he notes that the parties campaign machine is starting to look “inferior” (that’s right) to the Liberal Democrats!! I suppose he’s talking on the backdrop of the recent by-election victory in Scotland. This kind of statement suggests to me that because of one out of over six hundred and fifty seats (and not to mention in Scotland) our performance in the campaign field is poor. Well let’s re-examine the facts before the opinions are expressed, something which I’ve learnt at University. Historically, we have had little or no impact in Scotland and it seems that whatever we do both at the Westminster level and local level we can’t seem to have an influential impact. I personally put blame not on Cameron (which Fraser does) but rather the general trend in Conservative policy in Scotland. I think we do need to do more, just as the Welsh are doing, to try and make what many once (but never again) called ‘a Tory free Wales!’

The last claim he makes is about Right wing anxiety, which very much linked to the second point. Again, I can only stress the importance of change in the party. As a young conservative, someone who hasn’t really witnessed the effects first hand of Thatcher this may affect my judgement but I really do believe that although she will be a lasting legacy in the history of the party, we really do have to move on!! The problems Britain faced in the 1980’s are not the problems that face Britain today. There are more long term issues (such as environment and poverty) that are more pressing to British concerns. Yes we should always look to the Thatcher years as a moment that turned Britain from facing complete depression to a nation that could really compete on the international market. But, even though the economy is of course important, other issues supersede it.

The Cameron factor since December has really started to turn a chapter in the path to power since 1997. Those who argue the Cameron factor has failed are wrong on three accounts. Firstly, it’s too early to make judgments. Secondly, we have really yet to get to the debate about where we stand on certain issues like Europe, which I’m worried will haunt us for the near future. Finally, I think that it is very possible that we may lose the next election; Conservatives have to get out of the attitude of short term thinking. Why not look at the long term i.e. the election after next. If we do lose, which I think will be a close election, Cameron must stay on and we must stay united if we really do mean we have changed!

So what are your thoughts? I know a lot of you are right and left wing of the party? Put your arguments forward, maybe we can really get a debate going!

The motorists best friend is set to go into hiding in 2007. Yes the wonderful yellow icon of British roads is having a makeover. To what colour you ask? Well you should ask the highway authority. As of 2007, speed cameras are allowed to be re-sprayed so as to blend in with local surroundings. Am I wrong in thinking that this is totally ludicrous?

Speed cameras should act as a deterrent and at a last resort as a punishment. These new plans will mean that thousands of cars everyday will not only be concentrating off the road so as to identify the cameras but will be reaching for their breaks in an emergency stop manner so as to avoid them. Now I will be the first person to state that people should obey the speed limits however as all drivers will know when driving at 30 miles an hour it is all to easy to slip up to 35. Further even when obeying the speed limit there is a tendency to still look out and break when speed cameras approach. These new rules mean that the roads will became an even more dangerous place as drivers eyes will be diverted from the road which can only but be a huge mistake.

However credit where credit is due. At least now people are having some common sense and putting cameras up outside schools etc and not just in areas where people have been killed. However the disguising of cameras is a grave move and one that could bring some very ugly results.

Thanks to the fantastic Ian Dale blog I thought that I would draw attention to some quite amusing anagrams....

Liberal Democrats = A terrible old scam
Liberal Democrat Leadership Contest = Embattled radical or hopeless cretin?
Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten resigns = I'm bi, me! Got oral, rent lads sank career
Simon Henry Ward Hughes = Gay? Shhh! Row undermines
Tony Blair's election manifesto = More nasty lies. Notable fiction
Britain's Labour Party Leader' = Tony Blair (rated a superb liar)
Labour Party Conference' gives = Unenforceable Tory crap
The Conservative Leader David Cameron = Smart career advice involved Eton head
Conservative Party Chairman, Francis Maude = Voters cave in. I am a crafty and rich superman!

Congratulations are in order for David and Samantha Cameron on the Birth of their third child. We all wish them well.

He will take one week Paternity leave immediately and probably take another week soon afterwards. Because of this means that tomrrow Prime Minister's Question Time will have ex Tory leader William Hague standing in for David Cameron.

It's like going back to the years between 1997 and 2001. William Hague did a great job against Tony Blair back then.

