New Model Tories

It's telling that the day after the coalition published its manifesto -which, incidentally, nobody had the opportunity to vote for or against - Dave has penned an article telling us that he remains a Conservative.

And I believe him.

The trouble is, the Conservative Party is a conservative party in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic. - in other words, it isn't - and Dave knows this which is why he calls himself a progressive and has branded the coalition with the Lib Dems as a "progressive alliance".

Since Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party he has pushed through the changes initiated by the likes of Howard and purged the Tory Party of any last semblance of conservatism. They are now the New Model Tories and they are not the party that the majority of people who voted for them thought they were.

Curiously though, those people who voted in this copy of Blair's "New Labour" are uncommonly quiet about the fact that they have been led up the garden path.

Where are all those people who were telling me "just wait till Cameron gets in" and "he has to do this to become PM"? Well, he got in, he is PM and he is exactly the same as he was before.

No - that's not fair. He isn't exactly the same as he was before because now he has thrown away any pretence at being a conservative. Now he's our Prime Minister he is all progressive this and progressive that - talking about "radical change" and "moving on" and other meaningless progressive phrases.

Almost eleven million people voted Tory at the election - they might just as well have voted Lib Dem or Labour because that is what they have got. And yet, for some reason, they refuse to admit they were wrong even though they privately know they were.

Give it a couple of years and I doubt whether you'll be able to find many people who admit to voting for Cameron in 2010 - just like few people admit to voting for Blair. It doesn't really matter - because those people know they voted for Cameron and they know that they voted for a fraud.

I did keep trying to tell people that is what they would get - because Cameron's whole campaign was built on a monumental fraud. The only thing we weren't sure of is whether it would be the fraud of pretending to be progressive when he really was a conservative or the fraud of being conservative when he is really progressive.

Well, now we know that it was the latter. You people voted for a man who was deliberately perpetrating a deceit in the vain hope that he was deceiving the enemy. He was - but his enemy was conservatism.

Men of no substance

It must be obvious to even the most ardent conservative pre-election supporter of David Cameron that the man is an unrepentant social liberal by now, but I wonder if they are now aware of just how ignorant he is too?

By ignorant, I do not mean uneducated - it is quite obvious that Mr. Cameron has had the most lavish education money can buy - but it is one thing to educate someone and something else for that person to be able to use that education.

And is only ignorant people who brush aside a centuries old constitution to introduce something as unconstitutional and anti-democratic as the fixed five year parliamentary term and the requirement of a 55% majority in the House of Commons to force an election before that time.

I've not mentioned this before, because it was always obvious to me that Cameron is no defender of Britain and therefore no defender of our constitution - I'm just keen to know what Tory voters who thought I was wrong about this think now.

I know that there are traditional conservatives who read this blog and voted for Cameron in the belief that he was only playing the social liberal game until he was in power - but the first thing he does when he achieves that power is jump into bed with the nearest social liberal he can find and embark on the continuation of the vandalism of our historic constitution begun by New Labour.

What do you people think now?

I'm not trying to say "I told you so" - even though I did - I just want to know that there are real conservatives out there who are prepared to say "this is not what I Tory voted for".

Otherwise, what is the point?

Jobs for the boys

Perception is a funny thing.

I listened to the joint Con-Dem press conference from the garden of Downing Street yesterday on the radio rather than watch it on television and was, frankly, appalled by the jokey, matey nature displayed by the two men who are supposed to lead us back to prosperity.

However, the media reports of the press conference were almost gushing in their praise for Clegg and Cameron. Had I missed something?

So I watched it later and my first thoughts were not just confirmed - they were reinforced. It wasn't just the inappropriate levity on display at a time when seriousness and gravity was called for, it was that both men appeared to be so lightweight both politically and intellectually.

They looked like boys. They talked like boys.

Neither man said nothing of note or worth - except for Cameron when he mentioned that this was a "progressive alliance". They talked without knowing what they were saying - they just strung together vacuous phrases which it was clear they neither understood or really even bothered to think about.

We're always hearing about the infantilising of society, but even I had realised just how bad it has got. When the leaders of our nation are behaving and looking like a couple of sixth formers let off the leash by the headmaster then you know we've got something to worry about - just about the only thing missing was that they didn't start flicking each other with wet towels.

And back to that "progressive alliance" thing.

