Osborne sets out Tory agenda

(By the way, although he's back, after last week's confusion about who was running the show in the PM's absence, Lord Mandelson says he is not really in charge, but allowing Mr Brown to take a break!)

I can see how that would lay the confusion issue to rest.

Government by twitter next? Like that worked out well last week. Ask Newsnight and/or dot.life.

I am not sure how Mandelson can claim that nobody will be fooled, the very fact that people bought into the whole New Labour project for over a decade is proof enough that some people really will believe anything that they are told!

Personally I am not sure that the Conservatives will be seen as the Progressive party but I don't think they need to work too hard to come across as more progressive then New Labour. New Labour were swept into power with a massive majority, if they were genuinely progressive they could have made sweeping changes, they weren't and they didn't.

Unfortunately until the Tories are elected it can't be proved either way and by then it will be too late to back out.

The tories should just come out & say where the cuts will be.

we all know its got to happen, regardless of who wins the next election, labours constant denial of this simply reinforces their reputation for spin & dishonesty.

At least if we knew who was going to be cutting what we could make an informed choice about which party we'd prefer for the next term. As it is we have the tories admitting they will make cuts (but not where & how much) labour trying to spin a way of promising no cuts (while still delivering them) and the lib dems who seem to be keeping quiet on the whole issue.

How is the voter supposed to make an informed choice based on that?

Laura

The disingenuousness of all the political parties about "cuts" is pathetic. Anyone with any understanding of the real world [and that probably excludes most politicians] knows that "cuts" or "efficiency savings", or whatever alternative euphemism is employed, means job losses - the lions share of public spending is made up of salaries and wages. You can't reduce spending without reducing jobs!

As the report you link points out:-

"Over the past decade, the public sector has been one of the key drivers of growth in the UK. Over two thirds of the 1.2 million net additional jobs created in UK cities between 1998 and 2007 were in public administration, education and health."

Any significant cut in public spending will therefore have a substantial impact on employment. The question is which party will better manage this painful process. Much as it pains me to say this, there is little evidence that the current government even understands the issues, let alone the implications.

"Research published last month suggested that more than quarter of a million jobs could go from the public sector over the next few years. Gloomy predictions in that report paint a bleak picture for some towns and cities where prosperity in the last few years has been based on growth in public sector jobs."

Who thought it was a good idea, and sustainable, to increase a towns prosperity by creating large numbers of public sector jobs? Obviously they were mostly created in Labour heartlands that couldn't attract good quality private sector employers but what a waste of money.
"No more boom and bust" is a fitting epitaph for the this government that has spent and wasted more money than is imaginable!

at this stage of the parliament it is not up to the opposition to play its hand...that is exactly what the mandelson led government would like..remember oppositions do not win elections, it is governments that lose them..

I love the constant sniping at Conservative thinking. Considering the terrible mess Labour have wrought, anything but anything will be better. As for the sun tanned Mandleson, directly or indirectly, his significant wealth and comfort comes from our taxes, rather than any productive contribution by he or Labour.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

6. At 2:31pm on 11 Aug 2009, jolo13 wrote:
at this stage of the parliament it is not up to the opposition to play its hand...that is exactly what the mandelson led government would like..remember oppositions do not win elections, it is governments that lose them..

--------------------

But surely by announcing their policies, particularly their public spending policies they could differentiate themselves from the labour party, something they have so far failed to do.

Also as an earlier poster wrote, it will enable voters to make an informed decision, this refusal on both sides to clarify their intended government policies for fear of being undermined leaves the voter completely in the dark.

to my mind that significantly devalues the whole democratic process, leaving voters choosing the next government by name rather than policies.

'Vote for us because we're not labour' may be an effective battle cry, but its hardly the sign of a healthy democracy.

Laura

Oh, the irony of an unelected minister telling us that "voters" won't be fooled.

House of Lords reform anyone?

"badgercourage wrote: You can't reduce spending without reducing jobs!"

That is probably true, and hopefully the only jobs lost are the so-called "non-jobs" that the media love to tell us about.

However, I expect large savings could be made by looking into how government departments purchase items (i.e do they use single suppliers who take "off the shelf" products and sell them on with a mark-up?) and also savings could be made when it comes to awarding government IT contracts. If I was having my car fixed I wouldn't go back to a garage which had previously ripped me off and had my car on the ramp for weeks at a time - but the government seem determined to award new IT contracts to firms who failed to bring previous contracts in on-time and on-budget!

So mandleson said he was just looking after the place while sir Gordon was on Holiday and that the Tory's still haven't shed any light on there policies yet Every sane person in the uk knows that to deliver a sound economic policy there has two be some very severe cuts to bring back some form of normality into the proper running of the country,I/e cutting back on some of those manager posts that were introduced to ensure targets were adhered too at all cost and were not needed in the first instant.Let alone all the other problems nulabour have inflicted on every man woman and child for a few years to come.

ref.4
You are right to say that much of the public sector expenditure goes into salaries etc.
The problem is though there are far too many "management consultants" operating in Central Government within unnecessary quangos,focussed groups and the Civil Services.
Shut down all the quangos and force all staff working in the Civil and Public Services(and the BBC)to work on a staff(PAYE) rather than a consultancy contracts would save ten of million of pounds in Government costs.

By the way of nothing to do we the above,I was watching a recorded film and before it started there was a tv commercial on behalf of the NHS.This commercial 30 secs was about the eu health card and reminding people they could get one free.Whilst this is sensible surely travel advice is better handled by the travel industry and not from taxation . I wonder how many other pet projects exist, my CEO always said the more people the more they spend on unnecessary things.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Mandelson's claim that "no voters will be fooled" is supreme irony.


3. U14049534
"At least if we knew who was going to be cutting what we could make an informed choice about which party we'd prefer for the next term."

The government will postpone many inevitable truths until after the election. If the Tories reveal the full extent of their plans it will be a political gift to Labour. You may buy into the truth but there are plenty who are still taken in my smoke and mirrors.

250,000 Public Sector jobs to go? well that will still leave us with 500,000 more public employees (net) than we had in 1997.
There is massive overstaffing in Local Government, Universities and at junior management and administrative level level in the NHS and there are more MOD civilians than Armed Service Personnel. There are too many Quangos and Watchdogs...........need I go on?

