I seem to quite sporadic in my blog posting but I now have time to comment on Mr Cameron's speech (having seen it delivered live myself).
The basic media perception seems to be that Osborne's speech was good and 'bold' and that Cameron's was passable. I take much the opposite view and the only commentator who seems to share my perspective is the Spectator's (now editor - yes it really has been a long time since my last post) Fraser Nelson.
Mr Nelson points out that Cameron's speech is quite revolutionary, and I agree.
I have often been critical of David Cameron lacking a coherent ideology and I know I'm not alone in this - all too often the question has been asked 'but what does he stand for?'. Mr Cameron must of been aware of this and so his speech centred around his vision for the UK and his beliefs.
"My beliefs. I am not a complicated person. I love this country and the things it stands for. That the state is your servant, never your master. Common sense and decency. The British sense of community. I have some simple beliefs. That there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state. That there is a 'we' in politics, and not just a 'me.' Above all, the importance of family. That fierce sense of loyalty you feel for each other. The unconditional love you give and receive, especially when things go wrong or when you get it wrong. That powerful sense you have when you hold your children and there's nothing, absolutely nothing — you wouldn't do to protect them. This is my DNA: family, community, country."
A thoroughly Conservative set of beliefs, and one which sees Cameron take Thatcher's focus on individualism and meld it into a more compassionate focus on community and family. It would seem Mr Cameron is quite comfortable with both the One nation and now Thatcherite traditions of the party and seems to want to marry the two. This seems much more sellable than the harsh words of Maggie which many felt isolated by. Indeed the phrase "We're all in this together" was used to sell much of the harshness. Cameron seems keen to unify rather than divide people along his ideological lines.
Cameron also seemed to point his guns towards big government, this phrase really dominating his speech. Just see the Guardians line of "David Cameron's war on the state", the Telegraphs "David Cameron promises to 'tear down big government'" or take a look at this handy 'word cloud' from Tory Politico (bigger words used more often).
Is David 'call me Dave' Cameron really a true Conservative after all? While some of his policies have certainly pointed to de-centralising power and shrinking the state Mr Cameron seemed to have shied away from the state bashing rhetoric Mrs Thatcher so readily embraced. Mr Cameron's bold pursuit of the Guardian vote had left those on the right feeling as if they are in the cold. Mr Cameron has come back to embrace them.
With all this though came Mr Camerons attack on poverty and Labours record on it. "So I say to the Labour party and the trades unions just tell me what is compassionate, what is progressive about spending more on debt interest than on helping the poorest children in our country?". The real highlight though, came with the following: "Excuse me? Who made the poorest poorer? Who left youth unemployment higher? Who made inequality greater? No, not the wicked Tories. You, Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society. So don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative party to fight for the poorest who you have let down." That received a standing ovation.
Mr Cameron pointed out the disgrace of the poorest suffering from 96% marginal tax rates and gave his support to IDS's well received work on poverty and abolishing the benefits trap. He even a promised a place in his government to IDS to show his commitment to these issues. The message seemed to be that it was Conservative to cut taxes and benefits, but progressive and compassionate to make sure this benefited the poorest.
In the end it seems the most memorable aspect of the speech was how Cameron managed to match the new Compassionate Conservatism with hard Thatcherism. Perhaps this is what Cameron is really about. Will this be the legacy of the Cameroon's? Not wet or dry but something in between? With his focus on shrinking the state and devolving power the future is very exciting for the Cameron project. I only hope it lives up to my new found expectations.
A man can dream, can't he?
The full speech can be found here
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Gordon Brown tells the nation he's a liar
Gordon Brown has told the TUC that “Labour will cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets”.
I'm sorry Mr Brown, didn't quite catch that. Was that the sound of a Labour politician using the word 'cuts'? Wasn't the line "Labour investment vs Tory cuts"?
Oh yes thats right it was:
Not that Mandy hasn't tried to pave over the past and deny this was ever what Brown said. Luckily Nick Robinson carved his lying arse a new one which you can hear here
So not only have Labour lied about not cutting (as they have now shown) but they are now lying about having lied about not cutting (is that right? cant quite keep pace with all their lying).
Oh and here's another video of the PM lying to Fraser Nelson and the nation!
Can't wait for this house of lying liars to come toppling down.
A man can dream, can't he?
I'm sorry Mr Brown, didn't quite catch that. Was that the sound of a Labour politician using the word 'cuts'? Wasn't the line "Labour investment vs Tory cuts"?
