Charles Moore writes "One hopes that the Inland Revenue will also correlate the sale of "second" homes by MPs with its tax records. Did those MPs pay tax on the capital gain from the sale, or did they suddenly decide that the house was, after all, their principal residence, and so avoid paying any tax at all?" (Telegraph).
Charles Moore hopes but someone must insist.
YouGov's new opinion poll for the Daily Telegraph would produce a Conservative majority larger than won by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and almost as large as the Blair win of 1997. Do we want to win so big?
A Conservative majority of 150 and more would bury Labour for a generation and it would give David Cameron all the power he needs to take the tough decisions that will be needed. So far so good but do we wanted an elected dictatorship, even if we think it will be a benign dictatorship?
Francis Pym was frozen out by Margaret Thatcher after his famous 1983 warning against a large majority. He worried that a super majority would protect the Cabinet from having to listen to the breadth of backbench opinion and could lead to arrogance. He was right. She began to lose the plot when she ran Britain from Downing Street. Tony Blair never had to listen to backbench opinion.
David Cameron is already semi-detached from his parliamentary party. A massive majority could intensify the problem. He could ignore the Right and govern on the back of the A list intake.
On balance my preference is for a solid majority of 50 to 80. That's enough for Cameron to govern effectively but not enough for him to ignore the the opinions of John Redwood, David Davis and John Whittingdale. Or for that matter John Gummer and Ian Taylor.
France is witnessing 'an outbreak of kidnapping—or “bossnapping”—of company bosses, held by workers in their offices overnight. Student protests have closed some universities, with lectures cancelled, for weeks on end. Fishermen this week blockaded the ports of Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk with boats and barricades of burning tyres. None of these incidents is related. But they all seem legitimate in voters’ eyes: 64% of respondents to one poll say that the perpetrators, including bossnappers, should not be punished.'
Elsewhere on these pages Graeme Archer says we all owe Guido Fawkes a debt of gratitude. We owe him (Paul Staines) thanks this weekend but the Right / the Conservative party shouldn't get too close to this anarchic blogger. He practises the same coarse politics that he has attacked very successfully this weekend. Right wingers may enjoy the way he portrays Gordon Brown as a closet homosexual but he has also been brutal to Conservatives. Andrew Rosindell and Graham Stuart have both been seen their reputations dragged through the mud by Guido himself and within the comments below his posts.
All the warnings signs are there. The only big news on Conservativehome today is a 23pc increase in BNP support in a Manchester by election. Tim put this BNP leaflet on his Twitter feed earlier. The political establishment is out of touch. If you are not worried you should be.
I am a Christian but cannot support the state paying for religion.
NHS Blog Doctor says the £32 million cost of hospital vicars could pay for an extra 1280 hands-on nurses.
It's an open and shut case for me.
My alternative title to Tim Montgomerie's post on Tory Diary.
"A quick counterfactual. What would have happened if a bunch of BNP scumbags attempted to picket outside a mosque in Luton? How long before they were told, quite rightly, to move along and failing that bundled into the back of a police van? About 30 seconds, I suggest."
“Governments across the world have put into practice the principles of monetary discipline. The result is a world economy more stable than for a generation.”
Answer; David Cameron, September 2007.
Good spot by Fraser Nelson, News of the World.
ToryDiary reports George Osborne saying that "The party is over for the banks... you can't go on paying yourself 20 times what a heart surgeon gets". What is the right differential then? 10 times? 5 times? The same pay? 90pc of a heart surgeon's pay? Half as much? So long as the banks are propped up by the taxpayer a politician has a right to make these statements but I don't like where it might lead.
Quentin Letts speaks for many of us:
"A one-time Right-wing headbanger who these days would have us believe he is a soapy do-gooder"
"A fake speaking manner"
"Strikingly disloyal"
"Smiling in a plastic way"
"A work of artifice".
Rachel Sylvester is the latest to question the effectiveness of the British soldier. US Special Forces veteran Michael Yon has put the other side on his blog:
"I have embedded with numerous British units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen combat with all of those units. Maybe five or so. The units included 2 Rifles, 4 Rifles, Queen's Royal Lancers, Duke of Lancaster's, 2 Para, and I believe perhaps a couple more though there was much going on and it’s difficult to remember."
