Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

I recently wrote a sort of manifesto of policy ideas and general directions and attitudes which I believe could and should be adopted by the Conservative Party. Its a generally considered and calm, making a break from my usually more hostile style, so even raging lefties will probably be able to stomach it. Its just over 4000 words. If anyone is interested:

http://www.libertyresource.com/conservativefuture.rtf

I'd greatly appreciate any feedback

[DSwain]

A very good read over my Saturday breakfast, thank you!

I am in agreement with you, Lord H, on the great majority of your manifesto. However, I'd like to seek clarification on a few issues and to disagree on one or two things:

1) Tax and Spend
No disagreement from me that the state's slice of the pie - at 42.4% of GDP - is too high (though not the highest in history I think? Under the Wilson and Callaghan, the average percentile was at over 45% http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/column/0,,471380,00.html; believe me, though, comparing this government to previous failed Labour administrations is nothing for TB to take credit in!)
I must admit, I am always sceptical about the great grail of 'government waste'. I haven't read the book to which you refer in the footnotes, though. I think the Conservatives have to say precisely which programmes they will cut and do a thorough costing. I eye the dependence on cutting waste in the same way Dr Johnson viewed patriotism. I acknowledge that there are lots of savings to be made from cutting waste but most attempts at quantifying such waste is essentially an exercise in plucking numbers from thin air, as evinced by Gordon Brown's own 'war on waste'.

My proposal - be brutally honest with people on spending and tell them that cuts might hurt. Level with people and expound on the absolutely saleable idea that all the extra spending of OUR money since 1997 might have delivered some improvements but nowhere nearly enough in proportion with the outlay. The objective must be to positively shift the UK back into the low-tax economies; as you say, this is a manifesto for power and not just for office.


2) Policing and liberty
Again, I agree with much of what you say but I do disagree with you on SOCA. Yes, the press coverage has been to paint this body as a British FBI and there is something to it. But SOCA does not have the same breadth of powers of the US FBI into the whole range of policing. SOCA is there to concentrate on drug traffickers and people traffickers. SOCA combines existing national policing bodies under a single management system with the objective of reducing inter-agency friction. I see SOCA as a means to prevent any further moves towards a broader national police or force mergers. However, it provides a potential framework to tackle those policing matters that in the future the law enforcement community feels better to move away from county level.

3) Education
To repeat myself, I agree with most of what you say here but I would like a little clarification. Would you propose to remove arbitrary targets on HE participation?

4) Defence
Further clarification - would your manifesto maintain the modest proposals for increased defence spending committed to in the 2005 manifesto? Or would you envisage no increase - or even a greater increase? Perhaps the Ancram proposal of £10-£15bn?


Aside from my reservations outlined above, I think your manifesto is precisely the sort of platform the Conservatives ought to push. Not seeking policy dispute with New Labour for its own sake but also not holding with any C21 version of 'Butskellism'. Conservatives must tell people that they have a choice.

Finally, what's the 'big idea'? What's the equivalent of 'Right to Buy' and curtailment of union power?

[Lord Hargreaves]

DSwain wrote: A very good read over my Saturday breakfast, thank you!

Haha, you made me blush :!oops:

DSwain wrote: I am in agreement with you, Lord H, on the great majority of your manifesto. However, I'd like to seek clarification on a few issues and to disagree on one or two things:

1) Tax and Spend
No disagreement from me that the state's slice of the pie - at 42.4% of GDP - is too high (though not the highest in history I think? Under the Wilson and Callaghan, the average percentile was at over 45% http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/column/0,,471380,00.html; believe me, though, comparing this government to previous failed Labour administrations is nothing for TB to take credit in!)
I must admit, I am always sceptical about the great grail of 'government waste'. I haven't read the book to which you refer in the footnotes, though. I think the Conservatives have to say precisely which programmes they will cut and do a thorough costing. I eye the dependence on cutting waste in the same way Dr Johnson viewed patriotism. I acknowledge that there are lots of savings to be made from cutting waste but most attempts at quantifying such waste is essentially an exercise in plucking numbers from thin air, as evinced by Gordon Brown's own 'war on waste'.

