The Paul Richards column
Three things are becoming clearer with each passing day about the Tories’ election strategy.
The first is that they intend to go into the election free from the usual burdens of a detailed policy programme. Cameron’s strategists have correctly surmised that most people are appalled and repelled by Conservative policy, and so it is best not to mention it. When it does slip from under the cloak, Conservative policy tends to disintegrate under scrutiny, like an ancient scroll which turns to dust when you touch it. When they launched their ‘health manifesto’ on January 4th, it contained fewer policies than had previously been announced. A few decent questions from journalists about whether this meant the previous policies had been scrapped, and the entire Tory operation was thrown into panic and disarray.
So policy is the Tories' greatest weakness, and Labour’s greatest strength. They will seek to avoid detailed policy announcements, preferring mood music, nods and winks and policy aromas. Oppositions can get away with this far more than governments, especially in an age when people don’t read manifestos and aren’t paying that much attention.
The second is that they intend to use old-fashioned advertising to thrust themselves into the popular consciousness. They are currently running advertising in newspapers and magazines, on phone boxes, and of course on billboards. They are spending millions of pounds every week, and have brought space across a range of media from now until May. The Tories' advertising budget is almost certainly bigger than Labour’s entire campaign fund. Advertising has a cost in inverse proportion to its effectiveness. It is very expensive; but in politics, it is only slightly above useless. Philip Gould says in The Unfinished Revolution that:
"There is a myth about political advertising, largely spawned by the success of Saatchi’s. The Conservatives won four elections in a row, and Saatchi’s produced advertising for all the campaigns...Often it was very good, sometimes it was brilliant. Understandably a winning election campaign and good advertising points intelligent minds to cause and effect: good advertising produces election victories. But this is nonsense. Advertising has an effect, but it is small and rarely decisive."
In 1997, the only memorable poster was Tony Blair's "demon eyes", which backfired on the Tories, and made no dent in Labour’s lead. Who can even remember what Labour’s posters were? They had little saliency in the overall campaign, and added nothing to the landslide. So Labour campaigners must take heart when they see their town centre infested with the spoils of Lord Ashcroft’s largesse. All those posters won’t change many minds or shift many votes. That’s not how election campaigns are won and lost.
That’s an important lesson for Labour’s campaign high command too. Labour can’t afford to run much of an advertising campaign. Reading former Labour general secretary Peter Watt’s book Inside Out it is clear that Labour has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for the past three years. The party cannot afford to blow millions on posters which only serve to aggrandise politicians. We should run a campaign based on social media (yes that includes Twitter and YouTube) and direct voter contact (going out and talking to people). Our communications should be edgy and insurgent. Let the Tories spend their millions: it simply reinforces their image as arrogant and plutocratic. They can appear on billboards, we can appear on the doorsteps and in town centres.
The third facet of the Tories’ campaign, as evidenced by their poster blitz, is the emphasis on David Cameron. David Cameron is the Tories’ campaign. Their campaign is built on his shoulders. It is fair to say that he seems perfectly plausible to the floating voter. He projects an image of a decent family man, who buys coriander in Waitrose and takes the kids swimming on a Saturday. He looks and sounds middle class, when really he is just slumming it in Middle England. He is more Fortnum’s than Waitrose, more Bentley than Mondeo. He belongs to a social class with experiences and expectations way above even the professional classes, never mind the majority of us who work for a living and are perpetually two pay cheques away from disaster. Yet nothing sticks – not the chameleon, nor the toff attack, nor even the charge of hypocrisy after the shoes-and-chauffeur expose.
I’ve been enjoying the mydavidcameron.com rewrites of the Tory campaign poster. There are some funny people out there. But I worry we are falling into a trap. By defacing Cameron, we draw attention to him. We make him the issue. We reinforce the central message from Conservative HQ that the election is all about Cameron. Older readers will remember the vast anti-Thatcher industry in the 80s (the only industry which grew). Ben Elton told his jokes, Steve Bell drew his cartoons, the Beat sang ‘Stand Down Margaret’, Fluck and Law made their puppets, placard-makers daubed their slogans, and left-wing journalists eviscerated her in the pages of the Guardian, New Socialist, and Marxism Today. But she won elections.