Come on Tory voters - don't tell me you didn't notice it. Your dear leader has sold out your principles for that of the opposition. I've known that for years, but when Dave actually said it the blatant confirmation that the Tory party is no longer conservative sent a cold shiver down my spine. God only knows what it did to those who thought Dave was going to get in to Downing Street before throwing off his "mild mannered"cloak and emerge as Dave the conservative superhero.

So I'd really like to know - all you people who have been saying to me "wait and see". I waited and I saw - and what I got was exactly what I expected. How about you?

In the end it's kind of appropriate that as Britain teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, the Union verges on collapse and society totters on the brink of anarchy we have a Con-Dem government.

What now, conservatives?

This is a question for all those people who kept telling me that Cameron really was a proper conservative and that we'd all see his true colours once he was Prime Minister.

Well, he's Prime Minister and we've already seen him sell out to the Liberal Democrats. So what now?

Do you still think Cameron is a conservative or have you now realised that he really is the "heir to Blair"?

And do you now understand that the party you support is closer to the philosophy of John Smith than it is to that of Margaret Thatcher?

Cameron has pulled off one of the greatest coups in modern times - not by becoming Prime Minister, but by fooling the Tory party into believing they were still a conservative party and capturing the last free-thinking political party for the progressive left.

Now he's openly thrown his lot in with the progressive left and revealed his true colours after all - and they have turned out to be another shade of red, not Tory blue.

So what now?

More constitutional vandalism, a parliament ever more detached from the people and a ruling elite who sneer at the things you believe in and that you thought they stood for.

So what now?

As one loser bows out, another slips in

So Gordon Brown - a man who never led his party to an election victory - stands down as Prime Minister and David Cameron - a man who has never led his party to an election victory - takes up the post.

Another "unelected" Prime Minister is incumbent at 10 Downing Street - do you think the press will give him the same sort of hard time they gave Gordon Brown for being "unelected" and never having won an election?

I don't.

But I will.

Rejected not elected

I'm not often in agreement with the Marxist John Reid, but this time he is right. All three parties were rejected by the electorate and none more so than the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties.

Which begs the question - why is it he can understand this yet so few other people in the political world can't?

There is no call for the parties to "work together" and there is no mandate for any of them to work independently. The message from the electorate is clear and unequivocal - and it is "we think all of you are useless".

So much for the "great ignored"

They say that a week is a long time in politics. If that is true than three weeks must be a lifetime - and I suspect that the Tories are hoping that three weeks does feel like a lifetime ago for most people.

Because, back then when they launched their election campaign they told us that they were going to focus on the "great ignored". As usual with the Tories, this big idea was long on rhetoric and short on detail in so much as no one was actually sure what they meant by the great ignored, but it would be fair to assume that they meant the very large number of people who are disillusioned with our political parties and the lack of choice offered and have stopped bothering to vote.

At the last election that amounted to around 40% of the electorate - which is quite a large slice of the pie. There can be little doubt that if any party could motivate a significant proportion of those people to go and vote for them then they'd win the election by a landslide.

Unfortunately for the Tories - and the great ignored - the great ignored got forgotten about again as soon as the first "great debate" was over. After that debacle, the Lib Dems enjoyed a huge surge in support - but not because the great ignored decided they were going to back them. No, the surge in support came from voters who were previously planning to vote Labour or Tory switching their support to the Lib Dems.

The trouble is, this proportion of the electorate represents a fairly small proportion of the total - we're talking maybe 10% of the 60% who are expected to vote - and because these people are comfortable voting for either the Tories or Lib Dems or Labour or the Lib Dems it means we're talking about people whose politics pretty much reflect those parties politics anyway.

In other words, progressive liberals.

Consequently, the great ignored are going to be ignored again. Forty per cent of the electorate will not bother to vote because there isn't a party standing which they feel represents them enough to justify putting a cross in a box for that party on election day.

And if you assume, as it's probably fair to do, that a large proportion of the people who vote Tory, Labour or Lib Dem do so out of tribal loyalty and would vote that way regardless of their policies, then it's fair to say that this election is being fought on the basis of winning the votes of less than 10% of the electorate.

And because that 10% is comprised of left wing, progressive liberal elitists we get political parties that fight for the votes of left wing, progressive liberal elitists - and that is what those parties have become. Left wing, progressive liberal elitists.

As for the "great ignored" - they might as well not exist as far as the main political parties are concerned.