Unsustainable, only the Tories would dare to confront the Unions, General Election NOW please, let Cameron begin.

When I hear the word 'progressive', it sets alarm bells ringing. What is urgently needed now is for the damage inflicted by 12 years of Labour to be undone, and normal service to be resumed as soon as possible.

The last thing we need is New Conservatism, carrying on where New Labour left off. Labour has tried to micromanage every aspect of our lives with its bureaucratic culture of endless form filling, box-ticking, risk-assessing and target setting nonsense. We need to get away from all that. And ditch the 'trendy think tanks'.

We don't want to replace the Nanny State with a different Nanny. Yet we hear that the Tories want to make it more difficult for people to get divorced, want to give MORE powers to local authorities, and are thinking of handing over our confidential medical records to Google!

Perhaps David Cameron wants to mould himself on Blair (not Brown, obviously) - but this would be a big mistake. Blair and his failed policies are now held in utter contempt. We need LESS government, not more! Local authorities should be stripped of almost all their powers so that they can concentrate on the important work of collecting our rubbish (weekly!)

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) must be repealed, ID cards finally scrapped, HIPs cancelled and local Keystone Cops should be replaced by 'real' Police Officers.

The Tories need to put these things right, and stop worrying about how to be 'new'.

I actually think the opposition is making the correct point here. All Meddlesome can do is laugh because he knows he can't give a decent answer as long as Brownstuff is still in charge. Brownstuff has been pumping money into public services for the last 12 years without making the required reforms so he can't now say that he will be better at it than the Tories. If he did they can just throw back at him that he is reforming the inefficient public services that he himself created and did nothing about.

Let me vote now!!!

I find it very interesting that the Tories are now trying to be the party of tax and spend, against Labour as the party of cuts.
Talk about silly season

George Osborne may well be right - the Conservatives (by way of the Cameroons not the rest of the party) may be more progressive than Labour.

Labour have been in power for too long, and in my mind, on false pretences (Conservatives beware). They're also desperate to cling on to something - power maybe but I'd have thought just a decent number of seats.

They must also worry about some of the things they've done over the last twelve years. Unlike the US, we have an independent judiciary and the new DPP seems to have a mind of his own.

However, I get the impression that there's an awful lot of ideas coming from the Conservatives but nothing really very solid.

Also, just an observation, surely allowing people to set-up their own non-profit making schools is all well and good, but if the passing-exam orientated curriculum is still the same, will it make an awful lot of difference?

I get the impression that schools have been turned into crammers in order to achieve the results, they no longer educate, just fill the heads of young people with SATS, GCSEs, etc, etc.

One final observation, the Liberal Democrats must have really gone badly wrong. On the face of it, they are the most progressive yet they come in a feeble third place. Is it because their less corporate-friendly policies?

The Liberals did much better as the SDP, in fact, prior to the Falklands War they were leading the polls and predicted to topple Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps then it's the name.... we Brits are just illiberal.

#13

"The problem is though there are far too many "management consultants"

Too true, as I can attest from personal experience.

However, this is a symptom of the problem not the cause. It's the law of unintended consequences at work, I'm afraid.

Spending on consultants doesn't count as "staff" in Government-speak and part of the proliferation of their use results from ceilings on headcount imposed by ministers and senior management: if you don't have the staff to do the work, especially experienced ones (often because you've let people retire to cut headcount), then you HAVE to use expensive consultants to deliver the Ministers's arbitrary targets!

One NDPB (aka Quango) I worked for many years ago had a staff complement set at just over 100 because someone had told the Department that was the number we needed before we were set up. Trouble was they gave us more work than was planned so we had to pay consultants 2-3 times the salary of direct employees to do the work as we weren't allowed to take on more staff.

Just one example...I could give many more.

Don't envey david camerons task in hand, if and when the torys win the general election ,The man needs a medal in the first instant in taking on so many problems on the toss of a one sided coin, as the lib dems will still chasing shaddows.And any thing else ie raving loony or other wise for that matter.Bring on the election now enough is enough.

I personally do not think that the conservatives shouldn't reveal their policys untill a date has been set for an election as Labour usually steal their ideas. I agree with privatising some schools and think the same should be done for certain hospitals aswell, there is too much policial interfearance. And as for Lord Mandleson? We are not as stupid as we look, it is so obivous he is holding the strings especally Browns, do you really think Brown would still be here if meddleson wasn't there?

"beardedshrimper wrote:
I find it very interesting that the Tories are now trying to be the party of tax and spend, against Labour as the party of cuts.
Talk about silly season"

My impression was that the Tories are suggesting they might need to raise taxes (and that would be just to balance the budget not for new spending!) and are going to attempt to cut public spending with minimal effect to front line services.

However, Labour have never given any indication that they are going to make cuts they just talk about 0% increases in spending.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

so the "Big Idea" from the Tories is getting more for less by cutting government waste! ... well that certainly gets my vote ... I float no more

Not difficult to look progressive against Mandy-Brown is it! So for 'modernisation' of public services now read 'reform' - when are we going to get improvementisation? New Labour have done the modern Tory Party a great service - making them look almost social democratic.

Why should Osborne explain anything - the party in power - the Labour Government won't even tell us who is in charge of the country whilst the 'boss' is away let alone where their cuts are going to be.
Little wonder Labour won't talk about their spending plans, not too many interviewers seem to be asking them.
Wonder why....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#29 jensencv8

"the Labour Government won't even tell us who is in charge of the country whilst the 'boss' is away"

If extra-terrestrials landed in a space ship and said "take me to your leader", we would have to tell them to come back in a couple of weeks....

"extremesense wrote:

One final observation, the Liberal Democrats must have really gone badly wrong. On the face of it, they are the most progressive yet they come in a feeble third place. Is it because their less corporate-friendly policies?"

One problem I have had in the past with the Lib Dems is that I have never really knew where they stood, they seem to change their stance based on location and which party leads locally.