"What I can say, is that the significant combat I saw with British soldiers made me respect them more with each battle. Yes, it’s true their gear needs serious upgrading. The British government needs to spend billions to upgrade the hardware. But when it comes to the soldier, British soldiers are extremely well-trained, courageous and ready for a big firefight at the drop of a hat. Our brothers and sisters are vastly outnumbered at Helmand Province in Afghanistan. I think about them several times a day and am concerned that they might take serious losses this year."
"When the question comes up about what Americans think about our closest ally, I ask MANY American soldiers what they think of the British. There are mixed opinions of course, but the bottom line is that American combat veterans greatly respect British soldiers. The British just need better gear."
May 2017
"The Prime Minister resigned earlier today.
David Cameron stood on the steps of Downing Street to make the announcement with wife Samantha at his side and surrounded by their 6 children.
President Jeb Bush congratulated Mr Cameron for his 7 years of service and his supply of peacekeeping troops in Pakistan.
During the first Tory government of the 21st century large tax increases on petrol and airlines were enacted.
The taxes were levied after Gordon Brown bequeathed a public borrowing requirement of £130 billion.
Within hours three men had already announced leadership bids.
The man who ruled London for eight years Boris Johnson, MP for Kensington since last year’s by-election; George Osborne, Chancellor; and Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Infrastructure.
There were rumours that Andrew Tyrie was urging Kenneth Clarke to make a fourth bid for the Tory crown.
This will be the first leadership race within the Conservative party since 2005.
The Labour leadership has changed four times since Gordon Brown resigned in 2010.
Lord Clarkson of Brands Hatch was unavailable for comment."
No doubt foolishly I go on the record to predict that Johnson or Hunt will beat Osborne to become the next Conservative Leader.
At lunchtime the BBC told us that "470 Palestinians" had been killed in Gaza.
They should start to distinguish between (1) Hamas terrorists killed, (2) civilians killed because they were deliberately used by Hamas as human shields and (3) other civilians killed.
More sensible because (reports the Independent) they have realized that "The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary". It has been obvious for years that if rich European nations could not meet their very modest targets for cutting emissions then energy-poor developing countries would be unwilling and unable to deliver much bigger cuts. Sense at last. Well nearly.
The climate change industry is also more crazy because their Plan B is to seek "artificial manipulation of the global climate to counter the effects of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases". Their "geoengineering" plans include filling the air with particles and filling the sea with iron filings. The unintended consequences of these Soviet style schemes should fill every conservative with dread.
Inspired by New York Magazine:
Both ended long periods of conservative rule.
Both offered hope, optimism and change.
Both were loved by the media.
Both made great speeches.
Both were lawyers by profession.
Both had strong minded wives.
Both had sky high opinion polls in the honeymoon period.
Both had a very jealous person at their right hand.
Both saw their early days contaminated with sleaze.
Both fought unpopular wars.
{The last similarity is a sure fire prediction rather than a fact.}
David Cameron in the Sunday Telegraph: "We said that the already worrying state of public finances under Labour made it irresponsible for the Conservative Party to go into the next election promising up-front, unfunded tax cuts. Many, especially on the Right, disagreed. But George Osborne and I were determined to stand by our belief in fiscal responsibility; and I believe that events, in particular the appalling deterioration of the public finances, have endorsed the wisdom of that judgment."
Why does our leader think it useful to claim victory over the Right? Is Steve Hilton still seeking a Clause IV factional battle? More to the point it was the Right that was right on the big economic debates, not the party leadership.
This conservativehome blog did not launch a campaign for tax cuts one year ago but for lower public spending. Dave ignored the advice and continued to offer up-front, unfunded increases in state spending (for that is what they were).
It was not the Right that said that economics was yesterday's news. From his desk at Rothschilds Oliver Letwin told us that we all had to be sociocentric not econocentric. It was David Cameron who danced with the butterflies and bunnies in his talk of General Well-Being being more important than G.D.P..
We Right-wingers are happy to forgive your errors Dave but stop the "pointless" attacks on us. We were not the "delusional" ones.
The question answers itself.
It would be unpatriotic to rescue the Indian owners of Jaguar Land Rover.
It would be protectionist and against the interests of UK car buyers to subsidise the British motor industry at the expense of cheaper cars from abroad.
