Tuesday, February 28, 2006

 

modern, compassionate Conservative Party


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!


Comments:
Economic stability before tax cuts

This is a particularly stupid statement. Since when have High Taxes and economic stability gone together?

Apart from that, there is very little for a foaming Right Winger like myself to get upset about. They seem eminently sensible.
 
Got to agree with you Eu-Serf, not much to disagree with here since the ideas are so vague - obviously aside from 1 which clearly shows DC needs to go back to school to relearn basic economic theory. The idiocy of suggesting economic stability is more important than tax cuts while the British economy becomes less stable because of high taxes (at least in part) is staggering.
 
It will be passed by the membership - I think there's little doubt about that.

It will also provide more publicity for the Conservatives too.
 
Somthing i picked up on is that the BBC believes the main aims are "Public services will not necessarily be run by the state" to the The Times online that says "Public services must be guaranteed by the state." To me these are different objectives..
 
Thats a good point Rich - though I suspect the the later idea refers to funding, so the idea is the state can fund public services but not necessarily run them - like in much of Europe. A good compromise I think and something I can support at least in theory
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?