This is coupled with the fact that their policies never seemed to be properly thought out or explained, as an example before the last election I once asked one of the door knockers about the Lib Dems policies (local income tax) and they seemed to have no idea that it was even a policy let alone anything about how it would work!

The Lib Dems need to decide nationally what they want to be and focus on how to become that. If they set out their election campaign as a pitch to become the official opposition (which is certainly a possability) I think that people will start to take them much more seriously.

NEWS FLASH Sagas joined the Tory's ,And put on the coveted blue rosette,No more hovering in the wings just down to earth common sense,Ole i vote for that.

Is Mr Cameron aware of the Lean Machine which has been let loose on Front Line public services since Brown's spending reviews in 2003/4? Or is he referring to wholesale contracting out of public services to the lowest bidder, an old Tory favourite?

Why should Osborne explain in detail any financial plans, when the Treasury has refused to provide a 3-year spending plan beyond 2010/11?
And when the state of the UK finances is changing weekly?

Mandelson smirks and calls it "laughable" for Osborne to talk about real reform of the public services. Yet that was a key plank of the Mandelson inspired, Blair-led, New Labour administration.

Blair talked about reforms (but didn't bother about detail. Odd for a lawyer!). Brown thought that higher spend equated to "improvements".

It's time that Ministers called in their top civil servants - and the heads of every QANGO - and told them to start a 5 year rolling programme to reduce costs by 5 percent year-on-year. If they didn't deliver, they should be sacked. And also capped the salary of any new employee across local or central government to that of their predecessor plus (maybe) the inflation rate so beloved of Ministers.

We have seen so much waste on rediculous IT projects, constant "re-organisations" of the NHS (amongst others), etc.

There are masses of "special advisors" who seem incapable of saying the most simple thing:

"Minister - or PM - we are spending too much of other people's money and, surprisingly, they can't afford it".

So far, the ministerial response seems to have been; "Don't worry, these people will have children, so they can pay"!!!

here is a suggestion for Free on how to save money

Abolish the Family Courts
Abolish CAFCASS and the Social Services

Bring in shared parenting as a right for the children.

Stop Solicitors wasting taxpayers money on family breakdown child access
cases.


This would save quite a lot of money over a year that would be better spent on the NHS etc

#29 jensencv8

I'm baffled by your comment and don't understand your rationale.

Surely any political party wishing to attract voters should say what they stand for/are going to do.... of course that includes the government as well as the Conservatives, LibDems, etc, etc.

Oh what a wonderful man George Osborne is. Despite the finances being in the worst state ever apparently it can be fixed with efficiency savings and doing the same thing with less money, so no hard choices after all then.
Very much in the way the current bunch who won't or can't tell us how this miracle of investment is to be performed and rightly got called on it by errrr DC and GO.

So now both main parties appears to be offering - no cuts in services despite the hole in the finances. Efficiency savings and service reforms will allow this but neither seems prepared to tell us precisely how or what can be done to save these huge sums of money.

Seems appropriate he would give this speech at Demos the home of New Labour - it's the same tripe they have served up for last decade so they should enjoy the message, will he be wearing a pink shirt to deliver I wonder.

if nobody is in charge then, can I be in charge for the rest his holiday

first thing would be call an election, then tell brownstuff to stay on holiday

#32 Mark_WE

Yes, I see what you mean - they don't come across to me as a national party.

They come across as a collection of independents who have views, as you suggest, that begin start at left of centre but keep going depending on the area.

As for communication, I think they need to follow in the footsteps of the other parties and employ someone with a solid press or PR background to pull things together.

At the moment, I don't really hear Nick Clegg even though I want to and Vince Cable, whom I have a great deal of respect for, seems to be treated by the press as an economics expert rather than a politician. Chris Huhne's the same although he's obviously the torture/rendition/war specialist.

All very 'independent' and confusing.

"quarter of a million jobs could go from the public sector over the next few years"

And the rest...

We'd need to shut down the entire public sector, whilst maintaining taxation at present levels, for two whole years to rid the country of Brown's mad banking bonanza. The public sector doesn't know what's going to hit it. By all means, spread that out over twenty years & you'd still have to expect a 20-year-long 10% expenditure cut for the entire public sector, in order to pay it all back - for private businesspeople, a Tory vote winner. Else, the Tories will be taking gross taxation up to 60%, for that same two decades. That would be a rather non-Tory policy & would discourage their vote. Conservatives have no choice but to absolutely hammer the Labour stealth tax & misspend robbery, back into the corner.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If progressive conservatism is not an oxymoron, then nothing is.

Of course, Labour lost their claim to progressivism a long time ago, but I see nothing in Conservative policy that would be seen as progressive. I agree with what one of the Lib Dems said, namely that, "A progressive party would not cut taxes for multi-millionaires, stand in the way of reforming Parliament or side with bigots, homophobes and climate change deniers in Europe."

I should also add that a progressive party would not cut taxes for married couples, so long as "married couple" fits the Tory ideal of a 1950s nuclear family, with one at work and the other at home, and heterosexual (gay people can't get married but civil partnerships currently provide them will all the same rights as marriage), and with children. Apparently Cameron has trouble understanding scientific research. The research showed that couples who are happy/stable are more likely to get married and therefore bring up happy/stable children. Cameron decided this meant that married couples are more happy/stable than non-married couples, and therefore tax breaks should encourage couples to get married for the sake of their children. Unfortunately, because he does not realise that they get married BECAUSE they are happy/stable, these tax breaks would just encourage non-stable couples to get married, and encourage any couples who may have divorced for the sake of their children to stay married. This would be the opposite of the intended policy, never mind the unfairness in only giving such tax breaks to straight, one parent working families, and no other married couples.

Also, Osborne is right that a progressive party would cut spending, but not right this minute as he wants to, but after the recession is over. He would have 1937 all over again, as back then in the US, the fiscal conservatives convinced FDR to slow his New Deal as the US looked like it was about to come out of Depression, and so balance the budget by cutting spending. Of course, this plunged the US back into Depression, not to recover until spending was required for the war effort.

And a sane party would not promise to cut the deficit while at the same time making all these promises of tax cuts (another not mentioned is they want to cut corporation tax).