It would be inefficient to keep Jaguar Land Rover alive with taxes raised on successful businesses.
It would be environmental craziness for Labour to announce extra taxes on 4x4s in the spring budget and then use those and other taxes to rescue a 4x4 manufacturer less than 1 year later.
It would be electioneering if manufacturers in marginal seats in the English Midlands get subsidy but manufacturers in the safe North East of England do not.
Two Daily Mail columnists are throwing flowers at David Cameron:
"So it took enormous courage this week when the young Tory leader decided at last to challenge Gordon Brown's confident new financial orthodoxy and to repudiate Labour's spending schemes. Cameron is, of course, right to warn that Gordon Brown's financial plans are insanely reckless, may lead to bankruptcy and impose an intolerable penalty on future generations." - Peter Oborne
"We also got to see some real political steel this week with his emergence as a proper small- state, low taxing conservative. His full-frontal attack on Gordon Brown's reckless management of the economy has at last given the Tories a distinctive voice on the global meltdown. By abandoning the pledge to match Labour's spending plans and promising tax cuts way beyond the £5billion announced by Labour, he's shown real conviction." - Amanda Platell
I don't disagree with a word written by Oborne & Platell but I will always worry that David Cameron ever backed Labour's spending plans in the first place.
The Conservatives 1992 bombshell campaign was iconic but a better way of attacking the Darling giveaway today, pay back tomorrow budget has been provided by the Sunday Mail. In today's edition it is calling it the boomerang budget. That has the capacity to really chime with people because it won't be too long before the boomerang has finished its short journey and is hitting us ALL in the face.
David Cameron talks endlessly about responsibility. Social responsibility. Corporate responsibility. Environmental responsibility. Now budgetary responsibility.
He and Steve Hilton have chosen the wrong 'R'. The big issue is Recession and how to fight it.
Labour's plan has been revealed by Paul Waugh of the London Evening Standard:- THE RECESSION WILL BE DEEPER AND LONGER UNDER THE TORIES.
The Conservatives need to become less detached and more urgent about mitigating the downturn.
P S John Maples told the House of Commons on Monday that the recession had to run its course. The man who fixed the selection of europhile MEPs continued: "Just listen. Bad debts have to be written off, bad investments have to be written off and people and businesses need to repair their balance sheets. The Prime Minister knows that, even if some of his back benchers do not. If that does not happen, there will not be a solid base for recovery." Technically Maples was correct but he was daft to say it.
If Central Office has a national list of Conservative party members we must hope that it is being cross checked against the BNP list that has been revealed to us all. I wonder if the leak was the work of the intelligence services? Every single Tory member who has also supported the BNP must be expelled. Labour must do the same.
P S I do not know what a herd of ConHome readers should be called but that herd trampled all over my Sunday blog advocating Clarke as shadow chancellor. I am pleased that yet another commentator has backed my position today.
The latest desperate defence of George Osborne is that ending his time as shadow chancellor would hand too big a propaganda victory to Brown. It is true that Osborne going would produce 24 difficult hours; Maybe even 48 difficult hours. But if Ken Clarke became Shadow Chancellor those hours would be forgotten as fast as sterling is falling. Clarke would anger die-hard Eurosceptics but who believes that Cameron plans much Eurosceptic action? The appointment of Clarke would not scupper a Eurosceptic agenda because there isn't one. What Clarke would bring INSTANTLY would be economic credibility. Gone would be one half of the Bullingdon Club and those embarrassing photos; in would be a bloke in tune with the nation. Gone would be an inexperienced shadow chancellor who wrote the me-too economic policies of the last 2 years; in would come the Chancellor who left Brown the golden legacy Labour has squandered. Gone would be Labour smiles; Labour frowns would return.
In his latest missive Mr Iain Dale wants us to rally around George Osborne but he got closer to the political truth 2 months ago when he blogged in favour of Ken Clarke becoming Chancellor: "Ken Clarke got us out of one recession when he was Chancellor, let him do it again. Clarke is popular in the country, in a way that no other Tory Shadow Cabinet Minister is. They like his blokiness and his apparent willingness to call a spade a spade. He is a reassuring presence, and in a government inevitably full of people who are not household names, that's a vital quality." You were right then Iain. Wrong now. Osborne cannot be moved to the Department of Administrative Affairs soon enough.
Recent Comments