Oh yes thats right it was:
Not that Mandy hasn't tried to pave over the past and deny this was ever what Brown said. Luckily Nick Robinson carved his lying arse a new one which you can hear here
So not only have Labour lied about not cutting (as they have now shown) but they are now lying about having lied about not cutting (is that right? cant quite keep pace with all their lying).
Oh and here's another video of the PM lying to Fraser Nelson and the nation!
Can't wait for this house of lying liars to come toppling down.
A man can dream, can't he?
Friday, 11 September 2009
The Independent Safeguarding Authority....
....or a perfect example of why Government should stay out of everyone's lives.
In case you don't know the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) is a new body set up by Labour to stop Paedophilia.
From the 12th of October, when the programme goes live over 11.3 million British people who work with children will have to register with the ISA in order to prove their not a paedo. That's right, 11,300,000 people (over 1/6th of the entire population) on a government run database (and we all know they have such a great track record keeping our data safe) to prove they are not Paedophiles.
We've all come to expect some startlingly incompetent bureaucratic messes from Nu Labour, but this really takes the piss. Firstly you have to prove your NOT a paedophile. Thats not how the law works. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other bloody way around (not that Labour haven't done their best to try and change pesky things such as 'the rule of law').
Perhaps the idea is well intentioned but then look at the sort of level this law extends to. If you so much as drive your friends children to school you will need to register on the database. This is how bloody intrusive the law is going to be. You really have to wonder at what point the government thought this was a good idea.
Then you consider that in order to work with/touch/see/have children (delete as applicable) you are required to be on the database. You don't have a choice (its for the children's safety - don't cha' know). God knows I don't want Nu Labour knowing anything about what I do, live and what other activities I partake in, and this database is just another way for the Government to stick it's unwanted tentacles into our private lives. Not only will this database go further to grinding down the individual liberty of those who have to work with children, but it will almost certainly mean the number of those who do so voluntarily will drop, as they wont want the hassle and intrusiveness of having to be on the ISA database.
Of course the ISA is symptomatic of Labours 'eye catching', 'headlining grabbing' initiatives which when put under any sort of basic scrutiny disintegrate into a mound of steaming dung. Announce some big new body set up to stop Paedo's - get headline, the end. Who cares if the law is actually any good or does what its supposed to, Labours focus on winning the media is paramount to the way it governs. If you oppose said law, you are also clearly a 'Paedo sympathiser' and want our children to be molested. That's the way the argument will spin out.
Welcome to the 12 years of Labour government. The ISA is the bitter climax of how Nu Labour runs things. Will the Conservatives be any different? Apparently not.
A man can dream, can't he?
In case you don't know the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) is a new body set up by Labour to stop Paedophilia.
From the 12th of October, when the programme goes live over 11.3 million British people who work with children will have to register with the ISA in order to prove their not a paedo. That's right, 11,300,000 people (over 1/6th of the entire population) on a government run database (and we all know they have such a great track record keeping our data safe) to prove they are not Paedophiles.
We've all come to expect some startlingly incompetent bureaucratic messes from Nu Labour, but this really takes the piss. Firstly you have to prove your NOT a paedophile. Thats not how the law works. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other bloody way around (not that Labour haven't done their best to try and change pesky things such as 'the rule of law').
Perhaps the idea is well intentioned but then look at the sort of level this law extends to. If you so much as drive your friends children to school you will need to register on the database. This is how bloody intrusive the law is going to be. You really have to wonder at what point the government thought this was a good idea.
Then you consider that in order to work with/touch/see/have children (delete as applicable) you are required to be on the database. You don't have a choice (its for the children's safety - don't cha' know). God knows I don't want Nu Labour knowing anything about what I do, live and what other activities I partake in, and this database is just another way for the Government to stick it's unwanted tentacles into our private lives. Not only will this database go further to grinding down the individual liberty of those who have to work with children, but it will almost certainly mean the number of those who do so voluntarily will drop, as they wont want the hassle and intrusiveness of having to be on the ISA database.
Of course the ISA is symptomatic of Labours 'eye catching', 'headlining grabbing' initiatives which when put under any sort of basic scrutiny disintegrate into a mound of steaming dung. Announce some big new body set up to stop Paedo's - get headline, the end. Who cares if the law is actually any good or does what its supposed to, Labours focus on winning the media is paramount to the way it governs. If you oppose said law, you are also clearly a 'Paedo sympathiser' and want our children to be molested. That's the way the argument will spin out.