So yeah, how again are the Tories progressive?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well, at least the political debate is at last moving in the right direction.

How on earth a we going to fund the public sector with a GBP 175 billion income shortfall?

I have no idea how this is to be done and neither does anyone else but at least the conversation has started.

In the meantime we are hearing that local authorities are in trouble due to collapsing incomes. This just serves to illustrate how parasitical some of these institutions have become that they are unable to sustain a short period of austerity despite massive increases in Council Tax.

We are also hearing `initiatives' that perhaps the free travel for pensioners should be means tested. This is utter twaddle as we can't afford to employ the bureaucrats to means test them in the first place.

I do hope Osborne has got the message that since it was the overpaid and the bonussed that caused this mess then it is they who have to pay the price and not Joe Soap. I am certainly going to resist any cuts to anything that benefits the common folk for the simple reason that without the little people stepping up to the plate when the banks crashed there would now be nothing for nobody in this great country of ours.

#36
"This would save quite a lot of money over a year that would be better spent on the NHS etc"

No money would be better spent on that gargantuan, inefficient, waste of space called the NHS! How about we look after ourselves, for once, instead of expecting someone else to do it for us, & actually come to terms with our own mortality?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It was only last week that the MOD was revealed as overspending at 40% on projects that are budgeted for.
If this is replicated across all government departments then just by achieving a project delivered on budget would make huge savings.

ah the neu-labour policy but with an upper class accent.

The interview on Leading questions by Robert Preston gave a true insight into the state of the country.

Admittance by a former leading civil servant that his generation have had it all. Rising house prices index linked final salary pensions early retirement and the wealth that the younger generations will now have to pay for.

Understandably he did wonder how long these younger taxpayers would put up with it.

We are now in a predicament where the older generation have plundered the country while the next in line will not only have to pay for it but will find it not only difficult but impossible to benefit in the same way.

There will have to be cuts and more cuts in public services and higher taxes to boot. Feel sorry for those leaving university with debts who may never earn enough to repay them for many years.

Mandelson should stay quiet for it is his legacy and that of the present government that has allowed this to happen

#46 ok after the NHS has been reformed with a defined set of priorities
and goals in line with your think or it could be given back in tax cuts,
to spend on useful things or something that is productive and useful

all of which are not what the family courts are about

#52
Tax cuts are the only way. No NHS reform, just scrappage, since it's one of the biggest expenses. People have to learn to look after themselves. I didn't originally link the NHS to family courts.

24. At 4:07pm on 11 Aug 2009, LittleMissQueenie wrote:
I personally do not think that the conservatives shouldn't reveal their policys untill a date has been set for an election as Labour usually steal their ideas
===========================================

Why not,I don't care who's ideas they are if they are good ones, if Labour pinch the idea then they agree, so debate can move on to other areas which need attention.
I am sure the Tories will not mind who implements their ideas so long as they get credited and they benefit the nation - it would be churlish to allow a government to waste millions more between now and the next election just so they can have the credit later.

The old "more efficient" cunning plan, well George does sound like Baldrick. Seem to remember all that years ago when we were told we needed to use more people from business as they were more efficient (the banks have taught us how efficient they were), how local health management would provide what local people needed, of course now that idea is called the post code lottery. By the way has Cameron allowed Osbourne to speak, ah! maybe it his turn to stand in as the countries opposition leader!

#18 Distant Traveller
"The Tories ... are thinking of handing over our confidential medical records to Google!"
You haven't been paying attention. The Tories are thinking of handing your confidential medical records to YOU! Seems like a very good thing to me. You will then be able to store them securely online with your choice from a number of providers. Medical records are indeed sensitive but so are bank details and most people feel comfortable using those online.
Google and Microsoft both already have products which are in use in Canada and the USA for online medical records, so this is not an "off-the-wall" idea. Given that HMRC managed to lose the identity data of half the population last year, what makes you think your data is any safer in the public sector?

Hey Mr Osbourne don't let two many secrets out of the bag or you will send the nulabour sleuths down to the war museum to borrow the enigma machine to crack the Tory code as to their intending steps two the recovery of a nation, even then a few more might join sagas extraordinary transition to common sense approach to the enormous challenge
the tory party faces

Saving money through reform. The best way to get nothing done but pretend you do. Bureaucracies take years to implement the slightest change. Most bureaucrats will insist that it costs a lot to save money. Kind of like forecasting a Barbeque Summer.....only it might rain.

sagamix 48

Just to drag you back into the regime of the factual, Ancram is rapidly approaching state retiremint age and has heart disease. If you had bothered to read the news story associated with Laura's other post (the one we don't appear to be able to comment on at the moment, that is) then you would know that - you would also know that swimming pool boilers and made-up "scandals" about David Cameron's mortgage have nothing to do with his decision to retire. I think you will find that increasing his life expectancy by reducing his work load is Ancram's main motivation.

"It is the Conservatives, as the progressive force in British politics now, who are thinking seriously about how you change the way you deliver public services so that they can improve the quality of service delivery even in a period of budget restraint."

Ha ha haj! Good joke George!

Yes dear George, we know what you are talking about. You are talking about having to wait for about 2 years for a by-pass operation or a 3 year wait for an eye operation. Or maybe having to burry our elderly after they had been found frozen to death because of the misery that reined in the country during the 1990 to 1995 recession. That's quality delivery for you.

Keep the dummy in your mouth and stop throwing your toys out of the pram.

JR @ 59

well it is a scandal (the Cam mort, I mean) it's just the man in the street hasn't fully cottoned on to it yet - that may change, however, once I've been up and down the country ... every town, every village ... with a pile of leaflets, a little wooden box and a megaphone

#56 FellowCuckoo

"You haven't been paying attention. The Tories are thinking of handing your confidential medical records to YOU! Seems like a very good thing to me. You will then be able to store them securely online with your choice from a number of providers"

Sounds like a recipe for total disaster to me, everyone choosing separate places where they want their records stored! And if some of the earlier reports are correct, people can also annotate their own notes - which I am sure will give some patients hours and hours of fun!

I suspect this ill-thought out gimmick was dreamt up by inexperienced members of a think-tank with a brief to appeal to illiterate yoof-voters, who rely on Google for all their knowledge.