The big sleep

Ok, I only managed to watch three quarters of an hour of the "prime ministerial" debate last night - and that was more than enough to get me dozing off in my armchair. As debates go, it was one hell of a yawn and if this is the best that they can come up with galvanise the public into going to the polling booths to cast their votes then we could be in for a record low turn out on May 6th.

Where do I begin? I suppose the best place is to start with the policies and hard substance that the three leaders came up with.

............

OK - that's got that bit over with so let's move on to what this was really about - style and personality.

Brown looked awkward and shabby. For some reason he always reminds me of the TV detective Lieutenant Columbo played by Peter Falk - perhaps it's the dodgy eye. If his stylists gave him a grubby mac and stuck a half-chewed cigar in his paw he'd probably appeal much more to viewers than he does now. Or he might look like a flasher - it's hard to know unless they try it.

Of course, they can't do that because modern politicians never wear overcoats these days (because they are rarely out of their cars) and because being seen to be a smoker is considered slightly worse than strangling cats for a hobby.

Cameron looked shifty. The poor man tries so hard to appear sincere, but fails miserably - he just comes across as opportunist and fake. Part of the problem is that nobody knows what he stands for still. He talks in vague, sweeping generalisations and mouths the required rhetoric - but none of it sounds genuine no matter how hard he tries to appear earnest and passionate. It's clearly as false as Lt. Columbo's glass eye.

Clegg won the "debate" easily - but that was to be expected. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats he has nothing to defend so could spend all his time on the attack - but the man looked like a sixth former at a school assembly alongside his headmaster and geography teacher. That image was exacerbated by the patronising way both Cameron and Brown repeatedly kept trying to ally themselves to Clegg - possibly a tactic in the event of a hung parliament.

Ultimately, none of them had anything to say that was new, fresh or even vaguely approached the idea of real solutions to Britain's many problems. Worst of all, they all seemed to agree on the fundamental approach to these problems with only minor differences on detail. This is, of course, because all three lead parties with broadly similar political philosophies - left of centre progressive liberalism.

Overall, the event confirmed my worst fears. It will do nothing to improve the democratic process of Britain but will further entrench the social liberal hegemony. The media got what they wanted - they froze out dissent, stifled argument and bolstered the liberal elite's stranglehold on British politics.

They'll spend the next few days telling us how fantastic this was - how it was "groundbreaking" and will change the face of British politics forever. In truth it was dull, dishonest and instead of changing anything it has merely ensured that the progressive liberal hold on the political system - an ideology supported by the media at the expense of all others - remains intact.

I suspect that was always the intention.

No Dave required

I don't know if you saw BBC Breakfast this morning, but they featured an item about a small village in Rutland who, fed up of slow speed Internet connections, decided to band together to get high speed broadband access. They got together with a local telecoms company and now have the fastest rural broadband access in the country.

Good for them.

I really hope Dave was watching too - because it demonstrates two very important points. The first being that his "new idea" for "big society" isn't anything new and doesn't need to be big. It also demonstrates that it doesn't need a Tory government either - but that's by the by.

The second and more important thing that this demonstrates is that this was achieved without any intervention from the state whatsoever. There was no need for any "development agency" or fake charity to get involved - indeed, it is quite likely that it only became possible because the scenario was such that the state wasn't involved at all.

And that is the important point - the state does not need to be involved.

The biggest obstacle to society in a democracy is the state - and the more the state gets involved the less democratic that society becomes. Because the state decides what a society will and will not be allowed the society becomes competitive rather than collaborative. Rather than having communities agreeing on what is required you end up with factions fighting against each other for the cash the government will hand out.

And the way this state interference manifests itself is through the myriad of quangos and agencies that proliferate up and down the country and if the were really serious about enabling people to take control than the only thing they need to do is dismantle this quangocracy and the Tories have no intention of changing that.

I know they have no intention of doing so because the reason most of these things exist is our membership of the European Union - and the Tories have no intention of doing anything about that.

We don't need a big state or a big society - we just need to get out democracy back.

And the only way we can do that is by leaving the EU.

The great ignored

I saw Michael Gove being questioned on this morning's BBC news and telling the interviewer that his parties big idea was to tap in to the "great ignored".

Yeah, right. In other words, his parties going to try and get us to vote for them and then they'll ignore us again.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Still, credit where it's due. At least he had a "big idea" unlike the Lib Dems or Labour who just waffled on about "public services" again.