Welcome to the 12 years of Labour government. The ISA is the bitter climax of how Nu Labour runs things. Will the Conservatives be any different? Apparently not.
A man can dream, can't he?
Friday, 14 August 2009
Can the NHS ever be reformed?
Mr Hannan has been making his rounds on some Fox TV network political talkshows over the past few days. The subject of discussion? Why healthcare of course! What with Obama's healthcare reforms coming in for a battering, Fox news have in Mr Hannan a first hand testament of a man living in a country with a socialist state run monopoly healthcare system. While Mr Hannan has been a popular choice with Bill O'reilly, Glen Beck and co for some time, it is only now that his comments have promoted a reaction in his own country.
The result is the left erupting in a mouth frothing frenzy and the social networking site twitter seeing an explosion of tweets with the hashtag '#welovethenhs'. The response has been quite dramatic and the Tories have faced questions asking whether they are divided over the NHS or if many people in the party share Mr Hannan's views.
Consequently Cameron and Andrew Lansley have come out saying that they love the NHS and have poured scorn on Mr Hannan, with Cameron labelling him an eccentric and a maverick.
Ironically just a few days ago, Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator was questioning whether Lansley should get the chop (as the left are now doing for Hannan). Lansley should go, says Fraser, as he has committed the Tories to increase real term spending on the NHS, year on year until 2014 - something not even Labour have committed to. In terms of policies the Tories are actually supporting the NHS to a much greater extent than Labour - an unaffordable extent.
Whatever doubts Cameron had about Lansley's NHS policy will have evaporated. Cameron has been keen to use this policy line a lot over the whole Dan Hannan affair to show the parties commitment to the NHS. This has meant where as before the Conservatives had wiggle room (as Mr Nelson said), this PR disaster will have made sure that the Conservatives do not change their stance on the NHS. Mr Hannan has actually pushed the party further away from what he would want, and the NHS will now be immune from cuts wholly for political reasons. Mr Cameron will dare not move on the NHS for fear of triggering off another event like this and raising more questions of the 'nasty Tories wanting to abolish the NHS'.
Of course David Cameron has always been committed to the NHS and wanting to soften the Tories image on it. He summed up his whole leadership with the 3 letters "N-H-S" which speaks volumes about Cameron's understanding of the NHS's importance to the electorate. But while it was wise of Mr Cameron to try and neutralise the NHS as an issue for the Tories in political terms, it is also hard to doubt that Cameron is committed to the institution on a personal political level. Cameron has always spoke with high regard about the NHS and its treatment of his disabled son, Ivan. I fear this may have coloured Mr Cameron's entire image of the NHS and led to him having a rather one sided view of the institution.
Whats most striking about this affair is that it seems to have confirmed the NHS's bizarre place as that untouchable sacred cow of British politics. Nigel Lawson said the NHS was the UK's national religion and this debacle only shows how right he was - speak out against at and become politically doomed.
Nevermind that the NHS is unlike any other Universal healthcare system in the world, in that it is a state run monopoly with all the nightmares of a centrally planned system. Nevermind the hundreds that die through the bureaucracy and targets culture that has been imposed, and nevermind the life saving drugs denied to people by the body NICE (ironic much?) on the basis of cost. No, it seems to be that in the world of British politics the NHS is beyond reproach.
Funnily enough Mr Hannan has never wanted to abolish the NHS principles of 'free healthcare at the point of use' and the 'universal coverage' the NHS provides. Surely it is these principles which the public are most endeared to when they think of the NHS?
Yes Mr Hannan's attacks where strong, (which is probably why they have been so badly misinterpreted) but this could of quite easily initiated a mature debate on the future of the NHS and the way in which provide healthcare in the UK. Instead it has descended into a political feast for the left and has turned the public against the Conservatives on the NHS. I fear that we may never have the real debate about healthcare that we desperately need in the UK and all because of this damned institution.
I fully support Mr Hannans criticisms of the system and just hope that we can at some stage get to a point where there isn't simply an unquestioning love and commitment to the NHS. We'd all be a lot more healthy for it.
A man can dream, can't he?
The result is the left erupting in a mouth frothing frenzy and the social networking site twitter seeing an explosion of tweets with the hashtag '#welovethenhs'. The response has been quite dramatic and the Tories have faced questions asking whether they are divided over the NHS or if many people in the party share Mr Hannan's views.
Consequently Cameron and Andrew Lansley have come out saying that they love the NHS and have poured scorn on Mr Hannan, with Cameron labelling him an eccentric and a maverick.
