Prime Minister cutting Trident budget.  Prime Minister cutting £2bn off education spending.  More cuts yet to be announced as Whitehall Mandarins currently do the maths.  Where does this leave the Tories?  Is the Emperor trying to steal our clothes?

One of the key differentiators over the summer, ‘clear blue water’, between Labour and Tories has been the early identification by the Conservatives that there needed to be spending cuts to reduce the spiralling deficit.  Pre the recess Gordon Brown was scornful of Cameron’s policies.  At times deeply patronising.  For Brown the choice was between ‘Tory cuts, Labour Investment’.  Cameron was Mr 10%.  The man would axe teachers, health workers, public sector jobs etc.  Oh how times have changed over the Summer.  Brown has been dragged kicking and screaming down the road to Damascus.

Labour have now u-turned.  They have done a complete 180 degree turn and now are prioritising expenditure reviews….only because necessity dictates.  Brown wants to avoid that visit to the IMF, cap in hand, for a bailout of bankrupt Britain….pre the election at least.  So how has this situation developed over the past 2 weeks?  First up, leaked Treasury documents showed that Labour have been in the planning stages of 10% cuts over this summer, (making the abuse that Brown gave Cameron as Mr 10% farcical and deeply offensive).  Ed Balls comes out at the weekend to announce £2bn cuts in education spending.  Yes, this involves axing teaching staff, (something Cameron had been accused of).  Now today, Brown announces he is planning to cut circa 1/4 off Trident spending.  More spending cuts will be announced over the coming weeks.

Trident is an easy card for Brown to play.  He needs his friends on the Left of the Party.  The card carrying dregs left of CND will rejoice that this decision is a move in their direction, albeit only 1 submarine!   It will be interesting to see how Cameron plays the Trident decision.  The Conservatives have always been the Party of Defence.  Known for strong investment into the defence of the realm.  Does he play this card?  Does Cameron say that Labour is leaving the country weaker, as evidenced by the Afghanistan war with soldiers left with insufficient manpower, equipment, armoury, transportation and air power, backing this up with cuts in Trident? 

Or does Cameron focus on economic reality.  He needs to make big cuts.  Not every area can be ring fenced.  The health service is sacrosanct. But cuts need to be made, is Trident one area?  Tough decisions, which will be political by nature.  Cameron also has to be aware of the prevailing times.  Obama’s New World Order, reduce nuclear proliferation.  But times that also pose new dangers.  Unpredictable rogue states like Iran, North Korea, an unstable Pakistan and a real threat of a non conclusion to the Afghanistan War, hence leaving the Taliban regaining control.  Real danger exists and must never be discounted.

The public spending debate is starting to change.  It is no longer a choice of cuts vs. investment.  It is a choice of what gets cut and how much?  As we move forward, ardent critics of the Government’s policy in the past who urged drastic cuts in spending like World Bank, IMF, IOD, CBI, will neutralize their stance / start to make positive noises towards Labour, as they at last announce cuts.  The public sometimes have short memories and hence while the Tories led the way on proposing cuts, the Government will demonstrate they have been cutting, hence moving some way to shortening / blurring the clear blue water we built on this issue.

Now what is the best policy for the Conservatives moving forward?  We could be out manoeuvred by Labour!  This is a key strategic decision by Cameron & team.

Option 1 is silence.  Do the Conservatives need to detail all the policy areas they would cut?  This in effect is the age old argument over whether an Opposition should reveal a shadow budget.  Given spending decisions are being made, unpopularity will follow for this Government.  Already in education, teaching unions are discussing the need for strike action.  Do the Conservatives need to enter into a spending squabble between the Government and Teaching Unions, when we can leave them to it and grab the pop corn and enjoy the fireworks and watch our poll ratings rise.   As other cuts are announced.  More attacks will be made on the Government by those affected.  Strikes will follow.  Public protests.  Marches.  Demonstrations.  All from which we could sit back and watch poll support, in theory rise!

Danger of this strategy is Labour’s response and whether it would resonate with the public.  It is clear that Mandolsen’s strategy in the next election will be, there will be gentle cuts under Labour, precision cuts by a skilled surgeon, and the slogan will be life would be worse under the Tories.  They will state that Tories would propose ‘savage’ cuts.  They will try to paint us as ideologically committed and turned on by spending cuts.  They will paint us as the Party of Unemployment.  This will be the line that every Cabinet Minister will subconsciously try to drum into the electorate’s head.  But will the electorate believe that?  Will they trust a proven lying Government?  That’s the gamble.

