Congratulations for your honesty, Dave

CLEAR blue water, it may be, but the bottom line is that the Tories have returned to the election-winning* policies of Hague and Howard.

However you dress it up, spending less than what the current spending plans allow for is a cut. It means a future Tory government will impose cuts in the health service, cuts on transport plans, cuts in education and local government budgets.

And for what reason? That’s right, to deliver a “long-term” tax cut.

But I think ‘Dave’ should be congratulated. He’s had enough of this “New Conservatives” rubbish, all this mealy-mouthed “reaching out” to the plebs sort of nonsense. His back benchers were getting sick and tired of it and who, anyway, believed that the man who devised the infamous “patient’s passport” for the 2005 manifesto – designed to drain billions of pounds out of the NHS and funnel it into the private health sector – could now pass himself off as a supporter of the NHS?

Far better that he’s honest about what the Tory party is actually about. It may not make him popular, but he may gain people’s respect for saying (somewhat belatedly) what he actually thinks.

The Tory party should feel much more comfortable now that they can embrace the rhetoric of Thatcher without having to apologise for it. Good for them!


* not


Filed under Conservative Party, David Cameron, Politics

19 responses to “Congratulations for your honesty, Dave

  1. Johnny Norfolk


    You do yourself no favours in comming out with things like this. Anyone who has run anything knows it is not what you spend, but how you spend it. Massive ammounts can, and will, and should be saved without cutting front line services .

    Labour has wasted shed loads of money on stupid things and I am talking billions.

    Why should the people have to cut back and not the government. why should you be protected when you are the cause.

    This is why I can never get on with labour people. You have no idea about reality. Thats why we are in this mess.

  2. Brian

    In all fairness the question shouldn’t be, spend more or less on the public accounts.

    It should be how much SHOULD be spent on the public accounts.

    Something neither Labour nor the Tories are willing to discuss.

  3. Johnny Norfolk


    I would suggest you read the piece that just appeared in The Daily Telegraph

    ” The deteriorating state of Britain’s finances is underlined with figures that show the biggest deficit since records began. ”

    That why we MUST reduce Labours spending.
    We are heading for disaster a la 1970s if you dont.

  4. wrinkled weasel

    There is nothing wrong with cuts in spending. It’s my money we are talking about and I for one don’t want to spend it on bribery schemes for “youf” (earn as you learn) or Muslims (Hazel Blears, £70 million) or all the other wastes of money such as providing language services, housing and health for immigrants who shouldn’t be here in the first place (20,000 Somalis, a “significant number of failed asylum seekers” – Kerry McCarthy – in Bristol) It really is time our leaders realised they are not there to promote a social agenda or shelter illegal immigrants. They are to provide national security and a safety net for the very poor.

    As for Cameron, words fail me. We have the worst government in history and he hasn’t a clue how to provide a credible alternative.

  5. madasafish

    It’s about time.
    Gordon embraced Mrs Thatcher nearly a year ago.

    If he can , anyone can..

    Never mind Tom, it’s nice to see you posting good partisan stuff again rather than rubbish about the pathetic TV shows you like watching 🙂

    Keep it up. Show us how Labour are going to make us all richer and that the housing bubble has not burst because it did not exist.

    After all Gordon told us what we are enduring would not happen. So Labour Party policies are official failures.

    And post failure you’ve got to amke a song and dance and divert attention so what better thing than attack your opponents?

    All good old knockabout stuff.

    Where is Prudence ? And no unfunded tax cuts? And a balanced budget over the economic cycle?

    You’ve abolished the economic cycle?
    That explains it.

  6. richard

    Slowing the increase in Public-sector spending rates isn’t the same as cutting spending.

    Giving someone less money than you’ve promised isn’t the same as taking money away.

  7. John

    Um, but cuts are needed because your spending plans are totally unaffordable without massive borrowing on top of existing unprecidentedly high levels, which would be totally irresponsible.