Desperate to find a difference

The argument over the Labour and Tory plans for NI demonstrates just how pathetic our politics has become.

First of all, of course lots of "business leaders" support the Tory plans. On the whole, businesses support anything that means lower costs to them - but their opinions are no more worthy or valid than anybody else's so it really isn't relevant.

Secondly, in terms of the deficit and debt faced by this country, the sums we're talking about are trivial. It might sound like a lot - anything with the word "billion" after it always does - but it isn't really. That's the trouble when currencies reach the situation we have now - people lose all sense of value.*

Finally, the Tories are not proposing to reduce NI - only not to raise it by quite so much as Labour. Fundamentally, they are not arguing over the general idea - just over the scale of the idea - which demonstrates, once again, just how similar the two parties are.

It also demonstrates how desperate our political media is to find something to distinguish Labour and Tory policy - that they cling on to this minor quibble as if it is something of great importance while, in the grand scheme of things, it's very, very minor. In terms of our economy, it's like fighting over a farthing in the gutter while pouring hundreds of pounds down the drain.

* Which is why I believe we need to revalue our currency so that £10 becomes £1 - to bring back a sense of value to money. Consider this, if you've got £100 and spend £10 - you still have £90 left. That's a lot of money, right?

But if you only have £10 and spend £1 - you only have nine quid left. It's the same proportion, but suddenly it doesn't sound so much and you're much more likely to watch what you spend. Of course, this isn't a popular idea in a consumption based economy.

No to Clarke and the euro

Over on The Telegraph, Simon Heffer is doing his best to annoy me again.

He is suggesting that Dave Cameron should replace the Boy George with Ken Clarke as shadow chancellor and, should Dave's party win the election, hand Clarke the keys to Number 11. Please allow me to explain why this is plain wrong.

First of all, Mr. Heffer goes to great lengths to confirm his anti-EU credentials.

No one who regularly reads this column could be in doubt of my attitude towards our masters in Brussels, and how they have robbed us of our money, our sovereignty and many of our freedoms over the past 37 years.

Yes, but knowing that and being prepared to do something about it are two very different things, Mr. Heffer. Anyone who is seriously opposed to Britain's membership of the European Union can not possibly approve the appointment of someone like Clarke to such an important position in government.

Clarke doesn't just want us to be part of the EU - he wants us to be part of the Eurozone. Indeed, if he had got his way, Britain would already be using the euro as our currency. Clarke was so adamant about this point that he was prepared to support Labour in their push for the euro - the sort of behaviour that should have seen the man sacked from the Tory party!

Had Britain joined the euro then our economic position would be even worse than it currently is. The dilemma that faces Greece is nothing compared to the disastrous state our economy would be in - and Clarke wanted that.

That would make his position as Chancellor - or even shadow chancellor - untenable. How can Heffer not know this? Labour strategists aren't stupid - they'd have a field day laying into Clarke's stance on the euro and they'd make damn sure the people of Britain were aware of this.

What is more, the very idea of putting such a committed supporter of the EU into such a position in government should be a serious concern to any real EU sceptic. I don't want Clarke as Chancellor - I don't even want him on the front bench whatever side of the House he sits. I want him where I want all the other MP's who support our membership of the EU - unemployed.

There's no doubt that Cameron's front bench is inexperienced, weak and extraordinarily immature - that's the price you pay when you choose your people based on how they look rather than what they can do. The Boy George has been out of his depth since day one of his appointment and I'm not the only one who has mentioned this.

And there can be no doubt either that our economic state is such that it will require a firm and expert hand on the tiller - but appointing a man committed to handing control of our economy to a foreign government is not the way to resolve this.

No compromise

Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with the situation I find myself in. By that I mean that I don't feel comfortable about supporting any of the political parties because there simply isn't one which I completely or even mostly agree with.

In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).

In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).

Does that make sense? It does to me.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.

People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).

I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).

And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.

For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.

Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.

All in the same boat

Over on The Telegraph comment page, Toby Young (no, I have no idea who he is either) wonders why the Tories and Labour are running neck and neck in the polls.

So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?

A good question, Mr. Young.

It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.

Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.

Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).

And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.

Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.

The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.

The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.

A man with no shame

David Cameron is quite right to suggest that public perception of MPs is that they are all out for what they can get - but I am staggered by the sheer effrontery of the man in his claim that they are not all like that.

