CentreRight

As things rapidly move forward on the expenses saga, where do readers think it's all going to end up? I'd be really interested to know what people think. This is probably a very premature discussion, but here are some thoughts:

• David Cameron has marked himself out as being in touch with the public mood and as having the strength to run the country through the tough years that lie ahead.  It's astonishing to see how he is basically firing Conservative MPs while Brown sits on his hands. Note the "marketing man" jibes have dried up as he pretty much leads the country through the crisis as though he were already PM;
• A lot of MPs still don't "get it". Especially on the Labour side. The public want to see a lot of reform of our politics. Yet on the issue of the next Speaker, many Labour MPs say they support John Bercow MP because they think it will annoy the Conservative Party. John has many qualities that could make him a great Speaker, but his case being made on such a petty basis shows how far out of step with the public mood many Parliamentarians still are. They need to wake up and smell the coffee. This area is still developing rapidly and in unpredictable ways;
• While there is massive public rage, the public increasingly don't want simply to tear down the ramparts. There is a mood for changing the way we do things in a positive way. It's spreading beyond Parliamentary reform. On the doorstep people rage about powerlessness, quangos and the general lack of accountability (in the past they'd yawn about these subjects!). The mood seems to be swinging in favour of localism and democratic accountability.  That's a major opportunity for the Conservative Party;
• People are not just angry about MPs expenses.  This too is spreading into concern about the size and wastefulness of public spending across the board in the middle of a recession. Again, there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to put the case for tougher action on wasteful public spending.  On what Government should and should not do. There is also the potential for radical reforms like publishing all public sector receipts, spending and so on online. It would certainly make public sector spenders think very carefully about spending if it could be seen and they could be asked about it by the public.
• Voters are angry, turnout could indeed be low, but people seem a lot more interested in politics than they have been for a long time. Everything has been thrown up in the air in what could turn out to be a form of political revolution as Alan Duncan MP has suggested. There is certainly a greater opportunity to reshape things than has existed since 1979, probably since WWII.

All in all, the worst recession in 60 years, the deepest political crisis for maybe 100 years . . . both at once. This is a very interesting time to be alive! We might find ourselves bouncing our grandchildren on our knees in years to come saying "Did I tell you about 2009..."

. . . Just make it up! The latest Labour party political broadcast is a good example of the genre.

Not likely to be taken notice of now, given that expenses are dominating everything. Yet perhaps a pointer to more desperate and dirty campaigning to come?

As the expenses saga goes on, the public anger continues to increase. It's not just the person who applies to the social fund and gets a bed but is denied a mattress who looks askance at what has been going on.

Volunteer party activists I speak to are incandescent with rage.  They give their time for free.  Because they believe in what our country can be. The elderly lady who stuffs envelopes, the man who works long hours yet still finds time to help deliver some leaflets, the retired ex army guy who is the backbone of the canvassing operation and the full time mum who telephones through hundreds of numbers from home. Let's not forget too the presentational skills professional who charges vastly reduced rates so Conservative speakers present their best front. They are universal in the anger they feel at what has been going on. They tell me time and again they don't give up their time for nothing to witness the sort of things we have seen.

It doesn't look like sorry will now be good enough. David Cameron has some difficult decisions to make in the days ahead. In making those decisions, I am certain that he will have the strong support of the voluntary party and can start the process of restoring trust and confidence in our gravely battered public life.

Compare these these two statements.  First, in today's Telegraph:

"Thirteen members of the cabinet have been under pressure to apologise over their expenses claims exposed by the Telegraph last week.  However, no-one has yet said sorry, insisting that their claims complied with Commons rules"

And today Alan Duncan's comments when questioned about the Telegraph reports:

"I understand why people are angry and they should be. Every MP has to apologise for what has arisen over time."

While David Cameron is saying MPs need to put their hands up and admit the system is not right. And it's good to see that Cheryl Gillan is repaying the dog food, which is clearly the right thing to do.

They say that when things go wrong it's not that they've gone wrong that matters, it's how you deal with it. No-one comes out of this matter looking good. What's gone on is clearly appalling. Yet today the Conservative leadership is dealing with the matter of the expenses in the right way. There is no moaning about being within the rules, there is no "Labour are worse than us" (even though they clearly are). Sorry is what the public want to hear - sorry is the best word. Once again the Conservative leadership has shown itself to be sure footed in highly unstable territory . . . and increasingly fit for Government.

So now we know.  It's not just the Housing Minister with his houses or the Home Secretary with her homewares and multi media entertainment options.  The expenses fiasco goes right to the top. 

