I read an article on this topic on Conservative Home Blog today. I think its a good article to explain it as it was written in September 2005 during the leadership elections and therefore was written before Cameron’s “Compassionate Conservatism” and “the big society”. An interesting point is that in 2005 before he dropped out the leadership contest Sir Malcolm Rifkind argued for a “radical simplification and reform of the tax system to take the poorest out of tax” – a policy later backed by the Liberal Democrats that we are implementing because of the coalition. For me all the points bellow should be more important to the Conservative Party than the Thatcherite individualist obsession – one that caused much of the broken society that the government is now trying to fix.

The full article can be found here: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/toryleadership/2005/09/what_is_one_nat_1.html Here is a key extract:

“The material squalor of Disraeli’s time has been banished to the history books but other forms of poverty have emerged – as Iain Duncan Smith and other Tories have been increasingly arguing. Sir Malcolm’s speech emphasised four objectives for a modern day one nation conservatism:

1. The eradication of residual poverty within Britain: “While the country is more prosperous than ever before and while the old class divisions have been significantly eroded, serious social problems persist and poverty can be seen in many communities.”
2. An end to racial discrimination: “Only when Asian and black Britons are as likely to vote Conservative as the country as a whole will Britain be able to assume that we have achieved true racial harmony and successful integration.”
3. A United Kingdom: “One Nation Tories have always found it easier to accept the devolved Britain that now exists and to work for a healthy balance between the component parts of the United Kingdom.”
4. The fight against poverty in the developing world: “The principles of One Nation apply with equal strength to One World and we have an obligation as well as an opportunity that we must not ignore.”

Few Tories could disagree with these aims but, as always, the disagreement comes in discussing solutions. In addressing domestic poverty Sir Malcolm emphasises (1) “radical simplification and reform of the tax system to take the poorest out of tax” and (2) “increasing use of voluntary organisations rather than the state’s Job Centres to match people to available employment”. These are policies Labour are unlikely to imitate but other compassionate conservatives would also emphasise family strengthening, zero tolerance policing, harm avoidance approaches to drug use and school choice.”

Do you have a favourite candidate for chair to replace Michael Rock?

Want to talk about what you want from a future CF national Chair?

Where do you want CF to be in a year, a greater force to be reckoned with, a better image and reputation?

Excited about the elections generally?

Leave comments, thoughts and disscussions below

for a little more info -

http://www.conservativefuture.com/2010/07/07/conservative-future-elections-2010/

It has been a cornerstone policy of the Conservative Party for a number of years now, overlooked by the public, the ‘free’ schools policy is coming but how and why will ‘free’ schools benefit the education system? My answer to that question, is diversity. If we know anything, we know that children themselves are diverse and learn in very different ways, currently with the rigid curriculum of state schools in this country, we have one path for our children, one path of learning, one path of success or failure. Our school system does little to recognise the vast array of differences between our children, some children are have more potential in artistic subjects, some in Maths, some in English, that is something we should embrace. We need to be able to let our children reach their potential, we need to let go of the system of treating every child the same, down a rigid path of homogeneity, we need to give schools freedom to explore different paths towards achieving what education was originally designed for, knowledge and distinction.

‘Free’ Schools along with choice reforms and expanded catchment areas could be the best step towards finding our children’s potential. Imagine a system where in an area there are many different types of schools all good at providing different types of education, in this area parents can choose from all of the schools, not just the ones closest to them and these schools get paid, from the public purse, per pupil they enrol, always giving the schools an incentive to meet demand. Schools with the freedom to pay teachers what they wish, enabling them to attract the most talented teachers, perhaps even away from private schools. A system where the parents get the choice not the bureaucrats. A system where the house you live in doesn’t dramatically effect the quality of the education you receive. A system where our children get the education that suits them. This is an educational utopia and we should recognise that but we should definitely try and make steps towards it.

As some of you may know, I have been doing a placement in a school for the past couple of weeks – In Hodgson High School in Poulton, about half an hour away.
Firstly, I would just like to say that I am enjoying teaching immensely, and I would reccommend it to anyone!

What I want to talk a little bit about is the policy brought in by the Government of rolling out academies to any and all school’s that wish to become one.

Originally, my position was very pro – I was very enthusiastic about the policy. More power to Headteachers, governers and parents I thought was a very good thing. It is all part of restoring the British people’s faith in politics – by taking power away from the centre and from councils and giving it back to the people. Academies have been a bit of a success story -taking failing schools and putting private sector money into them to turn them around. On the whole they have been a success up to this point, which is fantastic!

But after being in a school, being a teacher and talking to other teachers, many of whom of course are very Labour, and very strong unionists you do get the other side.

Teachers are scared. Academies mean that headteachers can (but im not so sure if they will) dictate pay, working conditions and working hours. Some academies have classes on Saturday for example.