Our response to Cameron should not be to draw comedy moustaches on his face. It should be to shine a light on the people he brings with him. Osborne is plainly a weak link in the chain. We should gun for his lack of judgement and experience without mercy. But what of the rest of the Tory nowhere men and women? We should tell the voters: we understand why you may be tempted by Cameron. But if you vote Cameron, you get the Conservatives. Do you really want Greg Clark to be the man standing between you and global warming? Or Andrew Mitchell dishing out the overseas aid budget? Or Owen Patterson maintaining the fragile peace in Northern Ireland? Or Nick Herbert keeping Britain’s farms viable? These people are not even household names in their own households.
Labour’s strength is in depth. We are Manchester United, led by a Scotsman lacking in communications skills, prone to outbursts, but brilliant at strategy, with a squad steeled by triumph and adversity. The Tories are Melchester Rovers, with a single star striker, but no-one else in the team you’ve heard of.
In the 100 days of campaigning left, the Tories will try to avoid policy, focus on Cameron, and spend their way into Downing Street. From what I’ve seen of Labour’s candidates and campaigners, we are more than capable of spoiling their little game.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Simply promising to repeal much of the misguided legislation which has been passed over the last decade (defence, education, immigration, human rights)or rebalance spending priorities would be enough for most sane voters.
The Tories are kicking the ball into the most gaping open goal in British electoral history.
In the south a family home will cost you about that amount.
Jo.
"The first is that they intend to go into the election free from the usual burdens of a detailed policy programme. "
I presume you're ignoring the fact that they are, on average, producing a policy about once a week. You may not agree with the policy and, yes, occasionally they haven't been fully thought through, but they are fleshing their pitch out.
And if you think it's only Conservative policies that disintegrate under scrutiny, well, then you're more blinkered than I thought possible, even with your job history. Oh, and what stellar new policies have Labour come out with?
"Cameron’s strategists have correctly surmised that most people are appalled and repelled by Conservative policy, and so it is best not to mention it."
In other breaking news, Toriez eat babiez.
"When it does slip from under the cloak, Conservative policy tends to disintegrate under scrutiny, like an ancient scroll which turns to dust when you touch it."
See above.
"So policy is the Tories' greatest weakness, and Labour’s greatest strength."
If current policy is Labour's greatest strength, then you're doomed.
"They will seek to avoid detailed policy announcements, preferring mood music, nods and winks and policy aromas."
Like Tony did in 1997?
"The second is that they intend to use old-fashioned advertising to thrust themselves into the popular consciousness. They are currently running advertising in newspapers and magazines, on phone boxes, and of course on billboards."
Yes, and the billboards are still being talked about weeks after their debut. Id call that phenomenally successful; there's no such thing as bad publicity after all... And you may think that the constant reproductions on mydavidcameron.com were funny and, initially, they were. Now people are just getting tired of the constant stream of negativity spewing forth from your mouths.
"They are spending millions of pounds every week,"
Serious overexaggeration: the billboard campaign cost, what, £500k total? And it's been running for two or three weeks already. What other cash-intensive campaigns have they produced recently?
"The Tories' advertising budget is almost certainly bigger than Labour’s entire campaign fund"
Surely this merely points out how terrible Labour are at fundraising: strip out the Union donations (which, natch, Labour hand back from *our* money in DfID grants) and Labour are pretty much broke. I'll enjoy seeing you go bankrupt after the GE.
"Who can even remember what Labour’s posters were? They had little saliency in the overall campaign, and added nothing to the landslide."
Perhaps this is simply because Labour's posters were terrible.
"That’s an important lesson for Labour’s campaign high command too. Labour can’t afford to run much of an advertising campaign. Reading former Labour general secretary Peter Watt’s book Inside Out it is clear that Labour has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for the past three years."
