Words of recession

'Fixing the roof when the sun is shining'

'This is a serious time for serious people'

'Boom to bust'

'Borrowing bombshell'

'Tax cuts are not just for Christmas'

I'm FED UP of hearing these phrases. We are completely failing to land any blows on Brown at the moment. He's getting away with everything - a devaluation of the pound, massive borrowing, enormous waste, bureaucracy, complacency, lies, smugness, incompetence - I could go on - and yet we, the Conservative Party, persist in using these lame soundbites to persuade a recession-doomed electorate that we are the best Party to deal with the current climate.

It appears that leading politicians have no faith that what might be considered economic 'jargon' is comprehensible by the public at large. Instead, we prefer to regurgitate weak and ineffective soundbites which best befit the language of the playground.

This is no time for weasel words.

Oh, there's another one.

I'm continually irked by Dave and George's approach on the economy. Until yesterday, DC looked ridiculous by continuing to abide by the pretence that the Tories would match Labour's future spending plans. We must be able to offer considerable tax cuts now, but not by borrowing - but by CUTTING. The electorate cannot continue to have it both ways. In times like these, if they want more money in their pockets, they should have to sacrifice something else. There is no doubt that there is money to be saved in the NHS, and we should not shirk from our responsibility to say so. The NHS is not sacred. The NHS is not the ONLY welfare solution. The NHS is wasteful, bloated and unaccountable.

We have, frankly, looked silly throughout the duration of this crisis. And the longer it goes on, the more opportunity we have to look more silly. Where are the big guns? Where is Ken Clarke? If we were so confident Labour would destroy the economy then why is the Shadow Chancellorship lumbered with such a lightweight? George Osborne comes across as an amateur, with little clue of how to handle events, and appears to suffer complete lack of nouse, lack of judgement and inability to attack the government properly. He still sounds shrill and is open to complete ridicule, allegedly considerable intellect notwithstanding.

I am in a state of utter despair. Our 'motherhood and apple pie' policies have been completely overtaken by events. The latest poll indicates that Labour would be the largest party in the House of Commons in the event of a general election. This is a disaster. If they win a fourth term, the consequences are unthinkably grave for the country and our Party. We need to get back to scoring consistent double-digit leads, given that, with the possibility of a 2009 election around the corner, Labour lies about 'cuts' will probably gain favour with some of the electorate. We therefore need a big lead going into any campaign in order to protect it.

We must also remember the lessons of 1992. Before that election, it was unprecedented for a Party which was behind in the polls at the beginning of a campaign to emerge victorious on polling day. That precedent has been set. We must never let the attack die down.

I have never despised Gordon Brown more than I do at this very moment - trouble is, I have never doubted the opposition's ability to win more than I do now.

Tomorrow's probable Shadow Shuffly Stuff

It's being mooted that DC will carry out a limited shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow. If this is so, what are the likely moves?

Tipped for demotion:

Ainsworth - it is being said that he's had little or no media presence during his three-year tenure at Environment. If this is the only complaint, he should be replaced by a younger, more thrusting Cameronite. However, due to the scaling down of the Environment brief and the creation of the new Woodland Folk department, Ainsworth may keep his role anyway. I fail to see how his replacement by 'sidewards step' of, say, a Willetts or May would remedy the current situation.

Villiers - has apparently been poor at Transport and will probably more somewhere slightly more junior rather than leave the shadow cabinet altogether. New slimmed-down environment, perhaps? She would also have a far harder job shadowing Geoff Hoon rather than the easily massacrable Ruth Kelly.

May - I've never been much of a Theresa May fan, but I doubt Cameron will get rid of her - I do, however, wish he would. Her media performances are consistently unconvincing. She languishes in the backwaters of the shadow Commons Leader position, a position more usefully held by someone more senior, such as Clarke, Sir Malcolm, or even Michael Howard.

Willetts - he lost control of the most important half of the Education brief in the last reshuffle. I would rather he returned to the backbenches. I have always said I feel slightly sorry for May and Willetts - they have served the Party pretty well over the last 10 years or so, but their skills are now being eclipsed by MPs from the 2005 intake, some of whom are destined for very high office indeed.

Gillan/Mundell - one wonders if these two would make into a Conservative cabinet: personally, I doubt it. They'll do for now, and these shadow positions are such utter backwaters that they could be occupied by common household objects and neither the press nor public would notice. Watch out for Sir Malcolm in a 'Nations Sec' role in the future. I'm determined that his talents shouldn't be wasted on the backbenches.

Mitchell - many said that David Davis had secured his shadow cabinet position in 2005. My opinion of Andrew Mitchell has grown over recent months, having seen the excellent work he's been doing in Rwanda. Perversely, this has earned him absolutely no mainstream media coverage. He should remain in place. He's not just David Davis' former campaign manager, he's an good Shadow International Development Sec too.