This from a man who has a huge country pile in Oxfordshire within an easy commute to his place of work - a commute which many of his constituents make every day at their own expense - and a considerable personal fortune, but still took huge amounts of public money to pay for a second home.

If he really means what he says he can lead by example. First of all, he can pay back every penny he has taken from the public purse to pay for his homes and then he can sell his London home and give the money to charity.

Until he does that he will remain one of the sleazy, money grubbing, self interested, pocket stuffers. He's right - they aren't all like that, but his record suggests that he is.

Dear prudence

If I hear one more politician from the Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat parties tell us of the need for financial "prudence" I will go spare.

They wouldn't know financial prudence if it bit them on the backside. The Labour Party, while our dear leader was Chancellor, frittered away untold billions of pounds of public money on various pet projects and for no discernible improvement.

But worse than that, both the opposition parties supported them in doing so. Indeed, David Cameron took great pride in telling us all how he would stick to Labour spending plans if he were Prime Minister.

Look, I've no intrinsic objections to the idea of the state taking tax from the people to pay for essential services which the public want and demand - I just have a very different idea of what those services are. As a homeowner, I know what financial prudence really means - it means living within your means and not spending what you haven't got.

Our politicians don't understand this and most likely never will - hardly surprising given their history on claiming expenses and hugely excessive personal spending.

The next time a politician from any of these parties mentions "prudence" on national TV or radio the right response from the interviewer would be to give that politician a swift, hard kick up the backside while telling him to get out and never darken our doors again.

Their idea of "prudence" has cost us dear.

Cameron can win - but he needs the BNP

Yesterday I was saying that I don't think the Tories can win enough seats at the next election to enable them to form a government based on the latest opinion polls. However, there was one factor that I forgot to take into account - the BNP factor.

After the last election, someone did an analysis of the UKIP factor on Tory results - I think it was over on EU Referendum. Their analysis suggested that there were a number of closely contested seats which , had the UKIP vote transferred to the Tory party then the Conservatives would have won the seat - and if this had been translated across the country then the final result would have been much tighter resulting in, probably, a hung parliament.

Of course, not everyone who voted UKIP would necessarily have put their X next to the Tory party if UKIP weren't an option - there are plenty of left wing voters who are EU sceptics too - but there is no doubt that UKIP are very much a party in the old Tory mould and much more likely to attract right wing votes.

Of course, there have always been minor parties on the right and the left which have taken small amounts of votes away from the two main parties. I don't include the Lib Dems in this as they basically inherited an established voter base from the Liberal Party. Yes, there were defections from both Labour and Conservative voters to the Lib Dems, but these were balanced out by defections from the Liberal Party vote to Labour and Tory.

However, the arrival of UKIP on the scene was a significant change. Although they remain a minor party, there is no doubt that the number of votes they are winning is enough to influence results - and generally this is to the detriment of the Tory Party. While this has been happening to the Tory vote there hasn't been a similar significant challenge to the Labour vote.*

Until now. The growth of the BNP over the last decade means that they are now at a point where they could become Labour's "UKIP" - a party which takes enough votes away from Labour to leave them short in marginal seats that could result in a Tory victory. Make no mistake, the BNP are a party which appeals primarily to working class voters who would usually vote Labour.

The BNP factor may be crucial in the coming General Election. Will it be enough to give Cameron's Conservatives an election victory? Probably not, but it may just be enough to ensure a hung parliament. What is certain is that the Tories are reliant on the BNP doing well to have any hope of forming the next government.

I wonder how they feel about that!

* Some might point to the Green Party as Labour's equivalent to UKIP, but I don't include them in this even though The Green Party is an ultra left party. They appeal, primarily, to middle class urban voters and are more likely, if anything, to be taking votes away from the Tories and Lib Dems in urban areas where eco-fascism is popular than they are Labour - and Labour are very strong in urban areas. Nobody who has a serious interest in the environment and rural affairs would vote Green.

Cameron flip flops again

David Cameron has backtracked on Tory "policy" once again by saying that a government under his leadership will not make "swingeing cuts" in their first year of office sparking rumours of a rift between Cameron and the Shadow Chancellor, Boy George Osborne.

To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that Cameron has flip flopped once again as the man does not appear to have any strong convictions on anything with the exception of his divine right to be the national leader - and if there is one thing that is certain in politics it is that a man who believes himself to be born to govern the country will say and do just about anything to make that belief a reality.