Now, Im not going all Arthur Scargill on you I promise. All I am trying to convey is my sympathy for Teachers IF, and this is a big if, after academies become the norm their pay and conditions worsen.

Now of course the Conservative soul inside me shines thorugh to provide the other side of the coin. Academies mean that schools can operate more like businesses. Really good teachers could command higher salaries. This is of course very appealing. But again, there must be a balance. Really good teachers, who can command higher salaries, should really be placed in underperforming schools, in order for them to be best utilisied.

One of the main things in which I have picked up in my time in school is this; if a school like Hodgson didnt apply to become an Academy, it would be left behind in terms of funding and in terms of the league tables. So it becomes almost a fashion – or a forced decision that if it didnt change it would be left behind.

What I would like to conclude is that if Academies improve schools, and get parents more involved and of course go some way to mending our broken society, then fantastic! and I have no qualms.
What should be made very clear though are the bounderies that are set, and the limits on headteachers power, in order that teachers dont suffer. The potential for abuse is great. So of course the balance needs to be struck between benefits – which have the potential to be great, versus the potential for infringing on teachers conditions – because I do have great sympathy for them, because I may become one!

I have to say it was really a shock, not to mention a privilege to be asked to take part in a debate on Radio 4’s PM program last Thursday, I took the opportunity to express my views on tuition fees because I felt like the current debate regarding the issue was full of misconceptions.

I was quite nervous at the beginning, how do you think I did?

– Around 5 minutes long

Today we had an new and expanded football tournament to include the Greens and Lib Dems – these are the results

1. Conservatives
2. Labour
3. Greens
4. Lib Dems

I want to say a big thank you to those who turned up to play, and who turned up to support us.

Was a cracking result!

Many will question my loyalty to the Apple brand, and also my desire for an iPad. However, this was momentraily brought into question when recently forwarded an article by Nick Vose as you can see here… However,I think what we must realise is this happens with nearly all products so we shouldn’t necessarily single out the one product, but look more at our system of product as a whole.

But what are your views on this?

After seeing a recent post written by an American cousin, I thought I would comment on the perceived dominance of the US in the technological sphere of interest. Now if we take a look at out most common technologies, I guarantee that the majority will be American; Microsoft, Google, Amazon….the list is endless, and of course includes my beloved Apple. So is the fact that few European, and in particular British names appear here a bad thing.

In theory it is, I would love to be able to buy a british computer the same way I buy an Mac, and I would love to be able to search on a British search engine like I use Google, but I don’t, I use which ever is easiest for me. Britain never really breaks into this technology market, but this isn’t such a bad thing, as I use what is bets for me, what is easiest for me, and in the end, that doesn’t include manufacture country.

There are however some European success stories, like this one. We also need to remember that Britain does lead the way in other industries, ones that need to be further encouraged, like Financial services, and Scientific Instruments.

And also I just wanted to end on one note. Those pieces of American Technology in your hand, look where they are actually made…

Hello, I’m Thomas Blanton, a second year biology student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a member of the US Army. A friend of mine by the name of James Jenkins-Yates introduced me to this site to perhaps give a different kind of perspective on politics. While my interest in politics is relatively new, I do find myself passionate on many of the issues that my nation and our world face today. I hope that you will welcome my opinions and ideas, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I suppose one topic I find interesting is the role media plays in politics. Perhaps the role media has played in politics has never been as great as the one it plays today. No doubt the greatest contrast between the American and British medias is the fact that American media can be very opinionated and biased. I find this fact to be a very disturbing one, as the media is our main medium by which we view our governments roles and actions. Currently, we have little to no regulation of our media, probably because we Americans hold “Freedom of speech” in such high regard. As a matter of fact, the only form by which the media is kept in check that, I can identify with anyways, is by the media itself.

To illustrate the point of how out of control our media can be, one may take Fox News into account. Recently, the special corespondent  for Fox News, Sarah Palin, made the claim that the Obama administration of leading a lax response to the Gulf of Mexico oil because he was too close to oil companies. She also made the claim that oil companies have been far more generous to Obama in his short time as president than in the entirety our most recent President, George W. Bush. Anyone with five spare minutes and a google toolbar can completely debunk everyone of the claims made by Mrs. Palin and even come up with facts like her very own presidential campaign received $2.4 million in oil company donations  to Obama’s $900,000. One could go on about just how wrong her statements were, but may very well miss the point. After these false claims were made on a national television, it should have been the responsibility of  Fox News to set the record straight, however, they did quite the opposite, agreeing with Mrs. Palin’s claims. This is because this particle media outlet exists to promote it’s own agenda.

There are biased media organizations on both sides of our political spectrum, and I must admit, I do prefer watching what can be considered Liberal biased media, however, I watch with a healthy amount of skepticism, something that does not happen enough.