And more than that, veteran back benchers who should know better - especially people like Sir Stuart Bell MP - attack not the wrongdoing that is before them, but the press and anyone else who whistle blows. Chequebook journalism? At least the Telegraph wrote a cheque with it's own money and not ours.  Statements from the Prime Minister that the system is "wrong" and "needs to change" just add insult to injury. Sorry is when you repay the cash, and they're not planning to do that, are they? 

The entire Parliamentary Labour Party seems to have forgotten what it is for.  They seem more interested in how far they can stick their hands in the till than fixing the country. They come across rotten to the core, unfit for public office.

Three cheers for David Cameron in his strong rebuttal of the Times' unfair attack about us being a party of sad, shuffling men in suits. With more women in the Shadow Cabinet than the Labour Cabinet and with us set to treble female MPs to near 60 if we win the General Election we have much to shout about on how much the Conservative Party has changed.

It's disappointing that the debate about women in politics always seems to be about numbers, not quality.  Now numbers do matter. But we can see from the Labour benches that is not always the whole story.  We know from Margaret Thatcher's amazing leadership of our country that quality matters too. 

It is striking just how much talent there is across the board in today's Conservative Party. In particular, I have long been inspired by the great quality we will have in female MPs should the Conservatives form a Government after the next election. The more so after attending the Spring Forum at the weekend. David Cameron's aspiration for one third female ministers is clearly achievable. And the country - not just Times jounalists - are in for a shock at just how much they will shake up our national life for the better. Bring it on! 

Opinion polls leads of nearly 20%, possible Conservative majorities of 170, journalists are only interested in what the Conservatives have to say... well it's all in the bag isn't it?  Er . . . not quite. As every marginal seat candidate will tell you, history teaches that poll leads tend to tighten towards elections, we should take nothing for granted and we must not be complacent. Above all we must avoid the smug triumphalism that cost Labour in 1992.

We are entering a potentially dangerous time. The media are looking at the Conservative plans in detail now. It could be tempting for some to get over confident, get carried away and say daft things.  Things that would be seized on by our opponents. It could be tempting for campaigners to work less hard as they think we've won already. And we have an important set of elections coming up - low turnout elections where door knocking and getting out the vote will make a big difference and ensure our momentum continues.

I don't want to sound like Cassandra or a party pooper but we do need to keep our feet rooted firmly on the ground and beware triumphalism!

Today's Lords report on sharing the TV Tax with other broadcasters is a good idea.  But aren't the Lords' recommendations a bit timid? The proposals appear to concern only a small amount of the TV Tax and only after 2012. So the BBC is free to use the TV Tax money we are forced to hand over, under threat of criminal prosecution, to splash money on glamorous buildings in Manchester, putting local papers, local radio and good magazines out of business with predatory tactics and harming competitors in regional telly.

Hasn't this all gone on for long enough? As an instinctive tax cutter, I'd love to scrap the TV Tax as it is totally unjust, falling hardest on the elderly and the poor.  We don't have an internet tax, so why should we have a TV Tax? This quirk of history really ought to be axed in the interest of fairness.

Yet if there is a lack of will or conviction to axe the TV Tax, should it not at least be reformed? Would it not be fairer for the TV Tax money to go to channels according to who actually watches them? I'd be really interested to know if readers think that Virgin Media, ITV, Sky and other TV companies should get a slice of this money according to their viewers? Or should the TV Tax be used to help fund regional radio and regional TV in some way - or indeed are there other reforms that could be undertaken?

If you are a benefits cheat, why should you feel any shame when the employment minister acts as he does? If you are a peddler of filth or a fraudster, why should you feel any shame when the Home Secretary, who is meant to uphold the criminal law, acts as she does? Doesn't it just sap your confidence when the likes of Stuart Bell MP seek to root out the whistle blower while being silent on the blatant behaviour of his ministerial Parliamentary colleagues?

The maintenance of respect for our national leaders is important. The appalling behaviour of so many Labour Parliamentarians - particularly these two ministers - eats away at our social fabric. It eats away at the respect, civility, honesty and decency that we collectively try to build in our society.

Parliamentarians should set an example. But how to turn it all around? If it were down to you, would you strip these ministers of office? What other steps would you take to restore trust in our political system?

The Chinese have floated the idea, the Russians are keen, the Americans indicate they might ("yes, but no") support it and the IMF could run it... a new global currency. Is this idea just barmy talk, geopolitical posturing or could it actually happen?

In my post here yesterday on the worries about the Government being able to continue its binge borrowing, much of the comment discussion was on this idea. My first reaction was "What a loony idea, that'll never happen!" but then the Americans suddenly seem to have helped it run.

What do people think?