Spelman - Cameron shouldn't and probably won't move her away at his stage. If she's found guilty by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, she'll obviously have to go: but to shuffle her away now would be in poor taste. I thought Cameron should have moved her away right at the beginning, when the media interest in her misfortune was at its peak, but the investigation has taken longer than I thought. And on that note: what's happening to Peter Hain?

Promotions:

Justine Greening - ever since her excellent victory in Putney I thought she looked like cabinet material - possibly even Chancellor one day. She's been doing well in the treasury team, and may well be given a more senior post. I think she'd suit Schools and Families if Willetts went elsewhere.

Greg Clark - this junior MP has been widely touted to enter the shadow cabinet at some point - he's extremely talented and, like Greening, I imagine him to occupy a very senior post at some point in the future.

Ed Vaizey - I would have been happy to see Ed occupy a shadow cabinet role at the previous reshuffle. He's an extremely affable chap and an excellent media performer. He must, surely, be brought in.

Also:

Maria Miller
Greg Barker
Chris Grayling (possible Chairman)
Eric Pickles (possible Chairman)

Now it's time for an 'expect in Government' list. These are the faces which I am almost positive will occupy Cabinet positions in the next Conservative government, unless they are eliminated through scandal or death:

Cameron
Osborne
Hague
Grieve
Gove
Pickles
Grayling
Lansley
Hunt
Herbert
Letwin

Note that there aren't any women in this list. This poses a problem for DC.

Probably to go:

Willetts
May
Ainsworth
Spelman

Borderline:

Fox
Duncan
Maude
Hammond

Those I haven't mentioned (shadow 'nations' etc) are pretty much unknowns.

The LordM Guest List:

Clarke (Leader of House or Cabinet Office)
Rifkind (Either of the above or 'Nations')
Redwood (Either of the above, but only once we're in government)

I would be delighted to see any or all these three back on the front line of politics. I'm sure most Tories would be.

It's difficult to predict what Cameron's going to do tomorrow. I doubt there'll be a direct 'response' to the Mandelson appointment. Cameron's known to dislike reshuffles, so I don't think he'll risk a gesture like the appointment of Sir Nick Winterton to the new Dept for Energy and Climate Change, for example. I think that sort of decision would match the idiocy shown by Brown in appointing Mandelson.

Shuffly Stuff

INTO CABINET:

N. BROWN (Chief Whip)
Lord MANDELSON (BERR)
M. BECKETT (Housing - probably part time)
L. BYRNE (Cabinet Office?)
C. FLINT (Cabinet Office?)
J. MURPHY (Scotland)

OUT OF CABINET:

R. KELLY (Transport)
D. BROWNE (Scottish Secretary, Defence Secretary)
Baroness ASHTON (EU Commission)

SHUFFLES:

G. HOON (Chief Whip - Transport)
J. HUTTON (BERR - Defence)
E. MILIBAND (Cabinet Office - Energy and Climate Change)

CREATIONS:

Department for Energy and Climate Change (Woodland Folk)

NO CHANGE:

Chancellor DARLING
Home Sec SMITH
Foreign Sec MILIBAND D
Justice STRAW
Education BALLS
Work & Pensions PURNELL
Health JOHNSON
Communities BLEARS
DCMS BURNHAM
DEFRA BENN
Universities DENHAM
International Development ALEXANDER
NI WOODWARD
Wales MURPHY P
Chief Sec COOPER
Leader of the House HARMAN

Analysis:

Mandelson's appointment will be derided by the Tories and probably all the mainstream press, but Blairites will be delighted. Draper was doing the rounds on Sky and News24 calling it a 'masterstroke' and already predicting the end of the Tories. The reality is, Mandelson is a widely hated and ridiculed figure, and whatever his intellectual capacity to perform in his new role, Brown will probably live to regret his appointment.

Nick Brown was widely tipped to become Chief Whip - Hoon's demotion might come as a surprise given that he was said to be effective in the role. Nick Brown is a hardline Brownite and may cause considerable friction within the Party: but the Mandy appointment is designed to balance this potential problem.

Hutton will be delighted to move to Defence, a specialist area of his, given his authorship of a volume on military history and Barrow-in-Furness (shipbuilding) being his constituency. Des Browne was expected to leave cabinet, although maybe he could have kept Scotland. He doesn't.

The surprise appointment of Margaret Beckett to the common 'troubleshooting' role at the Cabinet Office shows Brown's determination to present an experienced and united front. It does, however, along with the Mandy saga, provide Cameron with a 'figures from the past' narrative.

The creation of a new 'Energy and Climate Change' office seems a ridiculous frivolity, and quite possibly a large expense. Ed Miliband is posted there - a considerable promotion to what is likely to be a difficult brief - but, I maintain, a silly move.