It may come as no surprise that BBC news is the main political media outlet I am most familiar with. It was during the english elections when I noticed that contrast between our media mainstreams. There wasn’t the hint of bombastic rhetoric or promotion of a certain agenda or opinionated statements that is so evident in the American mainstream media. At first it seemed quite dull that the commentator was on some soap box, preaching the end of the world should some candidate be elected. Slowly though, it became so apparent that such theatrics do not belong in the media. I greatly wish something like BBC news was in the American mainstream political arena. I feel that we Americans are sometimes far too easily persuaded without giving a proper amount of thought on the situation which can have drastic effects on the course of our country.

I would like for you to give me your thoughts on the roles the media plays in todays political world or any other opinions you may hold regarding my post.

I support it.

Why?
- Because its the only way the Euro will survive, there needs to be some robust mechanism in which Brussels can scrutinize the budgetary decisions of Euro-zone Members. There must be a system of economic governance to go with the debt union. Indeed, even these measures may not be enough to save it. Without them, its a goner.

- Because we need to renegotiate our participation within the EU and it gives something for the Liberals to preach about. We can get some opt-in/outs to more EU services and policies, indeed perhaps we could reduce our participation to only economic participation. Such an action would please the EU as it would mean that we could no longer veto what they want to do through political cohesion and it would also mean we would get the benefits of the EU, economically. Even most euro-spectics agree, the common market is a good thing for the UK and its businesses.

- Renegotiation was a promise of the Conservative Party’s manifesto and we need to honour that promise.

Today Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced as part of his constituitional reform package that he wants to make the House of Lords elected. It seems to me that this is not a good idea, anything that is elected seems to grab power because they can say “hang on, the people elected us” therefore we get to decide this and that. Indeed at the moment the Lords understand that they are not elected and often respect the decision of the House of Commons because of that. But if it was to be more like a senate, like in the USA then there could be an opportunity for smaller parties to grab a stranglehold on major legislation, if it is proportional, or if it is not a big waste of money because it will just rubber stamp commons legislation.

Now we are in government it is time to start getting through some important reform, the school reform that Gove will be pushing through is a great start allowing that autonomy and choice that is really something we have been needing in our system for many years. Lets give our parents a choice, let them make a decision on where to send there children, noone can make a more informed choice than them. Indeed lets get parent run schools because they know what is needed for their children and let non-profit organisations set up schools to give diversity to the education market.

I think we can go further however, we should join with the LibDems in there pledge to help the poorest. Introduce school vouchers for the poorest and most ‘failed’ students. By failed I mean people not achieving their full potential at the school they are at. A school voucher would pay for the student to go to a private school, perhaps for less than it would cost for the student to be sent to a state school, but this is where the LibDem pupil premium could come in.

School vouchers add to the choice for parents and therefore parents have more choice over the best school for their children, what do you all think?

I think we fell short of a majority because:

1) We have not moved on enough from Thatcherite Conservatism. Labour managed to scare enough voters into thinking we were the same old Tories who wanted huge cuts for ideological reasons rather than financial necessity.

2) The big society was a great idea but too difficult to get across to voters. It should have highlighted that the Party has realised the negative sides of Thatcherism but voters didnt really understand it at all.

3) We needed a referendum on the EU – I would have vote to stay in it. However I still think a referendum is necessary as the British public never agreed to being part of the EU in anywhere near its current form. A referendum with party members being allowed to support whatever side they liked would have showed we were serous about listening to the electorate and would have cost Labour allot of seats.

4) The task was simply too big – it was wrong to believe that we were easily going to win a majority because the Labour government was very unpopular. To get a good majority we needed to win 140 more seats compared with our notional 2005 result – we simply couldn’t get enough additional people to trust us in one go.

5) Expenses scandal – allot of people who had previously told us they voted Tory in 2005 told us during the Campaign that they weren’t going to vote at all. This didn’t cost us a huge number of votes and would have cost Labour votes as well but I think it changed the results of a few seats. People had a hard time associating us with change, despite us offering what amounts to massive change.

I think that we need to take Cameron’s Compassionate Conservatism further and do it faster. That combined with Cameron proving himself as a good Prime Minister should give us a big majority when the next General Election takes place.

I strongly believe a Thatcherite tax and spending cut agenda combined with ‘theres no such thing as society’ would have lead to total disaster in the North, Scotland and Wales. Our problem is that we haven’t changed enough not that we changed too much.

I may love John Cleese, (I just watched Life of Brian) but I do not like PR.

He provides good arguments for PR – but I think it would be good if we could pick them apart in the comments, and he does oversimplify and miss a lot out.