Option 2.  That is for the Conservatives to take charge of the spending question.  George Osborne could call a press conference this week and show economic leadership by providing more detail in what Conservatives propose to cut.  We know that Whitehall is preparing the figures and Ministers chewing over what has to be cut.  Before they announce their results, Osborne could have trumped them and then accused Labour of copying Conservative proposals.  We know that Labour are happy to steal our clothing.  Look at Tony Blair.  New Labour was socialism in a pink dress and nice stiletto’s, hiding the evils which lay beneath. 

These are interesting strategic times.  Critical as we approach the next election.  As Conservatives move further towards the Left to attract Liberal Democrat voters, we have to ensure that a clear choice still remains for the electorate.  Choosing between different shades of the same colour can make it easier for bigger poll swings, one way or another.  Electoral volatility is well known in our electoral history.  1992 is a great example, with Major beating the odds, despite poll ratings being wildly wrong.

Of course, Labour are mightily unpopular today.  But what if Brown does decide to retire early because of failing health.  What if the Labour Conference next week is so rebellious, that more follow Charles Clarke and openly criticise Brown, that Brown either quits for the Party of the men in grey coats knock at the doors of Number 10.  The smiling Alan Johnson, the most likely benefactor of Brown going, would enjoy a media bounce and chance to change the Party’s policies, say he is listening to the Public, then the subsequent 3 month honeymoon period, could make it tougher for the Conservatives to achieve the thumping majority we all crave for, (if a snap election had been called to correspond with the honeymoon period).

So what is the clear blue water?  What differentiates us from the other parties?  Well several cards are ours to play.  Core issues like Europe, immigration and taxation are natural Conservative areas.  These are currently on the back burner.  Unplayed winning hands.  Why are they not being played some will ask?

The answer is that polls show that the biggest pool of undecided voters lay in the centre ground.  Lib Dem supporters are volatile.  They are feeling ‘warm and fuzzy’ towards Conservatives.  Given our core supporters want / demand change away from this dreadful Socialist Government, we can bank on their support.  Their votes are in the bank, (however much they want a real swing to the right).  So naturally, as we saw Eric Pickles do last week, the Party seeks to attract Lib Dem voters by playing smooth, sensual, alluring tunes to their supporters to dance to.  Pickles won’t play the Europe card now, as Clegg himself identifies, Lib Dems and Conservatives have different visions of Europe.  Lib Dems love the European Superstate.  Hence, keep Europe off the table.  Discussing Europe will make us less appealing to Lib Dem floaters.  Whilst the Party can, it advisably follows the strategy of winning and building upon core support and keeping away from controversial issues that could be divisive.  No need to rock the boat in the delicate run up to the election.

But….here comes the but….if this Government start to reduce the clear blue water, starts rising in the polls, voters getting more confused at who offers what…..no doubt the European question, Immigration and Tax will raise their head again.  But only if and when the Party need to differentiate itself.  Until that point, the controversial issues will lie sleeping…….

The Czech Republic may well provide the British public what they crave…a referendum on the EU’s ‘hated’ Lisbon Treaty.  I can hear the celebrations taking place now…..yes, a UK referendum is looking ever more likely.  Ideally, the Irish will vote ‘NO’ and kill the Treaty off in a little under 2 weeks but if they don’t….wouldn’t it be satisfying for the British people to finally have the chance to kill this Treaty!

Latest news through has potentially profound implications not only on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty but the agenda & debate of the next general election. 

Yesterday, the Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer warned that a constitutional challenge to the Lisbon Treaty in the Senate could delay final ratification by up to six months.  This led to heated exchanges.  President Sarkozy of France had a hissyfit, he “exploded” when he heard the news, according to an EU diplomat, and is threatening the Czechs with unspecified “consequences” if they do not speed things up.  EU diplomacy…not like what you hear…bully and threaten the small states.  Unbelievable version of democracy.

Why is the French President so furious?  Most likely he views the Czech senators’ proposed complaint as a ploy by Václav Klaus – a long-time and vocal opponent of the treaty – to ensure that, even with an Irish ‘yes’, the treaty’s final ratification is delayed long enough to allow general elections to take place in the UK in 2010.