So I recommend that you should watch PM Question Time live on BBC2 at 12pm tomorrow or watch it online at www.bbc.co.uk.

I'll just give my 2 cents on this whole fiasco:

I'm a reasonably observant Catholic (by European standards anyway). I go to church every week. I'm also a conservative politically and have great reverence for all religions. These cartoons published in Denmark depict the prophet Mohammed, even though depicting him is a grave disrespect to Islam. Its beyond me why someone would do it. If the UK was still devout Christian and say someone in Syria drew Jesus Christ dropping bombs from a US plane - even that would not come close to creating a comparison to describe the offense some people were caused by this. When your life is your religion, these things matter. The cartoons are offensive, and they're embarrasing to me.

But now, such as the world we live in, it is my duty to defend these cartoons. You do not have a right not to be offended. Here in the West, the protection of freedom is, as Lord Acton said, not the most important role of government - it is the role of government. Freedom is what we are. I can assure all the thugs and terrorists that burned embassies and threatened others with death over the weekend that we take this very seriously here.

You will not intimidate us. We are drawing the line in the sand right now. Protest if you must; but you must respect our values of liberal democracy wherever you are in the world, and if you plan to live in Europe, you must live by them. No compromise.

I've linked the cartoons on this blog via this post, and I urge a British newspaper to step forward and publish them. You do not have to condone the depiction of Mohammed. You do not even have to support the underlying political message coming through in the cartoons about Islamic terrorism.

You must publish them because you can.

Yes the website really is up and working this time! It's not done but the pics from the chrimbo dinner are up as is the contact and staff pages. Really need comments on this cos if you don't like it then we can change it!

So how free are the free press? As a reaction to Jyllands-Posten's cartoons page depicting the Prophet Mohammed, Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador in Copenhagen, Libya closed its embassy altogether and the newspapers offices were evacuated due to a bomb threat. Boycotts and death threats are also flooding in.

What on paper seemed like quite an amusing competition where the newspaper asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they imagined him has backfired in spectacular fashion.

Its wrong to see these latest spurts of unrest as a world wide Muslim phenomenon. Further it is wrong to see the reactions all within the extremist responses that newspapers have seized upon. Bravely and honourably the Jordanian al-Shihan newspaper reprinted three of the cartoons. It called for "Muslims of the world be reasonable,". Further it made the constructive and thought provoking statement that:

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" (BBC news)

I think what is going on at the moment is farcical. However I can understand why people would be offended by such cartoons one of which shows Muhammad's turban as a bomb with a lit fuse. Another depicts Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from heaven because "We have run out of virgins". The problem is that its one thing to voice ones criticisms over the cartoons, but its another to turn to violence and death threats.

If anyone is interested you can see the pictures at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg

However please do not look if you are likely to be offended.

Onto the question of the day! Should newspapers have exercised self-censorship or is there a defining right to freedom of expression?

Cameron was yesterday named as the 92nd sexiest man on the planet. The only politician to receive such an honour beating off rivals such as Ashley Cole, Will Young and James Blunt to secure his place within the 90's.

New Woman magazine editor Helen Johnston stated that....

"To be ultra sexy men have got to have a fair helping of everything - good looks, a successful career, money, power, charm and bucket loads of charisma,".

So how long until Cameron decides that being a politician is not enough and becomes a pop singer or film star?

By a single vote the religious hatred bill was defeated in the House of Commons yesterday. (see how MPs voted) Realising Blair himself was absent, as well as at least 16 Scottish MPs being allowed to stay away by the Chief Whip to campaign in the Dumferline and Fife West by-election, its clear just what a cock-up this was for the government.

Through the government's incompetence, this intolerant, illiberal and unBritish piece of legislation may now hopefully be left in the dustbin of history. But perhaps more interestingly - will this defeat also spell a crushing blow for the prime ministers reforms in other areas, namely education?

After a defeat on anti-terror measures and now on this bill, rebellion brewing against ID Cards, a cabinet in chaos over the smoking ban, and a deputy PM openly disagreeing with Blair on education reform - what can now be left for Tony Blair? Will it end up being curtains for him sooner rather than later?