    You can yell “cuts” at the Tories all you like, but if you lot actually manage to win the next election, you’ll be doing the same thing, although i’m sure Broon and The Prince Of Darkness will give it a totally different name to “cuts” and repeat it like they have tourettes.

  8. “You can yell ‘cuts’ at the Tories all you like”

    Yeah, alright.

  9. Stu


    Richard, the cuts that Camoron announced are not cuts as we know them but are in fact stealth cuts, that means stealth cuts in health and education amongst others.

    Also now that Camoron is against tax cuts, does that mean that the change in inheritance tax that is designed to benefit multi millionaires has been abandoned?

    I wouldn’t take too much notice of Camoron though, as his position is bound to change multiple times on just about every issue between now and the election

  10. Perhaps he’ll cut the estimated £18 billion for the unworkable National Identity Database and ID cards.

    Perhaps he’d have budgeted better the soon to be £20 billion 2012 Olympic games.

    Perhaps the £20bn spent on the crazy NHS Supercomputer will be cut.

    How about the £2bn earmarked to rescue the mess that was Metronet in London?

    There’s £60 billion cuts straight away. So yes, please yell cuts at the Tories. It sounds like a good idea.

  11. richard

    Given that nearly 10 million people get their pay packets straight from the taxpayers pocket I can’t imagine it could be that hard to find major savings in local government and central government budgets.

    Dole cheques cost a lot less than council paycheques.

  12. Martin Cullip

    “It means a future Tory government will impose cuts in the health service, cuts on transport plans, cuts in education and local government budgets.”

    Tom, every one of those areas you mentioned are severely over-funded to pay for wasteful excesses. You surely must recognise that. They need to have funding cut and to spend money more cost-effectively.

    MOST especially in NHS admin and local government budgets.

  13. Let’s all hope that the Tory front bench are as honest about their intentions in the next few months as Martin and Richard have been here.

  14. Stu


    I wouldn’t hold your breath

  15. richard

    As I’ve said previously, my views are rather more to the right of the Cameroonians.

    I simply fail to see why nearly 1 in 6 people in this country need to be employed by the government and why 2 people in every 6 need to be receiving benefits from the other 4.

    I can’t imagine that making a 1-2 million NHS / Council Workers / Civil Servants unemployed would be a vote winner but to be going in the opposite direction (increased recruitment) is an act of sheer lunacy.

  16. Stu

    (Someone else called Stu?! Oh NO!)

    Tom, since you say that the Tories reducing the rate of increase in government spending in the recession means they’ll be cutting public services, would you mind explaining what the chancellor meant in here:

    “The Chancellor signalled that he would find bigger than expected efficiency savings in IT costs, procurement deals and sales of its assets and property.

    Isn’t that a cut? Howcome when the Chancellor spends less it’s called ‘savings’, but when the Tories spend less it’s called ‘cuts’?

  17. Rapunzel


    Keep yelling, Tom!!

  18. richard

    Yes, if you yell it enough you might even begin to believe it…

  19. Simon

    There are plenty of spending cuts that could be made without cutting main NHS and education services. How about getting rid of all those ghastly ads from people like the BBC and DVLA and loads of other government departments I’ve never heard of, we must be keeping half the radio stations in the country afloat. We simply don’t need all the millions of bureaucrats and jobsworths that abound. Then there are the Quangoes, the luxury cars the Police, Highways Agency etc swan about in, we’ve even got paramedics running around in Jags here, why can’t they use Fords like the rest of us have to? Why are we paying some public sector workers 100k plus, Doctors 150k? It is a joke to say that they’ll be poached by the private sector and so what if they are.

    Cameron could cut billions from the public sector bill and we’d see an improvement in quality of life, imagine it, no more daily headlines about public sector nastiness and officiousness to the general population. I was on a job today and some nasty little jobsworth made a fitter carry his fire extinguisher about 200 yds across the site just so they could see it had the right labels on it. It’s the sort of thing that happens every day. Imagine if you sacked him (jobsworth, not fitter) and the bloke who dreamed up the rule, life would be far more pleasant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s