David Cameron should put a stop this nonsense and get himself some grown-up advisors!

60 Onlywayup

"wait 2 years for a by-pass"
"3 year wait for an eye operation"
"bury our elderly after they had been found frozen to death"

Pure, unadulterated, fiction. Please keep your propaganda to something at least approximating to historical fact.

sagamix 61

You seem to forget, we discussed your Cameron mortgage story before. Basically, it consists of nothing more than that Cameron is fairly well off yet he claimed MPs' expenses. That is the beginning, middle and end of it.

MPs' expenses are not means tested - maybe they should be, maybe not, but you've never bothered to discuss that point, because it distracts from the propaganda point that you are trying to make. Also, I can name several people on the Labour front bench who fit the exact self same mould - also rich, also claimed MPs' expenses (for mortgages, indeed) - but you never seem to want to talk about them either. Because it distracts from the propaganda point you are trying to make.

Accordingly, no matter how wound up you can get yourself about this story, fundamentaly it is, at its very best, highly selective propaganda.

I remember well seeing interviews with Gordon Brown when he was shadow chacellor and when asked what labour spending plans were he answered " we shall keep to the Tories plans for the next two years". That is all any interviewer could get out of him. He omitted to say that he had a huge package of stealth taxes lined up for us.

My comments in the preceding blog about changes to Council Tax, equally apply to this discussion.
I have commented before, regarding the NHS, that we desparatly need to pare down the many tiers of management that are whittling away monies paid into National Health coffers.
Some years ago, I was treated by a Consultant. That hard-working person wanted to prescribe a very expensive drug for me but was not allowed to as there was no money left in the budget for 2/3 months. That poor individual was almost in tears whilst explaining that it was a managerial decision to stop expenditure, as opposed to the clinical decision to try to affect a cure.

So is this speech really just a cry to the Labour Government to actually tell us how it envisions getting the country out of the deep debt whole that it has dug?

A kind of put up or shut up

Time to compare is it? No problem!

APRIL 1994
PATIENTS on waiting lists for heart by-pass operations should be treated within a year under new targets set out in the patient's charter, it was disclosed yesterday by Virginia Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Health.
The extension of the patient's charter to include new targets for by-pass operations follows continued criticism that heart patients have been dying on the waiting list, but it fell short of a guarantee.
Mrs Bottomley said it was hoped to extend the target to a guarantee at a later stage. The charter would be extended to include a national target for the length of time all patients had to wait for their first outpatient appointments at hospitals from April 1995.
She announced the changes at a hurriedly arranged press conference in London to pre-empt an attack by Labour as part of its local election campaign on the alleged false claims about the reductions in the waiting lists.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The actual waiting lists were 2 years, and in certain instances even longer. Look at what Bottomley said, EXTEND THE TARGET, NEW TARGETS,
oops, there goes the word TARGETS again. No targets, no progress.

Yes, Mr. Cameron (a multi millionaire, including his lovely wife), should explain whether he claimed from our taxes because it was morally correct or whether because the "rules" allowed him to suck from the public purse! We all wait in earnest!

Superbly written blog at #43. Only in some form of parallel universe are the Tories the progressive party of British politics. Osborne is a fool.

63 jrperry
Dont know about the by-pass, eye opp or hypothermic elderly, but will you agree that at least 400 deaths occurred at a Staffordshire hospital in part so govt targets could be achieved.

The Healthcare Commission said there were up to 1200 more deaths than expected over a 3 year period.

Onlywayup 68

The first part of your post is an unattributed quotation from some source or other, accuracy far from guaranteed, combined with your own highly partial interpretation of individual words. Face the facts - even Nick himself conceded that through the last Conservative government, expenditure and resources devoted to the NHS increased faster than inflation. You are trying to spread a Labour fantasy vision of a country in which the National Health Service was only invented in 1997. It is just propaganda. There was indeed a thoroughly competent health service throughout the Conservative government. I know this - I was there, I used it, my family used it.

As far as your Cameron expenses remark is concerned, sure, but let's hear about Sean Woodward too - even richer than Cameron, said to be the only MP with a butler. He also claimed for his mortgage. Why don't you want to talk about him? Ah yes, because he is on the Labour front bench, which spoils your theme.

xTunbridge 70

You said:

"Dont know about the by-pass, eye opp or hypothermic elderly, but will you agree that at least 400 deaths occurred at a Staffordshire hospital in part so govt targets could be achieved. The Healthcare Commission said there were up to 1200 more deaths than expected over a 3 year period"

Quite so. But I think there are one or two Labour spinners on the board today who will try to tell you it actually didn't happen, or there was some kind of a timewarp and in fact there were Tories in charge at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if someone posted to say the whole event can be ignored because Staffordshire isn't in the UK. Propaganda seems to be the theme this evening.

let us not think for one moment that the Eton Tories are the progressive party...they are the party of selfish privilege and they will never change their spots...Have you yet heard a specific policy that they will put into action..they huff and puff about cuts and how they are the only honest party ..come on we have all heard that rubbish before...what in fact they are talking about is a massive cut in staffing levels in health,education and local authorities..to get the financial cuts there will be no other way than to increase the unemployment pool..let them be honest about that.. Myself I will stick with Labour who have done a great job in moving us along within a global crisis and I trust Gordon brown a whole lot more than Cameron

hey, a bit of discussion on the Cameron mortgage! - about time too - JR says he only did what some rich Lab MPs did (and I accept that) but ... and it's a big but ... those Lab MPs

(1) are not putting themselves forward as our next PM
(2) didn't then come out on a White Charger pretending to be "livid" about the abuse

and so the charge is:

(1) inappropriate behaviour for the Leader of HMO
(2) rank hyprocrisy

leading to quite an important question:

DC ... Unfit For Office ??

sagamix 74

First of all, you have to explain why Cameron claiming legitimate mortgage costs on a legitimate second property constitutes an "abuse". Because if you can't, then your story falls flat on its face (like it did last time).

" a Tory government would be able to preserve front line services even spending less tax payers' money, because they'd make them more efficient."