Yesterday a sale of Government debt flopped.  This is not normal. The last time there was such a serious failed auction was 1995. Financial newscaster Bloomberg describes it as a vote of no confidence in Brown by investors. It may be seen as a dull old business page story, but depending how it runs, it could be one of the year's most serious things for all of us.

The Conservatives and George Osborne have repeatedly warned that running a deficit budget, trying to borrow our way out of recession with already stratospheric levels of public debt and making no credible plans for balancing the budget will lead inevitably to disaster. 

And looking at the hard numbers they are absolutely right.  Sterling has collapsed on World markets - falling by some 30%.  Our recession will be deeper than elsewhere, with a 3%-5% contraction on the cards this year. Our budget deficit at 10% of GDP will be higher than elsewhere. If the World is your oyster, why should you buy British Government debt when interest rates are so low and the risks so high?

I could not believe the comments of Immigration Minister Phil Woolas MP on GMTV yesterday morning. People can’t break into Britain he told us. I found his complacency breathtaking. And I know what he said to be untrue from what I saw for myself in Calais last week. And then, in an astonishing U-turn, later on he said it is all a terrible problem after all and that they are going to do (what looks like a very odd) deal with the French. The confusion and incompetence of the Government in managing the security of our borders is scandalous. They're not asking questions of the French on the whole business and on how young children caught up at Calais are treated is profoundly worrying.

I do not write these words lightly. I write them from the perspective of what I have seen with my own eyes. In Dover, where I am the Conservative Parliamentary candidate, there has been much concern about the current situation. So last week I went to Calais to see things for myself and to assess the seriousness of the current refugee situation at first hand. I would urge Mr Woolas to get out and see what’s happening rather than lolling around on the GMTV sofa, awash in a sea of complacency one moment and panicking the next.

Here is what I found. Few I spoke to in the Calais camps had been there for very long, for more then a few months, and no one was planning on heading back to their homeland. So, whatever Mr Woolas might like to think, people are getting in, and it doesn’t take too many weeks or months to do so either. At Calais the Afghans and Iraqis I spoke to told me that it took them about three months on average to get through. Try enough lorries or whatever and eventually you get lucky.

I saw men and young boys only. There were no women. I was given to understand more immediate passage is arranged for women and girls. I spoke to Dominic Fitch, an aid worker, who told me that they see Britain as “El Dorado”, the legendary city of gold. I spoke to Afghans, Iranians and Egyptians who told me “Britain good! Britain good! We go there. We get work.”

And there are a lot of people. Right now, there are now over 1,000 and more arrive daily.

The French Government is clearly not doing a lot to help these arrivals settle in France. The living conditions are shocking – really shocking. I went to where food was handed out and there were hundreds of people waiting patiently for soup in the food queue. I saw how they live in a wood called “The Jungle”, in shacks made of cardboard and covered by blankets.

I do not understand why the French stand by while children as young as eight years old live in conditions worse than we would treat dogs in the UK. Kids who try, every night, at great risk, to jump on the back of lorries and break into Britain. We would never allow children to live like this in the UK and I deeply regret that the French do.

Reading the paper this morning, I was struck by the contradictions of the Labour Government.  Pictured right, in her dreams, the aristocrat Harriet Harman, dressed in the robes of a tribune of the people, supreme champion of human rights. And then we have the contradiction - she wants to pass what amounts to an act of attainder on Sir Fred Goodwin.  That hasn't been seen in the UK since the 18th century. The irony is that it is contrary to the Protocol to Article 1 (deprivation of property) of her beloved European Convention of Human Rights.

Then I was struck by the following question.  Why is it not on for a man who cares passionately about the fight against crime to sponsor a crime fighting telly programme aimed at keeping us all safe, but OK for an Islamic conference to be held at a state funded primary school where banned cleric Omar Bakri, who passionately wants to harm us, rages down religious hate on our country?

Are we now moving into arbitrary government of "people we like, people we don't like". Anyone got any other contradictions? The winner with the best one gets to pay me £10 . . .

Many people have told me how much they enjoy watching the TPA slug it out with pompous, po faced council leaders (of all parties) about their inflated expenses, upmarket bentleys and grandiose schemes to spend large sums of our cash on prestige projects of doubtful value.

Yet it's worth remembering it's not just about waste and predictable tricorned delusions of grandeur down at your local town hall.  It's also about value.  Some jobs are worth paying for, just a some are not.  Take these two current examples.  The Northern Way is one of those sustainable economic development quango of quangos.  They are advertising for a chair on £20,000.  Meanwhile the Ministry of Justice is advertising for a Director of Children's Services at the Family Justice Council. The role is unpaid and is to focus on child protection in the family court system.