This clip is from 1987 – but many of the arguments are still used by PR advocates. I really do fear the result of the election. If Brown holds power (in a majority or coalition), he will set fire to the sinking ship by bringing it in. Clegg – who knows? He changes his mind as often as his socks.

The instant reactions from three of the major polling companies is as follows:

YouGov:
- David Cameron 41%
- Nick Clegg 32%
- Gordon Brown 25%

Angus Reid:
- David Cameron 36%
- Clegg 31%
- Brown 22%

ComRes:
- David Cameron 35%
- Nick Clegg 33%
- Gordon Brown 26%

Twitter Gossip:
Has Gordon had it Campbell?

Funny Pictures:
The Dance

This may be a Tory Blog – but feel free to vote for whoever you think performed best in the 3 leaders debates.

Now the election is over – the results for our poll show -

David Cameron – 55.17%
Nick Clegg – 34.48%
Gordon Brown – 6.9%
Undecided – 0%
No clear winner – 3.45%

Total votes cast – 29

(as of 6/5/10)

(file photo)

Now for being serious.

Todays jibe against Gillian Duffy has lit a fire under my belly. I wish to remind myself and anyone else who happens to be reading of some of Labour’s record over the past 13 years. God im cross.

I aim for simplicity in what I say.

- Eccelstone Affair
Labour promised to ban tobacco advertising in its 1997 Manifesto. Bernie Eccelstone (the diminuative boss of F1) Donates £1 million to the Labour Party. Bernie has a meeting with Blair. F1 is granted a monopoly on tobacco advertising. Memo’s from downing street prove Blair lied about the series of events.

Madness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone#Labour_Party_controversy

- Gold Selling
1999. Gold prices had bottomed out, as they tend to do. Gold prices operate on a cycle of a dozen years or so. Brown and his inner circle decide to sell half on Britain’s centuries old gold reserves (about 400 tons) Experts in the industry and in the Bank of England were astounded. Brown ignored thier expert advice. He Auctioned it off, further depressing prices. Today, prices are triple what they were when Brown sold. Loss to the taxpayer – est. £2 Billion.

Madness.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece

- Pensions Raid

1997. In Brown’s red box as Chancellor there was a budget. In it, he decided to tax the dividends (profits) paid into pension funds. This instantly netted the Treasury millions of pounds. It doesnt sound like much, but Brown completely and utterly destroyed pensions, and literally stole money out of people’s pockets who had worked and saved thier entire lives to enjoy retirement.

Estimated THEFT over the period – at least £100 Billion

Madness.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=413695&in_page_id=6

- Total Economic Disaster

Despite Labour’s high taxes, raid on pensions and gold selling, Britain’s National debt stands at conservative estimates of £800 Billion, and more realistic estimates of £1 Trillion pounds of debt. That is around 48% and 60% of GDP respectively. So, When compared to the ENTIRE economic activity of 1 year of the ENTIRE of Britain, every business, shop investment, bond, everything, our Government is in debt to the tune of 60% of that. In Darling’s 2009 budget, he said he would borrow a further £700 Billion over the next 5 years, pushing us (to what he says) is £1.4 Trillion, or 80% of GDP.

Madness.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/5209957/Budget-2009-Britains-debt-will-not-be-under-control-until-2032.html

- Computer Systems.

In total, Labour have spent £26 Billion on delayed, not working or even scrapped computer systems.
The most infamous? NPfIT for the NHS. £12.7 Billion spent on that. Out of the 9000 health authorities across Britain, 160 use it.

Madness

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/27/nhs-it-computer-programme-health-public-accounts-committee

I could go on, to list many more things, but I can feel my blood pressure rising.

I will never forgive Labour for these crimes of utter corruption, incompetence and uselessness.

Please, for the love of God, vote Conservative on May 6th. Vote for Cameron, and his team. Vote to restore some sanity to Britain’s government. Vote to get Britain working again. Vote to stop this country going to the dogs. Vote for Change. Vote Conservative.

That is all.

Gordon Brown reveals his true colours today. A normal everyday lady goes up to ask perfectly sensible questions about tax on pensions, the deficit, and immigration. The Prime Minister responds by calling her a bigot.

Do you want such a disgusting, out of touch and offensive fool as the leader of Britain?

Im furious.

I seem that I have been left out of something here as Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg seem to be constantly talking about the deficit. Now the deficit is effectively how much we are going to continue borrowing, so when Labour say they are going to half the deficit by 2014 I ask people not to be fooled. This will mean that our debt will continue to rise, and cuts later will have to be deeper and harder. Labour and the liberals are trying to fool people, don’t let then, vote for change.

p.s there is an interesting article in the telegragh on this issue. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7636329/General-Election-2010-A-conspiracy-of-silence.html

There was a site in 2007 that was called www. redrosestories .com we are not anything to do with this website and never have been, we do not support the author and do not have anything to do with anyone related to that website.