This pharse looks familiar. I think when Mr O says 'efficencies' he actually means runs services 'on the cheap', cut services to critical levels, privatise bits to allow the tories rich chums make a profit out of them and let a future government pick up the pieces when it all goes pear shaped. That's what happened last time the they were in government. They're obsessed with the free market and profit from everything. I had the disturbing experience of agreeing with Peter Hitchens from the daily mail when he said the same thing about rail privatisation on question time.

That inappropriate pair of words 'Think tank' are also familiar.

"The Eton Tories" have old, working class poor people like me as staunch supporters. They have more common sense in their cricket pads than any Brown or Ainsworth, that ever walked the earth.

75 jrperry

I seem to find myself crossing swords with you tonight.No offence my friend.

Camerons mortgage. It is not easy to put what fight em all Saga is trying to say into words, but I know what he means.

Cameron has put himself forward as a cleanser of the Tories who have transgressed. If you accept "the rules" and "the fees office agreed it" school of thought the the duck house and everything else is ok. Now the duck house cost a" piffling" 1,645 pounds and the same MP only claimed 800 pounds for a mortgage.

Cameron claimed no duck houses or moats but claimed 12,972 pounds mortgage interest on a property in his constituency which , in effect we are buying for him at cost.

Cameron has done nothing wrong , but like Saga I believe he lives in a glass house when it comes to criticsm of fellow MPs taking advantage of the system.

That his advantage is less newsworthy does not make it ok.

GO's speech (please read it, it's where you would expect to find it) is a rehash of what Cameron said earlier in the year, as the nucons try to balance their 'progressivism' with the if they put them into power. But GO did not mention the two year freeze on Council Tax which will hardly benefit state education at the present moment or the other half of Childrens Services, Sure Start, either.

It is education which makes up a quarter of what GO said. As other commenters sic have mentioned you can improve productivity in terms of a lower cost of an individual item of service by reducing the level of service provided. In education you can reduce the amount of personal tuition, increase one to class teaching, sack a few teaching assistants etc. In health just prescribe on a informed guess work diagnosis. (after all most people just get better,) Don't bother with tests.

Actually the cameroons intend to increase educational centralisation and costs by imposing a national test at six (end of Year Two) and insisting on synthetic phonics. They have invented three new sorts of school... Academies + (Grammar Schools?) Privatised Sink Schools and schools run by anyone who wants to all funded by public money and mostly in new premises . Although these are described as 'not for profit' I am sure by the promoters commissioning the 'management' of the schools, it will be possible to extract a profit. and I'm sure parents can be 'persuaded' to be generous. Exisitng schools suffer competition and reduced numbers. And it does sound like a uncontrolled capital expenditure to me.

The nu cons continue to whitter on about bureaucracy in education. but Mrs T actually made state schools much more independent, able to decide how to spend their budget and who to buy the books and paper and IT equipment from, and how may staff to employ and what services to commission. They decide what services to buy from the Local Authority and the private sector. And despite what people say teachers at least at primary level are just as creative as they ever were but now with less expensive bit and pieces brought in by the kids. At the moment, wise school managers are already preparing for a surplus on 2009-10 budget to carry forward into the tough years ahead. Will they be made more effective by the cuts or just more "efficient"???

Reading some of the comments above, debating whether the Conservative Party is or isn't more "progressive' than Labour, there seems to be an underlying assumption that 'progressive' is good!

Personally, I think we've had quite enough of progressive government.

We would do much better to return to some tried and tested core values (dare I say it, back to basics!) A good start would be some lessons for government in old-fashioned housekeeping - not spending money we haven't got. Money that IS spent should be spent wisely. For a government to waste our hard earned money is morally unacceptable.

I would also like to see Ministers taking personal responsibility, as was formerly the case. These days if something goes wrong, Ministers don't resign, they just blame their civil servants or advisors.

Government and MPs should also be contractually held to account for upholding their manifesto promises. If a Government breaks a manifesto pledge (eg, failing to hold a promised referendum on a change to the EU constitution) this should be treated as a breach of trust. Where this occurs, MPs of that party should be personally barred from public office for life.

Now, that really would be progressive!

I agree manifesto pledges should be honoured and the electorates wishes implemented. After all, in utopia, that is the essence of democracy.This Government has renaged on many promises, tried social engineering and taxed the poor.They have closed local post offices, REFUSED the promised Lisbon Treaty Referendum etc.George Osborne is refreshing and correct in trying to lead this country in a different direction. He is exhibiting leadership and trying to salvage what is left of our disasterous economy that will take, through higher taxation, 60 years to repair. Only when the Government 'books' have been inspected will the true extent bankruptcy be exposed.
As regards Mandleson's cryptic comments; they will be dismissed. Who would ever believe this unelected, untrustworthy, pompous jobsworth? This unelected official is a mouth piece for an imploded party, bereft of tangible ideas to make a country function correctly.
After 12 years of poor governance, this country needs an urgent change of Government and G.O will succeed in promoting that charge.

#77 Oldrightie Has nurse been around yet need some more pills before the national health service runs out of money?I to had a great life under a Tory captain Maggie t, John major the list is endless if your prepared to work and don't make excessive demands from your employer you will be successful as you and i know we didn't take everything for granted like they do to day we worked for all we have even if it is not of enormous proportions,Keep the pads on though just in case we get a kicking today them streets are'nt safe anymore,
#81 Nice sensible approach ,Can't agree more about the 12 year waste.

80 distantTraveller

"Reading some of the comments above, debating whether the Conservative Party is or isn't more "progressive' than Labour, there seems to be an underlying assumption that 'progressive' is good!

Personally, I think we've had quite enough of progressive government."

================================

Excellent post. In my opinion, great improvements could be made to many aspects of life in this country, simply by reversing many of the the "progressive" initiatives introduced in the past 12 years. Much of the decline in our country, however, is associated with a "culture change" of attitudes etc,- several which of you mention in your post - and this is very difficult to address, even in the long term.

xTunbridge 78

No offence taken, of course. I'm impressed with your effort to leap to saxamix's assistance.