Now I'm sure these are not perfect examples and that lots of people will say how worthy regional economic development quangos are (although I think business does better when it's left alone to get on with it), but I can't see why one of the other quango members can't just step up to chair this thing. Meanwhile, I am puzzled why what looks like a serious and responsible job in protecting our kids is completely unpaid. 

The essence of my point is that we should look not just at the excessive pay of senior public sector workers, we should look more deeply at the value of the actual jobs that are done and how we might improve the balance. I'd be interested to know what Centre Right readers think.

The Bankrupt Britain report prompts in me the same sense of urgency I think I would feel if I was staring down the barrel of a loaded gun in the hands of a mad man. Except it's not me - it's Britain as a whole and we all know who is holding the gun.

If the Conservatives are elected the worst sort of poison chalice inheritance will be ours. So too will be the hardest of decisions. Previously I estimated looking at earlier tough times that taxes would need to rise some £75 Billion. Or £3,000 a family a year.  Things have got even worse. This authoratative report says it will be necessary to cut public spending by £100 Billion. People may be concerned by bank bonuses, but that's a sideshow to the real deal we have to face together as a nation. Looking at public spending, welfare costs some £200 Billion - a third of the total. Yet it doesn't have a profile that matches its size. It keep growing like topsy and spawns social failure. I'd be really interested to know how CentreRight readers think we should reform the welfare system and what a reformed welfare system would look like.

The move by David Freud to join the Conservatives with a role working on welfare reform is not only welcome but necessary.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the current level of public spending will require careful review as tax revenues dwindle and borrowing spikes in the downturn. Very difficult decisions will have to be made. This point was highlighted in yesterday's News of the World, which pointed out that the gap will equal the entire annual expenditure on the armed forces, the Police and a whole host of other much needed public services. 

Things simply cannot carry on as they are. Increasingly, people realise the mountain we have to climb to get Britain back into proper order. Recent opinion polls indicate that voters are ahead of the current political debate in understanding difficult decisions will have to be made on public spending. We will need all the expertise we can get from the brightest and best to turn things around if we are elected to Government.

David Freud is a serious man for serious times. I am personally delighted to welcome him as a member of Dover & Deal Conservatives, where I am the Parliamentary candidate. Defections are a good thing - especially when they involve us losing pompous lightweights we are well shot of - like Quentin Davies - and gaining the serious talents we will need to chart the storm tossed seas that lie ahead.

Tim wrote about an excellent article on the bravest decision of David Cameron and George Osborne earlier today.  My reading of the Channel 4 poll Tim has just reported on is that it amounts to a clear vindication of the Conservative leadership's collective courage in making that decision.

It's clear from the detail of the poll that the British people in the key marginals agree with the Conservative position.  When asked about the stimulus measures adopted by Labour, 29% think they won't make any difference and a further 35% say the difference made is not justified by the cost. In my reading, a clear majority think Labour have simply got it wrong. There is a fairly even split on how well the Government has handled the whole crisis in general - although 29% say that ministers are behaving like "headless chickens" taking panic measures!

Yet most interestingly of all, there is broad agreement that there will there have to be public spending cuts or higher taxes to pay back Labour's public borrowing. 40% think these will have to be big, while 32% think there will have to be some cuts or tax increases. In the current economic situation, I doubt many are keen on tax rises - seems to me people think tough decisions on public spending are getting pretty inevitable.

The leadership took a lot of heat in the Autumn during the Brown bounce. They set out their stall pretty clearly. They waited on events. And so far their strength of resolve is being rewarded. It's tough to stand firm in the face of the storm. They did it. I think that pretty much answers some of the sceptics out there who wonder whether they are ready and tough enough to take the tiller when it comes to turning Britain around in office. They are ready and they are tough enough. And chances are they will need to be, so thank goodness for that.

If we are not going to have the third runway at Heathrow or Boris Island, then the expansion of regional airports makes a lot of sense.  So in answer to Matthew Sinclair, it all seems clear to me and Theresa Villiers and the Conservative Transport team have basically got it right.

R3 has understandably caused much of London and areas West serious horror at yet more aircraft.  This is despite the best efforts of BAA and airlines like BA. And despite the best efforts of the Airport Operators Association (AOA) who have lots of regional members yet only seem interested in even more Heathrow - regional airports take note! So despite all this, people are not buying it. They have had enough and clearly don't want the third runway.

Meanwhile, Boris Island is now said to be costing £40Bn.  So the costs of that scheme seem to be climbing even faster than the Olympics and knock the costs of the Dome into a cocked hat. Boris Island has another key difficulty. People may not favour more Heathrow, but many don't want to see it closed either as many businesses and jobs located near to Heathrow would suffer. So inertia is likely to favour keeping Heathrow as it is.