Ironically just a few days ago, Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator was questioning whether Lansley should get the chop (as the left are now doing for Hannan). Lansley should go, says Fraser, as he has committed the Tories to increase real term spending on the NHS, year on year until 2014 - something not even Labour have committed to. In terms of policies the Tories are actually supporting the NHS to a much greater extent than Labour - an unaffordable extent.
Whatever doubts Cameron had about Lansley's NHS policy will have evaporated. Cameron has been keen to use this policy line a lot over the whole Dan Hannan affair to show the parties commitment to the NHS. This has meant where as before the Conservatives had wiggle room (as Mr Nelson said), this PR disaster will have made sure that the Conservatives do not change their stance on the NHS. Mr Hannan has actually pushed the party further away from what he would want, and the NHS will now be immune from cuts wholly for political reasons. Mr Cameron will dare not move on the NHS for fear of triggering off another event like this and raising more questions of the 'nasty Tories wanting to abolish the NHS'.
Of course David Cameron has always been committed to the NHS and wanting to soften the Tories image on it. He summed up his whole leadership with the 3 letters "N-H-S" which speaks volumes about Cameron's understanding of the NHS's importance to the electorate. But while it was wise of Mr Cameron to try and neutralise the NHS as an issue for the Tories in political terms, it is also hard to doubt that Cameron is committed to the institution on a personal political level. Cameron has always spoke with high regard about the NHS and its treatment of his disabled son, Ivan. I fear this may have coloured Mr Cameron's entire image of the NHS and led to him having a rather one sided view of the institution.
Whats most striking about this affair is that it seems to have confirmed the NHS's bizarre place as that untouchable sacred cow of British politics. Nigel Lawson said the NHS was the UK's national religion and this debacle only shows how right he was - speak out against at and become politically doomed.
Nevermind that the NHS is unlike any other Universal healthcare system in the world, in that it is a state run monopoly with all the nightmares of a centrally planned system. Nevermind the hundreds that die through the bureaucracy and targets culture that has been imposed, and nevermind the life saving drugs denied to people by the body NICE (ironic much?) on the basis of cost. No, it seems to be that in the world of British politics the NHS is beyond reproach.
Funnily enough Mr Hannan has never wanted to abolish the NHS principles of 'free healthcare at the point of use' and the 'universal coverage' the NHS provides. Surely it is these principles which the public are most endeared to when they think of the NHS?
Yes Mr Hannan's attacks where strong, (which is probably why they have been so badly misinterpreted) but this could of quite easily initiated a mature debate on the future of the NHS and the way in which provide healthcare in the UK. Instead it has descended into a political feast for the left and has turned the public against the Conservatives on the NHS. I fear that we may never have the real debate about healthcare that we desperately need in the UK and all because of this damned institution.
I fully support Mr Hannans criticisms of the system and just hope that we can at some stage get to a point where there isn't simply an unquestioning love and commitment to the NHS. We'd all be a lot more healthy for it.
A man can dream, can't he?
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Assisted Suicide and the rise of libertarianism
The recent law lords decision on the Debbie Purdy case has opened up the issue of assisted suicide and whether it should be legal. As a libertarian my instinct immediately point me to say that an individual, as sovereign of their own life, should not be criminalised for killing themselves or if they are unable to do so, getting someone else to help them carry out their wishes.
Today Mathew Parris has an article in The Times and Polly Toynbee has one in the Guardian in which their views on suicide are discussed.
It was Parris's article which most intrigued me though. The title "Why I am opposed to legalising assisted suicide" seems fairly clear. However the subtitle opens a whole new can of worms, "I will take my death into my own hands. The State has no business giving me the authority to die - or the authority to live".
Parris defiantly comes at the issue from a libertarian perspective: "Suicide is the greatest of human freedoms, underwriting all the others, for it gives us the possibility of defying every thing and every one there is. The possibility of suicide is what makes life voluntary and each new day an act of will. No wonder the faith community gnash their teeth at suicide. God Himself, if He existed, would gnash His teeth at suicide: the supreme act of defiance, the final raspberry. The knowledge that I’m here by choice, that every breath I take I take by choice, injects into my soul a transcendent joy. That we can let go whenever we want is for me the deepest sort of thrill."
However he then goes onto say "It is of course outrageous that the friends, partners or even family doctors of suffering and terminally ill people seeking suicide should ever be successfully prosecuted for helping them in good faith. My reservation is this: an Assisted Suicide Act could be the beginning of a creep towards the state regulation of death. We who respect the individual’s right to die should retain a small but insistent libertarian doubt about the bringing of order to a corner of human behaviour where, at present, something closer to anarchy reigns."