It's time to make bold proposals to cut public spending

After a three month break, and given the severity of the current financial crisis, I thought it apt to write a post.

You might not know it, but it's actually the middle of Conservative Party Conference - the headlines this week were supposed to be made by Osborne and Cameron. The proposed freeze on council tax (the council tax 'rabbit' as many refer to it) should be broadly welcomed, as should many other attractive and sensible measure which will be lost in the hailstorm of the current financial turmoil.

HOWEVER...

As financial markets enter uncharted territory after Congress voted against the White House's $700bn bailout plan, the Tories don't seem to have a persuasive narrative. What would the Conservative Party do to help get Britain through this mess? The simple answer is: they don't know. Having said that, neither do Labour.

I was extremely cross with Nick Robinson this morning for suggesting that Labour are somehow leading the way in this crisis. The Prime Minister should have persuaded no-one that he's the best option to lead us out of this mess, of which he is a prime architect. He's doing nothing more than providing vapid statements to the media; vague comments about 'maintaining stability', and 'getting Britain through'. The fact remains that there is little or no stability to be maintained; and, if he thinks that 'Britain getting through' the crisis is something to boast about being able to do, it shows he has absolutely nothing to offer the country.

So what do the Tories do now? The polls have obviously shown a narrowing in recent days - Labour's bounce has been shown by all but one pollster - ComRes. This is despite headlines in The Independent alluding to the opposite - this has been caused by drawing comparisons between previous editions of newspaper-specific polls, which is misleading: ComRes carried out a survey for the Independent on Sunday only ten days ago, before the Labour conference and THAT speech. Compare the previous ComRes survey with the current one and the differences are as follows:

Con 41 +2
Lab 29 +2
LD 18 -3

Not really a Labour bounce there... (note the reverse-bounce of the Lib Dems)

Another alarming development is the apparent willingness of the media to give Brown another chance. They seemed to have grown tired of Cameron's large poll leads, and the Conservative Party's leading of the policy debate. Despite everything, despite all of the various idiotic incompetences over the past year, Brown will, to some extent, be let off the hook if current conditions persist.

This is why it has to be time for a fightback. A proper one. If the cupboard is bare, fill it up again - not with tax rises, but with revenues from spending cuts. I am confident that the Conservatives' 'waste' narrative is well entrenched with the general public. There will still be a considerable minority against public spending cuts no matter what, but this view is completely impractical in the current climate. We need to show that we're on the side of voters, so let's be bold in our commitments - a reduction of at least £20bn, cutting waste, freezing public sector recruitment, and removing costly managerial layers in the health service which diminish the quality of the service provided to patients. It is a proposal which Labour cannot copy. They believe in the all-powerful state. We do not, and we must never believe they have won the argument.

On Cricket

I feel obliged to have a rant about England's woeful cricketing performances, both on and off (of) the field.

Batting is inconsistent, bowling is ineffective and selection is delusional and occasionally autistic. Never mind Pattinson at Headingley, why Collingwood at Edgbaston? No runs for Durham this season, no wickets, and an average of nine and three quarters for England in the last 5 tests. He shouldn't be playing for Durham's second team, let alone the England test team.

Michael Vaughan is also seriously out of nick. He's only scored a single century in his last 22 tests. He is, however, England captain. The trouble is, though, South Africa seem able to dismiss him with comparitive ease. Vaughan's form has never been better than his 2002 performance against Australia, when, incidentally, he wasn't captain. Since then, it's been pretty much downhill all the way.

I would now suggest that Vaughan be removed as captain at the end of this series to make way for someone else. It is, however, crucial that the replacement is someone who is selected consistently for the test side. Collingwood, for example, is a hopeless selection. Strauss is also dubious. Let's examine the selected 11 for this test and analyze their prospects:

Strauss - after being brought back to into the side, seemingly for no reason, managed to scrape together a couple of centuries, although both were against New Zealand. Needs a couple of scores against South Africa - if not, his place will once again come under scrutiny. For this reason, he's not a terribly good choice for captain.

Cook - must stop getting out for scores between 60 and 80. His conversion rate is only about a third. 50 should mean 100. He does still have technical problems outside off stump.

Vaughan - captaining still good, but can't buy a run and should relinquish the captaincy and his place in the side at the end of the series. Back to Yorkshire to get some runs for Geoffrey.

Pietersen - England player with the highest average. Sometimes does not control his shot selection as he might in more austere situations. Possibly the only undroppable player in the side.

Bell - Similarly to Cook, he needs more hundreds. His excellent 199 in the Lord's test should keep his critics at bay though.

Collingwood - What can I say? Shouldn't be in the side, shouldn't be captain. Desperately needs runs. If he is to be a proper all-rounder, needs to do something with his bowling. Why not learn wrist spin?

Flintoff - a couple of promising performances with the bat since his reintroduction into the side will breed more self-confidence. Bowling seems as good as ever, but needs more wickets in general.