Mm. I thouroughly enjoyed Inside Out. I suggest everyone read it, and see just how duplicitous both Gordon Brown, and the Labour Party in general, have been. Oh, and I'll restate: the reason you'll be going bankrupt is that you've run your Party's finances like you've run those of the Countries.
"We should run a campaign based on social media (yes that includes Twitter and YouTube)"
Gordon's YouTube-ing this far has been pretty successful, hasn't it. What a good idea.
And frankly, Twitter is complete nonsense: Tweetminster reports that, of all collected Labour activists, MPs, PPCs, SPADs etc (not including Sarah Brown), their tweets only reach about 60,000 people. Twitter is only used by (in terms of politics) hacks, politicians, and political anoraks.
"!He looks and sounds middle class, when really he is just slumming it in Middle England. He is more Fortnum’s than Waitrose, more Bentley than Mondeo. He belongs to a social class with experiences and expectations way above even the professional classes, never mind the majority of us who work for a living and are perpetually two pay cheques away from disaster."
Wonderful - more class war. That's been working out so well for you that even Gordon's dropped it. I'd love it if you started it up again...
"Yet nothing sticks – not the chameleon, nor the toff attack, nor even the charge of hypocrisy after the shoes-and-chauffeur expose."
This is probably because no-one cares about where Cameron went to school, or what parents he was born to: they just want Labour out, and the Conservatives seem to be their preffered alternatives at the moment.
"Our response to Cameron should not be to draw comedy moustaches on his face. It should be to shine a light on the people he brings with him. Osborne is plainly a weak link in the chain. We should gun for his lack of judgement and experience without mercy."
Like Gordon was in 1997? blaming a politician for his lack of experience *before getting into office* is pointless, like blaming a 16 year old for his lack of work-experience.
"But what of the rest of the Tory nowhere men and women? We should tell the voters: we understand why you may be tempted by Cameron. But if you vote Cameron, you get the Conservatives."
And that does seem to be what people want, hence the double digit poll lead.
"Do you really want Greg Clark to be the man standing between you and global warming?"
Considering more than 60% of the population doesn't consider man to be the main agent of Climate Change, I suspect noone cares.
"Or Andrew Mitchell dishing out the overseas aid budget?"
As opposed to Douglas Alexander?
"Or Owen Patterson maintaining the fragile peace in Northern Ireland?"
Because you've been doing really well with this in the last few days...
"Or Nick Herbert keeping Britain’s farms viable?"
One would expect a Conservative minister to have more experience when it comes to farming than a Labour MP. And, oh yes, Hilary Benn, MP for *Leeds Central* versus Nick Herbert, MP for *Arundel and the South Downs*. Not even close.
"These people are not even household names in their own households."
Again, like the majority of Labour shadows before 1997. And even I, who has an interest in politics, had to look up the Labour NI minister and DEFRA minister. How do you expect the proverbial man on the street to know? (or care?)
"Labour’s strength is in depth. We are Manchester United, led by a Scotsman lacking in communications skills, prone to outbursts, but brilliant at strategy, with a squad steeled by triumph and adversity."
Labour's strength is in their skill at keeping large numbers of people dependent on benefits, which they then roclaim they will increase more than the other party so ensuring almost block votes from benefit-users. If you look at the seats with the largest Labour majorities they are, almost universally, those with the highest proportion of benefit-dependents.
You have a dour, uninteresting Scot in charge who is almost universally loathed. I don't really see the comparison between you and Man U.
Is the reason that most recent articles coming out on LL are Tory-Bashing simply that, as Labour haven't really produced anything meaningful recently, there's not a lot you can write in support?
"Labour's strength is in their skill at keeping large numbers of people dependent on benefits ...."
In 1979, there were 3.47 million recipients of Unemployment and Supplementary Benefits. By 1986, this had increased to 6.12 million, and when the Conservatives left office in 1997, the number on Supplementary Benefits (now Income Support) and JSA was 5.36 million.