It's not completely surprising to me that Cameron flip flops around like this - after all, he's been that way since he first became leader of the Tory Party - but what does surprise me is that he has bought into the socialist idea that government spending means more national growth. It doesn't - unless you include growth in welfarism, benefits spending, single motherhood, crime and violence as "national growth".

There is no doubt that targeted spending on income generating areas can produce an increase in national growth and prosperity, but that means spending money on making something that your people want or that you can sell abroad. In other words, manufacturing. It also needs to be money that is spent internally and goes to your own people and businesses - it's no good spending billions of pounds to support the car industry in Japan or Germany! The other thing that government spending needs to do in circumstances like this is to have an impact on the short term - although it is always a good idea to invest in the future when you have the money to do so, when times are hard you have to do what is necessary for the here and now.

But by declaring that his government will not make "swingeing cuts" in their first year of office, Cameron is saying that he accepts (once again) that all that this current government spends money on is necessary when it quite clearly isn't. Once again, Cameron is saying that he will stick to Labour spending plans as he did when he first became leader of the Conservative Party - a "commitment" he then backtracked on a year or so ago.

I know I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it until someone does it. There is an obvious and easy way to make significant spending cuts in the first month let alone the first year - you tell all the quangos and agencies currently running Britain that they must cut their budget by 20%. How they do this you leave up to them - but you tell them they must do it.

Quangos were responsible for £130 billion of spending two or three years ago - it's quite likely that they are spending anything upwards of £150 billion today, but let's assume they are still spending £130 billion.

A 20% cut in that budget next year will save the country £26 billion.

You can save more in that one simple measure than all the tinkering around the edges proposed by the Tories and Lib Dems manage with their ideas for saving £100 million here and £80 million there. You don't have to make changes to the taxation system, you don't have to decide what quangos and agencies to get rid of altogether (although, in future years, there is plenty of scope for a massive quango cull) and what you do will have virtually no effect on "front line" services. And you can do it on the day you take office.

But Cameron has revealed once more his true colours. He IS a socialist.

Changing the guard

It's no secret that Cameron's mantra for the upcoming election will be "change". Why not - it worked for Obama so it should work for the Tories, right?

Well .... maybe. I'm not convinced myself that a Tory landslide is as certain as so many seem to think. In fact, judging by the sounds coming from the Cameron camp, it is apparent to me that the Tories are downgrading their expectations to a slim majority or even a hung parliament.

However, suppose that the change mantra does do it for Cameron and the Tories do succeed in achieving a working majority - what sort of change are they offering?

Well, on the face of it they are promising a different approach to tackling our economic troubles - but this isn't as clear cut as it seems. The fact is that whoever wins the next election will have to make significant cuts to expenditure at some point in the next couple of years - that or risk having our credit rating downgraded leading to more expensive lending and rising inflation. Even with significant cuts a change to our credit rating is possible - without them it is almost certain.

But leaving that minor squabble aside, the goals of the Tory party are not much different to the goals of the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. Whether it is health, education, industry, environment, crime or what have you they all have the same aspirational aims for Britain. They all want to keep us subservient to the EU, they all plan to change the constitution in some way or another, they all want to keep the NHS intact, they all want to persist with the current education system even though it is a demonstrable failure and they all want to persist with the cultural cringing that is leading to the destruction of British society, tradition, heritage and history - and will ultimately destroy this nation.

The only change the Tories are offering is a change of face guarding the liberal progressive ideology. Like the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, the faces may be different, the uniforms might have minor discrepancies but the edifice they protect will be the same.

And they're off!

We're barely into the new year and the Labour and Tory parties have already begun electioneering while the Lib Dems petulantly stamp their feet and grumble on the start line because the starter hasn't fired his starting pistol yet.

Actually, the starting pistol isn't even loaded yet and the starter isn't in the stadium because Gordon Brown refuses to say when the election will be even though we all know it has to be held in the first half of this year.

It's as if he fears he will be handing his opponents some advantage by naming the day, but he's got to do it sooner or later - and the longer he leaves it the more the nation feels like it is in limbo and effectively drifting without anyone at the wheel.

But that is typical of modern politics where the personal and party ambitions of the politicians are put ahead of national security and prosperity. The only certain thing we can be sure of in this election is that the future of the people and nation of Britain will be the last thing the mainstream politicians of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems think about.