We cannot of course take for granted that the Irish will be bullied into a ‘Yes’ vote.  But the campaign in Ireland has been very one sided.  Brussels have provided officials to speak on all the national news outlets, tv advertising has been in your face and threats have been resonating with the Irish people, eg Vote ‘No’ and Ireland will be isolated, therefore lose investment and companies would relocate elsewhere…scary messages in a recession.  The degree of campaigning and ‘persuasive bullying’ for a ‘Yes’ vote has been stunning.  Such interference in the democratic process by the Brussels machine has been deplorable.  So, whilst we have to hope the Irish vote with their hearts and souls and stick to their original decision ie a ‘NO’ vote, we cant be surprised if the Brussels bullying pays off and a ‘YES’ vote comes through…as polls are indicating.  Hence this news from the Czech Republic is stunning and leaves many of us with a sense of hope. 

So if  Czech ratification is delayed until May, then our political parties could well go into the next general election with the whole treaty unratified.  David Cameron has a stated policy that we will hold a referendum if the Treaty is not ratified.  A ballot which would almost certainly lead to a strong ‘no’ in our traditionally Eurosceptic island nation.

This is a perfect scenario for Cameron and removes a major issue of contention.  Cameron’s biggest ‘ticking timebomb’ of an issue would have been if Ireland voted yes, the Czech ratified and hence the whole Lisbon Treaty was ratified and into law by the time Cameron could be in power.  It would have been a nightmare for Cameron to hold a referendum on a Treaty already signed into law.  It would have made him massively unpopular amongst his peers in Europe, (not that many would care about that but trade needs to run freely and not be interrupted by the machinations of disgruntled politicians).  Hence, Cameron coming to power with an unratified Treaty would be perfect as he can leave the choice to the British people…which we know would be massively in favour of rejecting the Treaty.

We know that Euro officials will do ALL they can to ensure that Czech fall into line.  They will never want the UK to vote on an unratified Treaty as it would destroy it.  Let’s hope that the Irish vote ‘NO’ and kill this Treaty but if they don’t….the Czech could lay us British the chance to drive the last nail home into this dreadful Treaty.

Now, thanks to the Czech Republic we may get our chance to vote in a UK European referendum.  The question is simple to pose:  ‘Should the UK ratify the Lisbon Treaty?  Yes or no?   ………. I look forward to campaigning actively, with many of you, for that ‘NO’ vote….unless the Irish save us the privilege!

The House of Commons….no longer the seat of power it once was

So much attention has been given to expenses this past week.  Rightly, as corruption has no place at the heart of a democracy.  But there is an even bigger issue that we need to discuss.  The Houses of Parliament, our foundation of democracy, upholders of liberty and freedom and protector of British citizens, is being massacred and our democratic heart is being surgically sliced away.

David Cameron was right this week to raise reform of the House of Commons.  He particularly is focusing on reducing cost through initiatives like boundary changes to reduce the number of MP’s and culling various allowances such as the Communications allowance.   But what he also needs to do is to restore the House of Commons, (& the House of Lords), back to rude health as an effective check on the powers and abuses of the Executive.  This does not just involve reviewing the powers given away/devolved to other bodies but how the House of Commons is used today.

Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, in recent years has been reduced in stature, under Tony Blair first and even more so under Gordon Brown, to a rubber stamping device.  MP’s constantly complain that debates are guillotined / cut short.  No real review/debate/analysis or scrutiny takes place.  Brown admittedly prefers to utilise independent reviews and quangos/outside bodies to propose ideas and then, if the Government like them, they are three line whipped through the House with limited debate.   A form of authoritarian democracy I guess.

Brown comes across as a Prime Minister who hates to be challenged, hates debate and hates therefore to ‘lose’ an argument.  Why debate issues in the House of Commons, with a healthy opposition who can embarrass you, when you can send issues out to Independent Review Bodies who are of course less partisan and then take their findings and rush them through the House?  However much Brown likes to claim to be a democrat, he does not come across publicly as a man that enjoys scrutiny. 

Couple this lack of accountability, with the fact this Government has an extremely light legislative workload and therefore the House of Commons is not overly busy, meaning MP’s aren’t as focused or important as they used to be.  No wonder that they have low self esteem and just thinking of things they can put through on their expenses.  Parliament is being raped of its authority.