On waste, the taxpayers alliance have picked out £82billion of it from national, devolved, local and european government. Iits definition of waste includes spending not just that failed to deliver anything but also unneeded spending. Obviously how this is defined is wildly open to debate, personally I would probably find 1/4 of all spending is unnecessary but those of a more 'one nation' and less libertarian bent would disagree, as would New Labour to a greater extent, as would Old Labour to a much greater extent, onto whom even the concept of "unnecessary spending" is perplexing.

DSwain wrote: My proposal - be brutally honest with people on spending and tell them that cuts might hurt. Level with people and expound on the absolutely saleable idea that all the extra spending of OUR money since 1997 might have delivered some improvements but nowhere nearly enough in proportion with the outlay. The objective must be to positively shift the UK back into the low-tax economies; as you say, this is a manifesto for power and not just for office.


This would be part of my proposal too. Choosing to limit government is to choose freedom, and freedom comes with extra responsibilities and extra burdens to bare. I definitely would not take the Tory line from previous elections, where tax cuts are promised alongside spending increases and everyone pretends the sky is green.

DSwain wrote:
2) Policing and liberty
Again, I agree with much of what you say but I do disagree with you on SOCA. Yes, the press coverage has been to paint this body as a British FBI and there is something to it. But SOCA does not have the same breadth of powers of the US FBI into the whole range of policing. SOCA is there to concentrate on drug traffickers and people traffickers. SOCA combines existing national policing bodies under a single management system with the objective of reducing inter-agency friction. I see SOCA as a means to prevent any further moves towards a broader national police or force mergers. However, it provides a potential framework to tackle those policing matters that in the future the law enforcement community feels better to move away from county level.

These are interesting ideas with merit but i cant say i'm persuaded. With SOCA's new role comes increasingly authoritarian powers not available to local police forces. To tell the truth though, my main objection here comes more from deep philosophical perspective - there is something so distinctly, out-and-out unBritish about a national police force.

Look back into history at Robert Peel and the first creation of a police force. Even the idea of a 'policeman' raised huge liberty concerns back in the day (see how far we have come?) and Peel only got the force with the emphasis that the police are just normal citizens, with normal citizen powers, who only differ from you and i because they are paid to do what we would have the right to do also had we the time or will. The police nowadays have strayed so unbelievably far from this ideal, and SOCA just represents the last straw that broke the camels back in my opinion.

DSwain wrote:
3) Education
To repeat myself, I agree with most of what you say here but I would like a little clarification. Would you propose to remove arbitrary targets on HE participation?

I'd be in favour of HE privatisation, with government loans available to students in order to pay (fees and thus loans would be higher to substitute for lost tax revenue). Therefore arbitrary targets would almost certainly go, although obviously if an institution wants arbitrary targets for themselves that's their own business.

DSwain wrote: 4) Defence
Further clarification - would your manifesto maintain the modest proposals for increased defence spending committed to in the 2005 manifesto? Or would you envisage no increase - or even a greater increase? Perhaps the Ancram proposal of £10-£15bn?

I deliberately stayed rather quiet on foreign policy since thats the "in thing" for conservatives at the moment. I'd say defence spending would be increased though, our forces need it.

DSwain wrote:
Aside from my reservations outlined above, I think your manifesto is precisely the sort of platform the Conservatives ought to push. Not seeking policy dispute with New Labour for its own sake but also not holding with any C21 version of 'Butskellism'. Conservatives must tell people that they have a choice.

Yup, exactly

DSwain wrote:
Finally, what's the 'big idea'? What's the equivalent of 'Right to Buy' and curtailment of union power?

I'm not sure what my big idea in terms of policy would be, though of the many things i include, getting rid of the NHS in favour of social insurance (or something even more radical?) would probably be at the forefront of the campaign