The fact remains that saga and I have debated this point before. Saga wishes us to believe he has a story about Cameron that he can get his teeth into, but on being challenged, he never seems quite able to express it - indeed he tries to take the debate beyond what the nature of the story is, as fast as he possibly can.

That's because the story has no substance. Cameron is guilty, at worst, of "claiming expenses while being rich". Expenses weren't means tested then and they aren't means tested now. Sure, there is a debate to be had on means testing of expenses. But as a construction specifically and uniquely against Cameron, saga's story falls flat on it's face.

#53
'Tax cuts are the only way. No NHS reform, just scrappage, since it's one of the biggest expenses. People have to learn to look after themselves.'

Interesting idea. So next time I get run over in the street I should start a process of competetive tendering to decide which private ambulance service should come to scrape me off the road.

#58, ghostofsichuan wrote:
Saving money through reform. The best way to get nothing done but pretend you do. Bureaucracies take years to implement the slightest change. Most bureaucrats will insist that it costs a lot to save money. Kind of like forecasting a Barbeque Summer.....only it might rain.

ghost,

Funny thing is that Brown and the Treasury claim to have made some £15 BIL of efficiency savings over the past 5 years or so. Presumably that came about by some impact on bureaucracy? And they claim they will make more "savings".

But rather than "banking" the savings, or using them to improve so called "front-line services", any "free money" has been pumped into QANGOs or delivery services AS well as increasing the total tax demand on the economy.

It's a bit silly to talk about Tories and their rich friends. After all, Blair has introduced more private health care delivery than the Tories ever dared to attempt. Specialised - normally fairly simple - operations have been handed over to private companies. These companies are guaranteed levels of income compensurate with a "target" number of activities and get paid regardless of the number of procedures actually carried out.

NHS Logistics (by all accounts a very efficient supply chain provider) was outsourced to DHL by Labour. I've no idea whether there have been genuine cost-savings for the NHS, or whether performance has got even better.

There is a fairly sterile argument about which party MAY offer some improvement in future public services. It is certain that the ACTUAL efficiency improvement of the NHS has been marginal over a decade. We have less beds per head of population than pre-1997. We have too few intensive care wards. (Remember a pregnant lady had to be shipped to Scandinavia because there was no suitable bed available in the UK!!!)

Ther NHS IT system is 4 years late and massively over budget. The ID cards "solution" is in trial mode - yet already the information from the data chip has been cloned... There are no apparent plans for genuine roll out across all the outlets where such a card may be of use. And carriage of the card is not mandatory anyway for UK subjects.

Hewitt and Blair cunningly forced GPs and consultants to accept pay rises. They allowed GPs to opt out of certain activities at certain times - then berated the same GPs for doing what the contracts permitted.

Remember Brown saying he'd encourage guys and gals from the City to re-train as teachers? Big announcement. In fact there are only 40 places for training!

50percent of youngsters are "supposed" to go on to Higher Education. Yet there are too few places available at Universities...

It's NOT joined-up government. Too much initiativitis and too little focus on DELIVERY.

I don't care which party makes the changes, but there have to be changes, as we can't afford to bleed money.

Ah, some of the trolls appear to be back from holiday!

Careful Saga... any more of them appear from the woodwork and you'll have enough of a quorum for a revolutionary cabal! Your time on the blue benches has been somewhat short lived then?

And there was me thinking you were doing a Shaun Woodward in reverse...

ANYWAY, back onto the topic, in case the mods got out of the wrong side of bed...

Laura said: "But this is clearly an attempt by Mr Osborne to set out dividing lines between the two main parties"

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Osbourne, this is not in itself a bad thing. For 12 years we've effectively had the Blue Tories and the Red Tories, who were even more selectively right wing than their blue counterparts. It finally dawned on Labour during the Smith era that this was the only way they were going to get elected. Give the public what they think they want. Which, was essentially a centrist approach but not with the Major administration which had become tired, devoid of ideas and sleazy. Thats what Blair's Red Tories said they would give them and the electorate bought it. The Blue tories couldnt believe that the reds would be able to steal their clothes and get away with it, let alone for three subsequent elections. And, they didnt have the gumption under Hague, IDS or Howard to see what the solution is.

Give the people a clear choice. Whilst consensus is a good thing in politics sometimes, when it comes to a party based system such as ours, there has to be polarity - otherwise, you're all standing for the same thing... which will probably make you all as bad as each other. Say what you really stand for, what you really believe in, rather than what you think we want to hear.

Are Osborne and Cam the right ones? Who knows. I somehow doubt it. Having said that, Beelzebub himself is preferable to this current NL administration. At least you'd know what you were getting.

So, for all the trolls who have mysteriously re-appeared.. you're wasting your time slinging mud. Your days are numbered, regardless.

And if - a big if this time - the electorate are truly, truly stupid enough to return you for another term, which you have done NOTHING to deserve - then I'm glad I'm safely abroad.

I think what G. Osborne is alluding to here is the 12 year experiment called New Labour. In the sense that the New Labour brand was formed on the basis of progression in politics. Now in Osbornes opinion we should sweep back the years to an age when we did not have quangos, spin doctors, the public being spied on etc. New labour came into Government on a promise to bring reform to education, welfare and generally to cure all our ills. The answer Labour came up with to meet all these challenges was to throw money at them without using any kind of reform. This in the end has brought us to the position of debt that we face today. The reason reforms were not undertaken has partly been due to the Labour party not having enough able people to understand and run the departments in Government. They did not foresee the problems they would face and had not prepared themselves for Office. It has always been this Governments approach to promote people on who they support rather than their ability to do the job. Free thinkers even of ability would be sidelined to keep Blair and Brown surrounded by people who they could rely on to do and say what was expected.

For a long time in Government we had the rather strange situation of two people with totally different approaches running the Country. We had Blair as PM and then Brown controlling the Treasury. Neither had control over the other, which meant that Blair as PM was missing out on knowledge of a large part of his Government. Both held a lot of power in the Party and that would mean that any vision they had started with could be not progressed as there was no joined up thinking. Of course the answer was for Blair to sack Brown and we may very well have seen a slightly better outcome than we have today. However he did not have the courage to do so. This is not a problem we will face with Cameron, as I believe he is his own man. However will he alienate his party by having a small elite group surrounding him. It is also true that the Conservatives have prepared themselves for office much better than Labour did and certainly have many more able people to run the departments. However one wonders if they have fully grasped, the extent of the enormus task in hand.