In 1997, 2.79 million were receiving Rent rebate, another 1.88 million Rent Allowance and 5.50 million were receiving Council Tax Benefit.
Recipients of Incapacity Benefit, during the Conservative years, also increased dramatically : up from 1.24 million to 1.75 million.
In all, cash payments (not including state retirement pensions) for Social Security benefits went up from 4.7 per cent of GDP in 1978/79 to 7.4 per cent of GDP in 1996/97.
It seems that the Conservatives know a bit about increasing "welfare dependency."
Did they not also get people off the books through YOP, WEP, CP schemes which gave them temporary employment for one year, but then returned them to the dole?
A whole year? That's pretty good - with A4E, people are back in a few weeks.
I used the job centre under the Conservative government breifly before going to uni and under the Labour government after leaving uni.
Under Labour, I took a list of more than a dozen jobs that I'd seen advertised that perfectly matched my skills except for the demand for a basic computer qualification that didn't even exist when I was younger. I also took the info about a short (~4 weeks) course at a local college where I could get that certificate.
I was told that I couldn't do the course because the student housing I was still living in was in the wrong postcode so there was no funding.
Under the Conservatives, I was sent on a compulsory course to help me write a CV and improve my job prospects a month before leaving for uni. Everyone else there was 20yrs older and I was clearly using up a place that would have benefited someone else much more.
All in all, I'd say every government manipulates the unemployment statistics because it's the only guaranteed way of changing them.
Job centres will always be depressing places because it's depressing to be unemployed and no-one wants the job of watching depressed people queuing to sign on all day.
It may sound daft, but I think job centres would be much more positive and productive places if they weren't the same place you have to go to claim benefits. Every time you walk through the door you feel like you need to start apologising for still needing handouts. I'd ask about jobs for which I was completely unqualified in case they gave me dirty looks because I could only find one or two to apply for.
Christopher Johnson, who was Chief Economist at Lloyds Bank in the 1980s (hardly a left-leaning outfit) estimated that the effect of all the Conservative shenanigans with employment figures was to understate unemployment by about one million.
"By changing the definition of unemployment so frequently, the government made it difficult to follow the trend." ("Measuring the Economy," Christopher Johnson, 1988)
Darling increased the limit and allowed it to be transferred to a surviving spouse, therby, effectively doubling it from £325,000 to £650,000. A cynic might say:
1. Why double the allowance if you oppose tory plans to rreduce inheritance tax as a principle
2. Why discrimnate against single people, are you saying those who aren't married are second class citizens?
Thanks for that (i didnt do school when i was younger) :)
Danny
In answer to your question "has any primeminster lost a election and then stayed on as party leader to fight another election?"
Edward Heath was the last. He lead the Tories in the October 1974 after he lost power in February of that year. He lost in October too (He fought 4 general elections as Tory leader and lost 3).
The result in February 1974 was very tight (no party had a majority) and it was clear there would be another election soon. If we have a similar result in May we might see Brown stay on a bit too.
Off topic (sorry Alex) , But it seems that Mr Crozier is leaving the royal mail for itv.
danny
I see that the failures of New Labour are so monumental that it is anyone but Labour. Many will not vote for, but tactically vote against as the desire is there to get rid of the current incompetent bunch of liars and rogues even if we have to replace them with with a bunch of wet behind the ears Tory Toffs.
Clear out Brown and his bunch of nasty acolytes, then Labour stands a chance. We have not forgotten that until fairly recently Brown ran a dirty tricks organisation. We have not forgotten the sneaky way he lied on the EU Consti-Treaty and tried to hide his signature from view. We have not forgotten that he starved the Army of body armour, helicopter and bullets. We have not forgotten that this man is totally responsible for Britain's position as worst placed, in the G20, to weather the recession. The man has to go, because nobody will trust him again.
we have a council flat , We will never own our own home ,But its good enough for us , The people that want inheritence tax scrapped are the multi millionares with property portfolios (yes some mps as well ) .
Notts county owe the hmrc 600k
Danny
Will they take a cheque postdated to 29 February 2019?