This light legislative workload will continue right up until the next election.  What major initiatives can you name of that the Government are pushing through Parliament?  The ID Scheme will be ditched.  Truth is the more restless MP’s get, as they get closer to the election and face losing their seat, the more rebellious they will get, hence why Brown will not want any controversial legislation to go through.  His last big legislative test will be over the Post Office and of course he needs the support of the Conservatives as Labour are split down the middle.  I would not be surprised to see the Post office legislation moth balled.  I mean, how much more bad press can Gordon take?

Of course this brings us to another point.  We talk of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Power of Parliament and the House of Commons.  Parliament today is totally unrecognisable to the that at the time of Pitt, Gladstone or even Churchill. 

So, define Parliamentary Sovereignty……A supreme Parliament can:

-   Pass a law on any subject it so wishes

-   No Parliament can bind a future Parliament (ie future Parliaments can pass laws to change/reverse laws made in previous parliaments)

-     An act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court.  Parliament is the supreme lawmaker

Fast forward to today.  Each of the above definitions of Sovereignty are fundamentally distilled and undermined in the UK.  Parliament has been stripped of the powers it once held.    How?….we are all familiar but as a reminder key developments have been:

- Devolution of Powers to Regional Assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales.  All three Assemblies can pass primary legislation within the areas of power devolved to them.  (However, this power can be suspended by the UK Parliament).

- The UK’s membership of the European Union.  The EU sees the biggest devolution of powers from our elected representatives.  Legislatively, the European Court of Justice have ruled of a, “new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the [Member] States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields”.   The EU has its own market & rules, (Single Market), Single European Currency, (which the UK is not part of), common policies on agriculture, fisheries and regional development.  But the Lisbon Treaty shows the naked ambition of the federalists and their blood lust desire for more and more power and the creation of the United States of Europe.

-  Monetary policy is now devolved to the ‘Independent’ Bank of England.

-  London has its own directly elected Mayor and London Assembly.  The Mayor has powers.  These give the Mayor new lead roles on housing and adult skills in London; a strengthened role over planning in the capital; and additional strategic powers in a wide range of policy areas including waste, culture and sport, health, climate change and appointments to the boards of the functional bodies.

- Human Rights Act 1988 incorporating part of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.

David Cameron this week struck a chord with his views on expenses.  He was right to say many MP’s had not broken the rules but broken the ‘spirit’ of the rules.  This is a moral and ethical question.  If you place an expense in front of the general public, would they feel that it was acceptable, a public ‘snift test’ of acceptability…can they smell corruption? 

David, you can apply the very same logic,  to the powers of Parliament.  Do the people feel it fair to have certain powers devolved to local institutions?   I am sure the Scottish people love having their own Parliament but do the English, Welsh, Northern Irish people love funding the Scots and them benefitting through their tax payers?  and vice versa etc.  Do people feel, through the sniff test, that powers lent, (yes ‘lent), to the European Union benefit our Nation?  This of course is why the Government are so scared about a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.  The British people are so fair and want to control their own destiny by their ability to vote in and vote out governments, as to their wishes.  Hence why devolving power from our Parliament is foreign to their core DNA of  ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People’.

David, there is lots to do.  Once through this expenses mess, look at the Sovereignty of Parliament and how to restore pride and influence back to a once mighty instituion.

The Conservative Front Bench smell the whiff of bad spin from Brown at PMQ’s

Despite promising the British people a referenda on Europe, Gordon Brown has decided to change his mind.  Maybe because he does not like the answer he would get.

The British people have always been fiercely patriotic.  They hold dear to the values of self government and parliamentary democracy, hence why the European bandwagon is so repellent to the majority.  Laws passed by an unaccountable bureacratic elite do not sit well in a democracy.

Daniel Hannan, fastly becoming the Conservatives best public speaker, summed up many people’s feelings when he spoke at the Conservative Party Spring forum this past weekend.  Europe is the home of failed politicians, rejected by our own electorate.  people like Neil Kinnock and Mandelson…enough said.

The EU is nearing statehood in itself.  It has its own currency, its own Parliament, the ability to make and pass laws.  The Lisbon Treaty really adds the powers that Federalists crave for including foreign policy, hence a line needs to be drawn for the British people to decide their own destiny.

Hence it is great to see the Conservatives campaigning on this issue and sticking up for the people: