Gav's View

such a move really would give UKIP a boost and put Nigel Farage into the frame.

A Tory/Liberal coalition government led by Cameron – now there’s a scary thought.

Unless, because of it, they take the long-held tradition of individual freedom from the Liberals (without their ridiculous: love thy mugger bit) and take the economic liberalism and taxation policy of a proper Conservative government?

You’re right, it would be more likely the opposite on both counts. Let’s hope everyone votes Tory and does away with this concern!

Everyone will not vote Tory.For many a vote means if you are a worker you will be unemployed,if you are a small businessman you will go bankrupt and if you are an OAP you will be impoverished.These are the deeds of the past Conservative government.All the waffle that we are hearing now is just that.
The myth that Conservatives are better managers is just that.
Remember the 16th September 1992.
Many Tories in the 1970s expected a return to prosperity when Margaret Thatcher took power,they were disappointed.There was a sharp recession.

I am amazed that you think governments have that much impact on the country’s economy. Suffice to say the lessons of the past have been learnt and the world’s economy (which is the bigger influence) is more stable than it was.

It will be a cold day in hell when politicians start learning lessons. Sadly the government has expanded its control over the economy and controls well over 50% (although it claims to ‘only’ control 45%) whereas trade only accounts for about 30%.

Tony Martin,

There was no way Margaret Thatcher could have delivered a return to prosperity without first delivering a recession. In order to bring forward private investment the government needed to show it would not intervene at the first sign of trouble. In other words things had to get worse and the government had to let them get worse without losing its nerve.

And by the early 1990s, the worst recession since the second world war. So much for things must get worse before they get better.More a case of putting the economy into permanent recession.

Ah, the tax policy doesn’t matter as a specific for any future coalition anyway, such things would alwasy be open to negotiation. Little radical activist me would rather have kept a top rate, but given the revenue neutral assertion, I’m happy. The details are beyond me anyway, doubt I’ll ever worry about Capital Gains tax, so I’ve never bothered to learn it. In the unlikeyl event I do get wealthy, I’ll find out waht they’re talking about.

But, um, isn’t love thy mugger bit a bit more Cameron stylee? Oh, sorry, that was hug a hoodie. I think the real difference is we place more emphasis on the need for rehabilitation and removal of causes, I don’t really detect a desire to not actually punish those who’ve done wrong, we just look for more innovative methods of making sure it doesn’t happen again.

Still, things are heading in the right direction. Now let’s see how Dave does at the Rally. Sorry, Conference. It’s still a conference, right? You all confer, and then agree with the leader, and the only important count is how long the ovation is?

I think I prefer policy discussion and real debates

See, hug a hoodie is about letting disaffected youths know that we don’t think they’re criminals for the way they dress etc. Giving the vote to paedophiles (or the publicity surrounding it) shows that the LibDems don’t understand the fear that John Reid is tapping into in the most dangerous way (RE: jury trial and loopholes).

Tony Martin,

I wouldn’t argue that John Major handled the economy poorly but that administration had an entirly different character to Thatcher’s.

There was a considerable increase in economic output during Thatcher’s tenure. All the more impressive considering the economy went through considerable structural change at the time. Unlike most politicians Thatcher made economic policies whose costs came during her watch but whose benefits came later down the line. It is those benefits that Blair and Brown are now squandering.

Oh, I think they (we? still not sure I’m that aligned yet) get it. They just disagree with it vehemently.

It’d be a poor polity where every party simply sought the middle ground majority on every issue. Just as Old Labour dinosaurs should have a voice, so should rehabilitationist inclusionists (like, um, me). Whether it should be the dominant one?

I believe in consensus politics, remember? If the majority won’t back it, it shouldn’t really happen. win the debate, get the votes, get the policy. No party has won the majority of votes for a long time, and it’s likekly no one will break the 40% mark next time, let alone come close to 50. Compromise around the best ideas, and implement the radical ones if the debate can be won.

Still completely unsure on the Thatcher legacy, I think the early reforms were needed, some of her partizanship and class based policies were reprehensible, and regardles of good or bad, she really did lose it during her third term. A newly dynamic economy was good. The way some of the reforms were implemented made her the subject of hatred for many, and the love/hate thing is really palpable 17 years on.

Besides, Major got more votes and a higher percentage than either she or Blair ever managed…

The paradox about Thatcher is that she had some good policies in place, many excellent still waiting to be implemented but she started getting all bigotted on us. The person who created Channel 4 went on to be so illiberal as to be untrue.

What we needed, when Major and Blair messed things up, was for Thatcher’s long-term plan to be finished. And Blair’s made the same mistake. If he’d had the motivation and sheer balls to carry through his original promises, we’d be half way closer to reaching Thatcher’s intended final place.

If Cameron is more than hot air (thanks to Andrew Kennedy for pointing out that Google Bomb) then he needs to be radical and motivated. Blair and Thatcher have both failed on not carrying their reforms all the way through.

Aye, if Blair had kept his promises, we’d have had electoral reform, and all of these debates would be redundant, as we’d already have lived under coalitions and seen how they worked.

Also, Blair would likely already be gone, and probably no Iraq mess (ie if we’d gone it, it would’ve been, as Tebbit argued, with a clear plan of action, an exit strategy, etc, not the mess with no goal that we’ve got).

Also, no E-P arguments, we’d have had genuine devolution already, instead, eventually, we were offered PRecott’s white elephants and, rightly, said no. Ah well.

If you believe in the need for an English Parliament have you joined the CEP? http://www.thecep.org.uk