What is Labour for if it can't even deliver it's central goal?
Add in to the toxic mix Iraq and Financial Incompetence - then who in their right minds is going to vote for more of the same????????
I agree The Tories advertising will have no impact. That is because we have already made our minds up that we want rid of Labour.
Carrying on the football them , the torys have a mp who looks like Sven Goren Erikson ,the former england and man city boss.
Danny:)
I dont know the detail of either policy , but it was a attempt by both partys to help the more better of , round our way there arent many houses worth 300k .
Danny
all new goverments are untried by default , And when you look at the two recent goverments tory 1979-1997 and new labour 1997- to present there arent that many that where part of there last adminstrion in the party or the front benches (maybe a few) , Most ex minsters end up in the house of lords or in private buisness , And in recent hyistory (i stand to be corrected) But has any primeminster lost a election and then stayed on as party leader to fight another election?
Danny
You've never heard of Ken Clarke?
Who cares?
Labour are untried
Without Tony Blair they are nothing.
Behind the smiles are Old Labour.
They have few policies ..
And look where it got them.
Now what is Labour's policy to deal with the long standing pockets of poverty in the UK? Where are the hundreds of pages of thought out policy..?
Where are the answers on social mobility?
After all - the Labour Party - the "party of the poor" - has , in 13 years , made the poor poorer...
Sometimes, it is worthwhile to see yourselves in the mirror.
Spot on. This is Team Labour v. Conservatizz
Peter Kenyon
http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/
Have a good day
Danny
DC seems to be either misjudging the real needs of the electorate, or playing on the backfoot of Labour.
I think we need to maintain this impetus and fight back.
Must go now- but take care, and have a good day.
Jo.
Re Inheritence tax , If i remember rightly when it was anoucend Mr Brown and Mr Darling came up with a similer policy .
Danny
The Tory inheritance tax policy is to raise the threshold to £1million. In their words, "make only millionaires pay inheritance tax". The super rich will still be paying inheritance tax.
There is no plan to exempt those with estates valued at £1m-£2m.
Tories plan to raise inheritance tax threshold to £2 million
Families will be able to inherit £2 million tax free from their parents under Tory plans to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2663564/Tories-plan-to-raise-inheritance-tax.html
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I assumed, but I have read the format in newspapers as £1m-2m.
Actually, just did a little more searching, and it appears that the £1million threshold is per person, so a couple could bequeath up to £2million before inheritance tax kicks in. So you were kind of right.
Personally, I think the inheritance tax system should be changed to one where the threshold should be applicable to the recipient. To pick an arbitrary figure of say £250k. If someone bequeaths £1million to one person, the recipient pays inheritance tax on anything above their personal threshold of £250k. However, if that same person were to bequeath £1million to four people (each receiving £250k, then they would not pay inheritance tax. It might encourage people to distribute their wealth a little more widely.
"I'm fully aware that spouses are currently exempt."
Well, the comment that I was responding to did not read like that to me : "Personally, I would exempt the spouse from paying inheritance tax. It would be cruel to force someone to have to sell their home in order to pay death duties."
I was actually trying to be helpful, based on how I understood the comment ; much bl**dy good it did me
Now, on to the other point.
There are three factors of production : land, labour and capital producing three streams of income - rent, wages and profits.
When an asset transfer occurs, there is no increase, in aggregate, in either capital or land - only a change of ownership.
If there is no increase, in aggregate, in capital or land, there can ipso facto be no corresponding increase in profit or rent in the aggregate.
The only factor that produces wealth in the long run is, actually, homo sapiens by the application of hand or brain, or both. Land is - almost - constant and immutable. Capital (in the form of equipment, buildings) is the result of the application of hand and brain and so are the resulting widgets or whatever.
re the spousal exemption. It occurred to me that yours may be one of the browsers that doesn't show threaded comments, and if so, you consequently wouldn't have realised I was responding to Dave. I didn't think I was biting your head off in my response, but if that's how it came across, my apologies.
Regarding the other point. I agree with you... but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. A property with a fully paid off mortgage holds a specific amount of wealth. And yes, that wealth was created by the builder that constructed it. But that wealth is inactive. It is not circulating within the economy. Once released via inheritance, it enters the economic cycle once again. And it's the interaction of that economic wealth withing that economic cycle that is important. If for example we all suddenly stopped working tomorrow, none of the wealth currently in existence would evaporate. It would still be there. But without that wealth circulating withing the economy, many industries would grind to a halt.
I hope that's explained my thoughts a little clearer. Apologies if it hasn't, but I'm typing on my phone, and admittedly a little tired.
I'm sure that you have clarified the idea for Peter. Even though you must be knackered, your point is clear that fixed capital accumulation is released as liquid capital again back into the economy rather than remaining (as in the case of larger sums) still somewhat locked away. It's extremely tiring driving for long periods AND dealing with people. Hope you get some time off to recover or your shifts enable a break. I really wish it could become a point of debate 'up there', but, of course, you are right to be circumspect about that.
Used to the driving. It was more eye strain from trying to interact on a phone screen if anything. But this site can be a little addictive, so difficult to abandon it, even when at work. (luckily I don't have a boss to tell me off)
Anyway, off to Liverpool in an hour for my brother's Stag weekend, so that's all for now. Hope you all have a nice weekend.
The remaining spouse is exempt from Inheritance Tax - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/2326123.stm
Someone's listening and not just talking ....
I'm fully aware that spouses are currently exempt. I was merely responding to Dave's comment regarding my suggested change to a system of individual personal inheritance limits, and that those limits shouldn't apply to the spouse.
With regards to someone listening, I've yet to see proof. High profile contibutor to this site regularly fail to return and respond. Like I said, all talk, and no listen!
If the government was to abolish IHT, would that be the injection the housing industry would need to help recovery?.
The building industry has lost some 9% of it's employees over the last 18 months, could there be a stimulus within the IHT cuts?.
Spot on, as usual. The contraction in the construction industry is a real bummer. It is precarious employment in the best of times. The industry, as I understand, now by and large regards its workers as self-employed, even though they are hired by the contracting employer. That makes it particularly hard for the unskilled workers (my mate Andy Wood would argue that there is skill in all work, but let's not go there). I really would have hoped that the government would have done something MORE to assist the industry, beyond its current efforts. When my dad left the pit in 1953, he became a bricky's 'oppo' (hod-carrier and foundation digger). It's a bloody hard life and concern for the workers in that industry is thus another soft spot.
I tend to agree with Andy Wood, there most certainly is value and skill in every job.
Yes! most people are subcontracted and competition for work in the building industry is more often than not cut throat business.
The concerns for the building industry are real and can I just add, that the industry needs more than unequal words and pages of gibberish governmental nonsense.
The industry must recover! employment and apprenticeships within the industry must recover.Lets hope for more than words and some real action, like a start on those 2 million affordable homes?.
You've obviously never worked at Burger King.
There is no room for me to wriggle - I agree entirely. Anyone out there listening - PLEASE.
Does the idea of a revolving economy! a spending public! create more business and general wealth, than the collective means of some taxation?.
Even smaller amounts can have an effect that would have positive repercussions, for both the economy, and society. Say for example a £30K inheritance could provide someone with a much needed deposit for a mortgage. The acquisition of a mortgage for that person could mean the freeing up of a council home for someone on the waiting list. If people are encouraged to bequeath their estates to a wider number of people, I think smaller bequeaths of say £30K are more likely to occur.
Just my theory of course.
If someone inherited £250,000 from the sale of their deceased parent's house, someone else then has to make mortgage payments, thus cancelling out the advantage accrued to the recipient of the inheritance ....
Much of this stuff is a zero sum game .... or worse.
The recently deceased parent will likely have been retired, so their disposable income (despite having paid off their mortgage) will likely have been lower than that of their children. Once the children have paid off their mortgages with their inheritance, their disposable income increases futher, thereby providing a boost to the economy. It most definitely is not a zero sum game.
You're also making the assumpion that the entire inheritance comes solely from the sale of the parent's house, ignoring bank savings, ISA's and other investments that will likely form part of the parent's estate. Your theory also assumes the child is already living in a mortgaged property. If on the other hand the person is living in social housing, their inheritance will not only free up a house for someone on a waiting list (reducing the number of social housing the government needs to build - call it an efficiency saving if you like), it also increases the demand for new build housing, positively effecting the private construction sector more jobs = more tax, and lower benefit payments).
I would go into more detail, but am hampered my having to type this on my phone in between ferrying passengers in my taxi.
Whilst I appreciate your comment, I genuinely feel that those with power or influence that visit LabourList do so to talk, not to listen. So I encourage you to join me in not holding your breath.
If you see the list i posted below , There is not much difference policy wise between the two front benches .
Danny
On health they plan to privatise public health (immunisations, nati-smoking etc). For primary care (GPs) they will bring in the failed GP fundholding from the 90s, where GPs made more money by not referring patients to specialists (ie you got worse care from a fundholding GP). In secondary (hospitals) and tertiary care (eg heart transplants) the Tories will bring in "new providers" which means that NHS money will go to the private sector in preference to NHS hospitals. The effect of this is that our shiny new NHS hospitals that Labour built will close. They even plan for hospitals to advertise their services, and to make NHS hospitals fund capital projects by pawning their assets (with the possibility of banks repossessing hospitals).
On education, the Tories plan radical changes. They have plans for the "Swedish Free Schools" which means that "new providers" can start up schools using public money. As in the case of the NHS where money to "new providers" means less money to NHS hospitals, the Swedish model will mean less money for existing state schools. In school discipline the Tories will condone corporal punishment (or as they say "easier for teachers to use reasonable force") and they will being in an automatic right to exclusion. They will also make home-school contracts (Behaviour Contracts) legally enforcible.
As I said, read their policies and see the changes that they want to make. They are certainly changes that I do not want to happen.
It still appears very much "Old Tory-" or as someone commented recently, "Thatcher mark II."
Peter Mandleson and co should be having a field day with this; however- let's keep focused on what really matters: policy and substance.
Jo.
Many of us have been saying this all along- style over substance will not win the day.Scratch the surface- and the superficiality of policy is exposed.
It's interesting how this image driven thing ties in with celebrity culture...perhaps the advertising gurus have pretty low opinion of the electorate; that we would be be taken in by this all by a series of posters alone?!
Haven't the Tories had 12 years to formulate innovative policies and strategies for this moment?
Or maybe they have- but are not giving us the whole picture, for fear of its full implications....
I think David Cameron appers a pleasant man; but isn't this whole campaign about presentation of a moderate face on old Tory principles?
I think there is still an emphasis on "rolling back the state,"
and creating a tax ststem that benefits the wealthier in society.
That needs to be exposed repeatedly like a mantra.
As for GB- OK- he's not a style guru- but by God does he have substance and experience behind him...and a great number of excellent MP's and forward thinkers.
Speaking as a female voter, I can say what I'm looking for is depth, not mere rhetoric.
There is still hope that Labour can emerge from the gloom and fight back.We have experience on our side!
Labour List is also a great inspiration- so many innovative thinkers and an idealist spirit.
Ok Policys
Welfare reform - Both partys agree
Id cards - New labour suport -torys dont
Globel warming - both surport and dont question it
Royal mail- Both front benches support part privatiseation
Iraq- both partys agree
Econemy- Both partys will cut , Mr Darling said the toughest cuts in 20 years, The torys will cut faster
Europe - Both front benches are pro eu
Banking- the torys started the boom and our leadership carried on with it
As to northern ireland the process was started by the torys (Under Mr Major i think) and Mr Blair carried it on and now Mr Brown is trying to keep the peace process alive
Not much difference from either front bench .
Danny
Inheritance tax
Married persons' allowance
Those are the items on the real Tory agenda.