Today's news that the Government will take away the passports and driving licences of non resident parents without going to Court leads me to pose this question. The whole organisation seems to cost as much to run as it collects. So I struggle to see any sense in its existence at all.

While it seems one of those ideas that's good in principle, in practice no-one seems happy with the CSA, everyone involved with it seems to hate it with bitter emotion and the whole thing offers no value whatsoever. Is it just me or is the CSA is complete disaster from start to finish? Would we be better off simply scrapping the thing? I'd be genuinely interested to know what people think.

Let me explain a bit more. In Dover & Deal it's a big issue people ask me to help with. I see lots of fathers who tell me the CSA applies for earnings deduction orders equal to the maximum of 40% net pay as a matter of course, without any apparent view to affordability or outgoings.  There is no Court oversight here - they can just take the deductions from employers by administrative order. I have lost count of the number of people who tell me the CSA routinely loses correspondence (they rarely reply to any letter I send to them), changes it's position on arrears payment agreements without any consideration to circumstances and generally acts in a high handed manner. And unlike Court process, these deduction orders stand pending appeal and can cause real hardship. Giving the CSA the ability to take passports and driving licences without Court sanction is likely to increase the bitterness.

Then I see mothers who tell me that rogue fathers duck and dive, hide up their NI numbers so they cannnot easily be traced, pay nothing at all and the CSA are ineffectual at getting hold of them or the person dealing with the case has gone on sick leave / holiday and nothing happens etc etc. So no-one is happy and with the whole thing costing as much as it collects, I wonder whether we should look at the old system we had, improve this system or adopt a new and different system?

Whenever I hear talk of a Tory landslide at the election, as a marginal seat candidate, I get very nervous. Sure Brown and Labour have made a mess of things, the voters are realising who is to blame for it all and the polls look promising. But we need to be careful, for triumphalism leads to hubris. Sheffield rally anyone?

I don't want to sound like Cassandra, yet let's not forget there have been two Brown bounces in two years. There is up to a year and a half to go until the election must be held and we cannot rule out events seeing a further Brown bounce.

As Tim has said, there is no room for complacency. We should take nothing for granted, campaign for every last vote, not rest on our laurels, remember we seek to serve not to rule and, above all, beware the pride that comes before the fall!

The way Parliamentary expenses have been abused by some, the John Lewis list retained and the repeated attempts to hush everything up is a spectacle that people tell me they find truly disgusting. The latest attempt by Harriet Harman et al to prevent the open access that was promised is incredibly damaging to confidence in the House of Commons and public life generally. The impression voters have is described by the picture on the right.

I'd be really interested to know what readers think should happen. Should MPs caught fiddling expenses be expelled from the House of Commons? And should we reduce the number of MPs significantly, as David Cameron is suggesting?

The Government's decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is crazy. It won't even start being built until 2015, so there will be a massive delay. If it were built, it would add to the already terrible blight on large areas of London and areas West. Heathrow is a bad enough experience right now - with yet another runway and terminal, I fear it could get even worse.

So what to do? I've put forward Manston airport for expansion before now. It could be done and ready before 2015, all that's needed is a cheap rail upgrade, an easy link into the high speed rail system and - wonder of wonders - residents in East Kent would actually support it on terms that could easily be satisfied (i.e. no night flights). Then there is the Boris island alternative. And regional airports could also be expanded if capacity needs to grow.

So much public concern, so many other possibilities. So why will this not be properly debated and the subject of a Commons vote? Why is the only real protest the local Labour MP feels able to make to wave the Mace about? To me this sums up everything about Gordon Brown's alleged desire to "listen" to what people say. Listen, yes, but hear, no.

• High speed rail links joining up our major cities as a real alternative to roads and yet more planes;
• Opposition to the third runway at Heathrow; and
• A strong position on BAA and it's shocking failure to run airports properly.

Gordon Brown's New Year message to you is that the recession is a "test of character". Just the thing you want to hear when you are worried about how you are going to pay for Christmas, about losing your job and your home . . . that it's all a great character building experience.

And all this from the man whose extreme borrowing has all but bankrupted the country, allowed banks to lend to excess, permitted a runaway housing bubble, raised the tax burden on the average household by £10,000 a year, presided over ever deeper social division and whose economic policies have come together to plunge us into the worst downturn in living memory - possibly since the 1880s. Test of patience would be more like it.

My New Year message to Gordon Brown is simple. Get lost. Yes, the British people should work together to build a better tomorrow . . . one that does not include you.

What would your message to Gordon Brown be?