Parris worries that if we legalise assisted suicide then the state will have another area of control and regulation over out lives in deciding how we die. I must admit I haven't really thought of the issue from this perspective, but it is an interesting one. Would it be the case that legalising suicide may actually just lead to more state control and more power for the state to decide when and when not people can end their lives?
Polly on the other hand, leaps at the debate with the most crude of titles. "The 1961 Suicide Act is an instrument of state torture" screams the headline. Calm down Polly - its only the issue of life and death at stakes!
What perked my interest in Polly's number though, is it's very first line. "The State can do terrible things to people".
Is that a wave of unbelieving euphoria washing over you dear reader? Are the "state can do no wrong" views of Ms Toynbee finally cracking? Have we libertarians really won the day and turned our greatest foe? Is Polly going to speak out against the state's slavery of taxation or maybe even the unprecedented amount of control and regulation it holds over our everyday lives?
No. "While libertarians worry about big brother CCTV cameras, information stored on computers or the shameful power to lock people up without trial for 28 days, even worse happens behind closed doors at the state's behest." Polly firstly seems to think libertarians don't care about assisted suicide - a mistake (especially when Parris identifies it as a libertarian issue), but at least she seems to think that all these things she lists are problems with the country. While we haven't won, we are certainly making ground if Polly is agreeing with us on several key issues.
What is more important however is that these are clearly defined as Libertarian issues. We are becoming recognised as a more and more legitimate viewpoint. Two articles in two leading newspapers have both used the word libertarian, and addressed libertarian ideas. Not socialist or conservative, but libertarian. It seems that more and more often now libertarianism is the future. We are gaining ground in the intellectual battle for the future of this country. Let us make sure we win it.
A man can dream, can't he?
Today Mathew Parris has an article in The Times and Polly Toynbee has one in the Guardian in which their views on suicide are discussed.
It was Parris's article which most intrigued me though. The title "Why I am opposed to legalising assisted suicide" seems fairly clear. However the subtitle opens a whole new can of worms, "I will take my death into my own hands. The State has no business giving me the authority to die - or the authority to live".
Parris defiantly comes at the issue from a libertarian perspective: "Suicide is the greatest of human freedoms, underwriting all the others, for it gives us the possibility of defying every thing and every one there is. The possibility of suicide is what makes life voluntary and each new day an act of will. No wonder the faith community gnash their teeth at suicide. God Himself, if He existed, would gnash His teeth at suicide: the supreme act of defiance, the final raspberry. The knowledge that I’m here by choice, that every breath I take I take by choice, injects into my soul a transcendent joy. That we can let go whenever we want is for me the deepest sort of thrill."
However he then goes onto say "It is of course outrageous that the friends, partners or even family doctors of suffering and terminally ill people seeking suicide should ever be successfully prosecuted for helping them in good faith. My reservation is this: an Assisted Suicide Act could be the beginning of a creep towards the state regulation of death. We who respect the individual’s right to die should retain a small but insistent libertarian doubt about the bringing of order to a corner of human behaviour where, at present, something closer to anarchy reigns."
Parris worries that if we legalise assisted suicide then the state will have another area of control and regulation over out lives in deciding how we die. I must admit I haven't really thought of the issue from this perspective, but it is an interesting one. Would it be the case that legalising suicide may actually just lead to more state control and more power for the state to decide when and when not people can end their lives?
Polly on the other hand, leaps at the debate with the most crude of titles. "The 1961 Suicide Act is an instrument of state torture" screams the headline. Calm down Polly - its only the issue of life and death at stakes!
What perked my interest in Polly's number though, is it's very first line. "The State can do terrible things to people".
Is that a wave of unbelieving euphoria washing over you dear reader? Are the "state can do no wrong" views of Ms Toynbee finally cracking? Have we libertarians really won the day and turned our greatest foe? Is Polly going to speak out against the state's slavery of taxation or maybe even the unprecedented amount of control and regulation it holds over our everyday lives?
No. "While libertarians worry about big brother CCTV cameras, information stored on computers or the shameful power to lock people up without trial for 28 days, even worse happens behind closed doors at the state's behest." Polly firstly seems to think libertarians don't care about assisted suicide - a mistake (especially when Parris identifies it as a libertarian issue), but at least she seems to think that all these things she lists are problems with the country. While we haven't won, we are certainly making ground if Polly is agreeing with us on several key issues.
What is more important however is that these are clearly defined as Libertarian issues. We are becoming recognised as a more and more legitimate viewpoint. Two articles in two leading newspapers have both used the word libertarian, and addressed libertarian ideas. Not socialist or conservative, but libertarian. It seems that more and more often now libertarianism is the future. We are gaining ground in the intellectual battle for the future of this country. Let us make sure we win it.
A man can dream, can't he?
Monday, 27 July 2009
Cranmer is spot on in the schools debate
I hadn't actually read this piece by His Grace about education when I made my last post here, but it seems to reflect exactly what I think on the subject.
The Conservatives must allow selection and buisnesses into their schools policy for it to really succeed and restore the British Education system. Cranmer has hit the nail on the head, and although I readily disagree with him on most things, he couldn't be more right on this.
The Conservatives must allow selection and buisnesses into their schools policy for it to really succeed and restore the British Education system. Cranmer has hit the nail on the head, and although I readily disagree with him on most things, he couldn't be more right on this.
David Davis is causing trouble...
...and we should be encouraging him to do so. Recently the former Shadow Home Sectary has questioned Trident being fully upgraded. He has said the Conservatives should adopt Grammar schools. He has said that the NHS and International Development spending should not be off limits to cuts.
On all of these points I agree. It is important we maintain a Nuclear deterrent, but do we really need a full upgrade when we have a perfectly good deterrent at the moment? What's more can we afford a whole new set of subs?
On schools I like the Conservatives current policy which allows parents to set up new schools and creates competition amongst schools to attract pupils. It is basically a voucher scheme but without the vouchers and is based on the Swedish schools model. It has has several other great features. This said the policy currently doesn't allow for buisnesses to run schools or schools to discriminate on what pupils they take based on results. Both of these factors are notably lacking from the Conservative policy and play a vital part in Swedish schools system from which they otherwise take the model from.
First, David Davis has said that we should bring back Grammar schools. Much better in my opinion is that we simply incorporate the core element of Grammar schools - selection based on results - into the current Conservative policy. This would really deliver on what Mr Davis wants - social mobility - which has been lacking in the school system ever since the demise of the Grammar schools. But also by adapting the current policy the important decentralisation that the Conservative policy would bring remains intact.
Secondly the Times has rumoured that the Tories may change position on allowing buisnesses to run schools. Here's praying that they do, because the policy hinges on this more than anything else. In my last post I urged Mr Cameron to be bolder with his policies. This would be a great start.
As for spending on the NHS and International Development, I have already blogged on why we need to cut these departments as much as any other. We should cut back the state in all areas - nothing should be off limits.
All of this said, I think its very healthy of the party to have a debate and some criticism from within. Much better this than a party of mindless drones and yes men. Its important that Mr Cameron should face some different voices from inside his party. David Davis speaks sense, and Mr Cameron should listen to him more often.
A man can dream, can't he?
On all of these points I agree. It is important we maintain a Nuclear deterrent, but do we really need a full upgrade when we have a perfectly good deterrent at the moment? What's more can we afford a whole new set of subs?
On schools I like the Conservatives current policy which allows parents to set up new schools and creates competition amongst schools to attract pupils. It is basically a voucher scheme but without the vouchers and is based on the Swedish schools model. It has has several other great features. This said the policy currently doesn't allow for buisnesses to run schools or schools to discriminate on what pupils they take based on results. Both of these factors are notably lacking from the Conservative policy and play a vital part in Swedish schools system from which they otherwise take the model from.
First, David Davis has said that we should bring back Grammar schools. Much better in my opinion is that we simply incorporate the core element of Grammar schools - selection based on results - into the current Conservative policy. This would really deliver on what Mr Davis wants - social mobility - which has been lacking in the school system ever since the demise of the Grammar schools. But also by adapting the current policy the important decentralisation that the Conservative policy would bring remains intact.
Secondly the Times has rumoured that the Tories may change position on allowing buisnesses to run schools. Here's praying that they do, because the policy hinges on this more than anything else. In my last post I urged Mr Cameron to be bolder with his policies. This would be a great start.
As for spending on the NHS and International Development, I have already blogged on why we need to cut these departments as much as any other. We should cut back the state in all areas - nothing should be off limits.
All of this said, I think its very healthy of the party to have a debate and some criticism from within. Much better this than a party of mindless drones and yes men. Its important that Mr Cameron should face some different voices from inside his party. David Davis speaks sense, and Mr Cameron should listen to him more often.
A man can dream, can't he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