I believe the Conservatives are right that if you cut in all the areas which have led to big state and bring about reform in key services, that frontline services will not be touched. However, will there really be the will to do this. We have had 12 years were the public has become accustomed to money being spent without thought, how easy is it going to be to convince them that this is not just Conservative cuts again. I certainly do not believe the case has been made with enough force by any of the politicians to the public exactly how dire our position is in the Country. Many of the public have been shielded by this Government from the full force of the recession by continuing with our ever increasing debt. So how easy will it be to make these reforms and not alienate the public.

With Mandelson feeling he has to intervene in the way he has it could be that he detects Osborne is on the right track. It could also mean that Mandelson dislikes Osborne so much he would go the any lengths to destroy him. However the one thing Mandelson has forgotten in his arrogance is that the public quite possibly dislike him more than Osborne and will be asking themselves, who invited an unelected Peer to speak for Government. Furthermore Mandelson has undermined Browns position further as one wonders, who exactly is running the Country.

54. At 7:27pm on 11 Aug 2009, Whistling_Neil wrote:
24. At 4:07pm on 11 Aug 2009, LittleMissQueenie wrote:
I personally do not think that the conservatives shouldn't reveal their policys untill a date has been set for an election as Labour usually steal their ideas
===========================================

Why not,I don't care who's ideas they are if they are good ones, if Labour pinch the idea then they agree, so debate can move on to other areas which need attention.
I am sure the Tories will not mind who implements their ideas so long as they get credited and they benefit the nation - it would be churlish to allow a government to waste millions more between now and the next election just so they can have the credit later.

=========================================================================

While this sounds good in practice, you have to remember the ethics and mentality of the current Labour government who simply attack a proposal prior to stealing it. Labour credit a conservative proposal? In your dreams!

Labour are not grown up enough to acknowledge that anything of value could possibly come from the opposition.

Ref. 40
That's what happens when you make a 30+year career economist in the private sector a politician.
You actually get somebody in parliament who knows what he's talking about.
Mark you I still won't vote for the LibDems,because Vince Cable is the only member of LibDem front bench who appears to understand the real world.
George Osborne should unashamedly pick up any of Vince Cables nuggetts and add them to Tory policy.

Re cuts- Possibly if they expanded constituencies, and cut the seats down to, say 301, we could cut a few million, rising when you take into account their expenses accounts. Given that most MP's serve party, rather than their constituents, I can't see it making much difference to our level of service.

Possibly the other 300 or so could be elected (shocking I know) to a replacement for the house of cronies...sorry Lords.

It won't work because it makes sense.

84 jrperry
Good morning.

I think saga needs no army he takes on all comers alone agueing black is white one day and white is black the next.

I was just saying that I think he has a point about Cameron troughing as much as everybody else but trying to seem holier than thou.

The Norwich ex MP Dr Gibson (?) was scapegoated by Labour for a housing costs offence which in my view was much less heinous than many others who took a nice fat profit for themselves at our expense.

Its all in the perceptions.

68. At 10:06pm on 11 Aug 2009, Onlywayup wrote:


Yes, Mr. Cameron (a multi millionaire, including his lovely wife), should explain whether he claimed from our taxes because it was morally correct or whether because the "rules" allowed him to suck from the public purse! We all wait in earnest!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh dear, hey go and do some research on some of those very very rich Labour ministers .... Start with Mz Harman .... very interesting priveleged backround

#89

I agree Labour would not acknowledge where it came from but fundamentally if it's a good idea then it's a good idea and whether one party or the other acknowledges its origin really doesn't matter if as a result of its adoption is a general improvement to the system.

If ideas are put up for discussion then this should lead to higher quality debate and real political discussion rather than the turgid knocking shop that parlimentary debates are exposed as.

Point scoring for political advantage is part of the Westmonster problem and denigration of any idea just because it was someone elses is a very silly position for either party to take.

tun @ 92

hang on! ... I thought I had a coherent, totally "joined up" political philosophy a.k.a. Clear Thinking Progressiveness - fact, I see Osborne is now a convert

you are right about the Cam Mort issue (and thanks for chipping in) - it's the hypocrisy/opportunism from ... let's face it ... the probable next leader of our country which is so disappointing - I'm not saying it's the worst scandal around (it isn't) but it hasn't had the attention it merits - Catch has got off too easily on this - if he'd been given a really hard time about it, I'd probably (as the reasonable Floating Voter type that I am) be sticking up for him - but he hasn't, and so I'm not

94. At 09:45am on 12 Aug 2009, Whistling_Neil wrote:
#89

I agree Labour would not acknowledge where it came from but fundamentally if it's a good idea then it's a good idea and whether one party or the other acknowledges its origin really doesn't matter if as a result of its adoption is a general improvement to the system.

If ideas are put up for discussion then this should lead to higher quality debate and real political discussion rather than the turgid knocking shop that parlimentary debates are exposed as.

Point scoring for political advantage is part of the Westmonster problem and denigration of any idea just because it was someone elses is a very silly position for either party to take.

====================================================

A lot of this kind of problem would probably not occur if we had proportional representation I guess. Unfortunatelly we have a situation were Labour will currently sent out the attack dogs over any statement or proposal that doesn't come from a labour MP. This means that the opposition do best by saying nothing as then it can't be spun (except labour even managed to spin that - the 'do-nothing' tories).

Nice freudian slip in the last paragraph too (I assume it was a slip)!

93 ghostworld

Oh dear I am sounding like the saga fan club.

Of course HH and others may be well heeled that isnt the point. Actually HH can only claim the 2,812 London supplement so no big trough for her anyway.

To the best of my memory HH is not mounting a crusade against fellow troughers, Cameron is!

Hypocrisy at its worst I would say. We help buy him a nice house in the country at 12,972 quid last year and he is critical of fellow MPs who have worked the system to their advantage as well. Pot and kettle country methinks.