Ambrose - keeping is fine but batting is not. Seemed very weak at No. 6 in the order in Leeds and now needs to make dramatic improvements if his place is not to come under threat.

Sidebottom - was brilliant against NZ but must be reminded that he can't take bagfulls of wickets all the time. His economy and consistency is still excellent, however.

Anderson - the most improved player in the side over the last year. Came back from the depths of despair during the NZ ODI series having been bashed all over the place by Brendon McCullum. Needs to bowl better to left-handers though - more inswingers, please.

Panesar - still by far the best spinner in England, but needs to learn more variations and flight the ball a bit more. Also - where's the doosra? Fielding and batting still leaves a lot to be desired.

Others:

Broad - a truly brilliant prospect and could almost be included in the side as a batsman going on present form. Bowling is terribly whole-hearted, but needs a lot of work. He will gain pace as he gets stronger.

Bopara - averaging around 55 for Essex in the County Championship, Bopara should have been far ahead of Collingwood in the queue for Edgbaston selection. Shah similarly.

Horton - my Lancashire pick. Should be in the selectors' minds. Needs bigger scores.

Wherefore have we fought for so long, that we may destroy in an instant?

How this appalling government should be entrusted with such draconian legislation, I do not know. Why on earth does the [ConservativeHome] editorship trust this government to use these powers sensibly? I do not know. Why do MPs glibly afford themselves the right to vote in favour of this bill for the sole purpose of protecting an utterly useless Prime Minister? Again, I don't know.

Our ancestors have paid, time and time again, often with their lives, to protect our cherished freedoms, and yet a government with not a shred of credibility; not an iota of decency; and still less competence is allowed and IS CHAMPIONED to take a despicable retrograde step such as this.

What ARE those people thinking? It is truly a shaming moment in the history of, not only our 'liberal' democracy, but ALL liberal democracies.

The evidence is non-existent, the concessions were pathetic, the legislation made exponentially worse by each compromise, and the outcome is one of rank political expediency. This government and this Prime Minister survives to do us more damage.

The Lords will now do what they do best - with a level-headed, measured and reasonable approach, vote this abhorrent bill down and return it to the Commons.

Spelman may have to go

The revelation that Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chairman, used public money for to pay a nanny for secretarial work done in 1997-8 is hardly earth-shattering. This is, after all, over ten years ago, at a time when the Conservative Party was still reeling from an historic election defeat. It may have been considered at the time that nobody would notice such an indiscretion, and yet this mistake (if that it what it was) may prove to be a resigning matter - or, perhaps more tangibly, a matter of dismissal.

Cameron may feel that he needs to replace Spelman as chairman anyway. I, for one, have not been a fan. Many others in the Party agree with me that she seems to be ineffective and that there are far better candidates available to take over - a certain Mr. Eric Pickles MP is surely the hot favourite to take over should she have to go/be sacked/be shuffled away.

The reshuffle is another option available to Cameron, should Spelman be exonerated. It would be considered a tough, but expedient move to take the chairmanship away from her. Many have suggested she is one of the most overrated and over-promoted members of the Party. I agree. The appointment of Eric Pickles as Chairman would be a highly popular move from Cameron, given the massive success of the Crewe and Nantiwich by-election campaign, so shrewdly managed by the brilliant Mr. Pickles.

It has to be shown that the Conservative Party will deal with MPs and MEPs who abuse their expenses in an effective and decisive manner. It remains to be seen what the ultimate damage will be to the House as a whole; whether or not individual cases will spark a move away from any particular Party, or if all MPs will be tarred with the same brush.

If, as is widely speculated, the Party hierarchy is organising a 'blitz' of new policies this Summer, it would be wise to carry out a reshuffle before this starts in earnest. There are certain members of the shadow cabinet who cannot consider themselves safe in their jobs, Spelman among them. My personal selection is:

May
Mitchell
Hammond
Spelman
Willetts
Ainsworth
Mundell
Gillan

It might be considered that those in fairly minor roles (Mundell, Gillan, Mitchell) might not be shuffled this time, but there is plenty of talent elsewhere on the Tory benches, some of whom may be ready for the shadow cabinet. Theresa May and David Willetts can consider themselves, in the grand scheme of things, unfortunate. Both could, potentially, have been important players in a Conservative government, had the political climate over the last ten years been different. Instead, their political decline has begun shortly before what will be, in all probability, a new and exciting period of Conservative government. Although some might argue that Willetts' influence has be prevalent over many years, having been a member of Margaret Thatcher's Policy Unit before becoming an MP, New Labour's recent dominance has denied him the opportunity to use his enormous intelligence to its best effect.

But who are the potential candidates to replace shadow cabinet drop-outs? What about:

Greg Clark
Michael Fallon
Nick Gibb
Ed Vaizey?