Hegemony and Economic Consensus

In postwar British politics, there existed one long period of consensus, and there currently exists another - the former being the 'Butskellite' consensus, and, currently, the market economy consensus, created by Margaret Thatcher.

Butskellism involved agreement between Labour and the Conservatives that governments should employ Keynesian economic policies, maintain full employment, increase public service spending and spend its way out of inflation. After the assembly of the welfare state by Labour between 1945 and 1951, Conservatives, under Churchill, were forced to accept the new order and reject the old laissez-faire attitudes of the 1930s. It appeared that post-war conditions required a larger and more interventionist state, to help reconstruct the nation after the Second World War. This idea persisted, largely unchallenged, until 1979, although some on the right (Enoch Powell, Arthur Seldon, etc) knew that this approach could not last forever, without dangerous consequences. The toxic combination of trade union power and poor control of public spending caused devaluation of the pound, rampant inflation and unemployment.

The Thatcher Years caused the Labour Party to think differently. Failures at the ballot box on four successive occasions forced those on the centre-left to revise their obselete economic policy, and accept what the Conservative Party had created: a dynamic, lower-taxing, lower-spending market economy with democratic trade unions and widespread ownership of shares.

Under Blair, Labour rescinded its commitment to public ownership and its 1997 manifesto declared that they would stick to Conservative spending plans for the first three years of its government, to attempt to prove to the public that its stewardship of the economy would be sound.

Labour has increased taxes at least 100 times since 1997. It has poured billions into the NHS, education, the New Deal and countless failed IT projects and bureaucracies. It has transformed the UK's 1997 budget surplus into a defecit; a defecit which now gives the Chancellor no room for manouevre in the current climate. Taxpayers' money has been treated with a reprehensible arrogance, which is synominous with New Labour's attitude across the board.

Labour seeks to create another consensus. It is, in essence, a market economy shackled by high and wasteful government spending and interference, one that is uncompetitive, and completely unsuitable for the twenty-first century. The political power afforded to New Labour at the ballot box has come at a high price, both figuratively and literally. Their politics has been cynical throughout, attempting to portray the Conservative Party as an irrelevance, our policies as incoherent and, worst of all, paradoxically, attempting to simultaneously demolish the record of the 1979-97 governments and yet claim their legacy for themselves.

The Conservatives must not accept Labour's spending plans at the next election, when we are elected to government. I would rather we endured another 11 years in opposition than were prepared to abide by such thriftless and reckless policy. We are not a Party of big government and not even a century in opposition should change our minds. After all, we were right in 1979 and we are still right now. Labour must not succeed in binding the hands of future generations when it comes to formulating policy for a successful UK economy. Conservatives must cut tax, and spend effeciently. Whilst I appreciate that the electorate must be convinced of our economic competence, in the same way that Labour had to make the case before the 1997 election, there is now a growing appetite for tax cuts and deregulation. Brown's cavalier spending is beginning to cause damage. Those who need to renew fixed-rate mortgages this year may discover this, to their cost.

We must be bold and united in putting forward the case for lower tax and smaller government. We must not succumb to the idea that public spending is somehow untouchable. It would be a betrayal of Conservatism, Thatcherism, and most importantly, the British people. If government has to tax at all, it has to spend the proceeds wisely and fairly. Labour have failed to do this and have squandered their years of economic and political plenty, and will be punished at the next election.

'Who will run?' - continued

The Today Programme is suggested that it is highly likely that there will be a female candidate - let's consider who that might be:

Sarah Teather
Lynne Featherstone
Susan Kramer
Julia Goldsworthy

Other male candidates have been mentioned:

Steve Webb
David Laws

Who will run?

Malcolm Bruce is being interviewed on BBC News 24. He mentions four Lib Dem MPs as 'would make good leaders'. They are:

David Laws
Ed Davey
Nick Clegg
Chris Huhne

Would Laws and/or Davey stand? Would there be a risk of the Orange Book vote being split?

BREAKING NEWS - Ming Goes

Ming Campbell has resigned. Did he go or was he pushed? You decide.

Coming up:

1) Who will run?

2) Is this bad news for the Tories?

3) Is it bad news for Gordon?

The Polls - LATEST

ConservativeHome, 'Will the 11% Lib Dems take this opportunity to oust Ming?'

11% would a complete unadulterated disaster for the Lib Dems but I cannot envisage them polling this badly - surely this result is just due to the media coverage attained by the two main parties?

Ming, however, does appear to be becoming a bit of a joke - his comments about ageism in politics and fixed term parliaments on QT the other day were met with rather sarcastically enthusiastic applause.

For us Tories, we can't really afford for the Lib Dems to do this badly (amusing though it is) because it makes it easier for Labour to retain an overall majority and means that we must gain even more seats to form a government.

As for the alternatives, Huhne only has a projected majority of 547 in Eastleigh and surely would be a foolish choice for leader if the Tories were to 'Ashcroft' him out of his seat at the next election. The Lib Dems need to make a sustainable choice as leader, which is why electing MC was such utter folly.

Enough of the Lib Dems though - 41% is excellent. We need to sustain this performance and bash Labour down to the low to mid-thirties. This is the only way we can WIN.

Three polls come along at once

Some projections using UK Elect:

Lab 40 Con 36 LD 13 gives:

Lab 364
Con 247
LD 5
LAB MAJ 80

Lab 39 Con 36 LD 15 gives:

Lab 355
Con 249
LD 12
LAB MAJ 62

Lab 39 Con 38 LD 16 gives:

Lab 341
Con 264
LD 12
LAB MAJ 34

Some points to consider:
-The Lib Dems won't do nearly as badly as this!
-Labour must poll a lower percentage if they're going to be deprived of their overall majority.
-I considered immediately after Conference that a 1% defecit was my minimum acceptable result in a post-Conference poll - Brown would look silly to go to the country and get a majority of only 34. Majorities of 62 or 80, however, would be OK.

As I said on conservativehome.com, 'Of course, Lib Dems won't lose as many seats as this unless there's complete meltdown. The problem is, we can't afford for the Lib Dems to do too badly, because it makes it easier for Labour to get an overall majority. I still think that Brown will go to the country next week. He would look extremely foolish not to after allowing such a collosal build-up and the bias in FPTP allows for the Conservatives to do well without depriving Labour of their overall majority.'

UPDATE:

The Guardian seem to have updated the ICM findings to Lab 38 Con 38 LD 16:

Lab 332
Con 269
LD 14
LAB MAJ 16

Some people are commenting on ukpollingreport.co.uk that the Tories are doing 'even better' in marginals and some outstanding results here might tip the balance away from Brown. Good news!