Today: release yourself from the shackles of dogmatic choices

It will perhaps be unsurprising to regular readers of this blog that Churchill’s Boot officially urges you to vote Conservative today. Off the top of my head, here are some positive reasons to vote Tory that are chosen in particular as differentials against the other alternatives:

• If you want the state to intervene less in your lives and feel it is there to serve you and not the other way round.

• If you have been anxious by the rise of immigration in recent years and think the level of net 200,000 people coming here a year should be reduced significantly.

• If you want to give a chance to a radical localist agenda that puts people at the heart of the decisions rather than a distant central state.

• If you think standards in education have slipped and want an education system that provides choice for parents and real opportunities for their children.

• If you would like a more euro-sceptic government that would not sign away further sovereignty to Brussels.

• If you think it is too simplistic an argument that the government must spend more to improve public services.

• If you want a government that will try to genuinely break the culture of welfare dependency.

Further still, if these positive reasons didn’t really do it for you, then here are some unforgivable errors of Labour’s government and reasons why you can’t possibly vote for them:

• Immigration has increased at an unprecedented level since 1997.

• The UK has one of the worst budget deficits in the western world (roughly equal to that of tragic Greece) due to unprecedented increases in pubic spending before the recession.

• Signing away a further significant part of British sovereignty in a shameless broken promise to not have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

• Increase in the public sector to a critical, unsustainable level.

• Countless tax rises including national insurance, council tax and the eradication of the lower band for tax free earnings.

If not all of the above work for you or you still have reservations about Cameron or the Conservatives generally, remember that democracy is far from a perfect system. As Churchill said, it is the least worst system. You may not get everything you want and sometimes you might only be able to choose the lesser of two bad options. I myself do not whole-heartedly agree with every Conservative position as I have made clear in the past, but as Labour have every reason to be kicked out and the Lib Dems cannot form a government, then the Conservatives are the only viable option.

However, I am guessing that if you are already voting Tory, this post is perhaps a waste of time. Alternatively, if you are intending not to vote Tory then the above reasons have probably only scratched the surface in getting you to change your mind- if at all. Therefore, this is a plea to some of the latter group to which I refer.

Some of you are thinking that the above reasons do chime a chord with you but you are cynical about the Tories and perhaps have deeply held class and cultural feelings about why you should not be voting Tory. I urge you to drop your cynicism for the Tories: this is not the same Conservative party of the 80’s and neither is it the same moment in history. Release yourself from the dogmatic shackles that say you have to vote Labour because of your ‘working-class roots’ or ‘you can’t vote Tory because they only care for the rich and toffs’. Be true to yourself and give the Conservatives a chance. If you are one of these people, I understand it will be quite a thing to put a cross next to the Conservative box today. Be brave. Make a decision that will give this country the chance it needs.

Brown the bigot reveals the problem with the immigration debate

Reality transcended satire last week when dear old Gordon messed up with his ‘bigot’ comment. Surely the writers of ‘The Thick of It’ would not have come up with a better idea for an episode than this? We were treated to an extended episode as well, when Gordon decided he would descend the whole thing to farce by visiting Gillian Duffy’s home in Rochdale to try and rectify his mishap. It only made things worse, when his 40-minute effort to persuade her to come outside and have a photo failed. Instead he came out on his own, grinning inappropriately, and gave one of the most farcical statements I have ever heard. It was quite simply hilarious. I had to watch the clip on the Sky News website three or four times, I was enjoying it so much. For this then, I heartily thank our Prime Minister for providing such entertainment.

But on a serious note, the bigot comment revealed the whole problem with the immigration debate. As most commentators admitted, if you read the transcript of what Mrs Duffy said, there is nothing she said which could have been justifiably described as bigoted. Of course most people associate the ‘bigot’ label with those that hold views on immigrants which can be said to be prejudiced or perhaps racist. Usually the left dismisses any discussion on immigration by simply retorting that anyone who raises a concern as to levels of immigration is a racist or a bigot. The issue was nicely encapsulated by the Conservative posters of their 2005 election campaign: ‘It’s not racist to put a cap on immigration’. And now we know where Brown sits in this debate. Rather than acknowledge Mrs Duffy’s acceptable concerns, the real Gordon, recorded by the Sky microphone, dismissed those concerns as ‘bigoted’. In so doing, he also dismissed millions of peoples concerns in this county that echo exactly the anxiety that Mrs Duffy has about immigration.

It is very easy to hold Brown’s view on immigration if you (like so many of the political establishment and the righteous left) live in a nice house in a leafy suburb of West London. But when you actually live somewhere like for example, Rochdale, or any other place that has witnessed the unprecedented growth in immigration under Labour, it is not so easy. What is deplorable is that Brown and the like refuse to have the debate, and simply dismiss any alternative views.

Many have commented that they felt a little sorry for Gordon Brown. There was an element to the episode that we can all empathise with. But the mistake would have attracted much greater sympathy had he been recorded saying something like ‘yes she is right we have had a right problem with those eastern Europeans’. The trouble is he didn’t. His slip up revealed the true Gordon. He does not want to listen to the every day worries of the people. He simply views those worries as bigoted and so proceeds with a policy that has resulted in a net average of 200,000 people settling here every year.

A ‘bigot’ according the dictionary definition I looked up is a person ‘who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own’. How very ironic, that Gordon Brown’s view of Mrs Duffy and the left’s response to the immigration debate seem to fit this definition perfectly.

Brown can only cry ‘free eye tests’ as Cameron sets his sights on success

Has it really come to this? The most entertaining moment of the debate tonight was Gordon Brown’s fixation with eye tests! Not cutting the deficit quickly, not reducing immigration, not succeeding in Afghanistan or discussing the future of the NHS. No, Gordon Brown seems to think that free eye tests are the most prominent issue of the day! Lest we think this was just an issue for Brown, David Milliband assured us that it was key for the whole party, when he was interviewed by Sky News immediately after the debate, shouting out ‘free eye tests’ again! Of course, this is part of a desperate Labour policy to scare the public about voting for a Conservative government.

Last week, there was no doubt that Cameron underperformed and left the public wondering about a Tory victory. But tonight he was almost back to his best and went some way to truly alleviating the doubts about a Tory government. He spoke with much greater passion and conviction tonight: on Europe he gave an answer which probably struck a cord with many of the public who are naturally euro-sceptic, unlike the other two who appeared blindly supportive of the European Union. There was at last also reference to the Big Society idea; one that he should have hammered home last week. This tied in nicely with the notion he repeated throughout the debate: that people who do the right thing ought to be supported. On the contrary, Brown constantly repeated his mantras about trying to solve society’s problems through state intervention.

It should be said that it was not a faultless performance by Cameron. There were a couple of times where he sounded a little awkward. There were also times where I still think he would have done better to hammer Brown. Every answer Brown gave which started with the words ‘we would do this’ or the like, did not have a shred of credibility. If Labour hasn’t done it by now, then what have they been doing for the last 13 years!?

For Cameron, there were still remnants of last week’s strategy of not attacking Brown or Clegg for fear of appearing like an Eton bully. However, he did attack a little more tonight, so the balance of that strategy was better. Has he done enough to make a Conservative majority a real possibility? The initial polls suggest not. Tonight was a huge step in the right direction. Cameron needs another big performance next week. I fear it may still, however, be a matter of too little, too late.

Local hustings prove to be a microcosm of the national election battle

Last night, I decided to attend the local hustings evening for the prospective parliamentary candidates for the constituency in which I live, Hackney South and Shoreditch. I must admit I was a little apprehensive as to what this evening would be like. I guessed it might be a rather low key event, with not much in the way of interesting political debate, particularly in a constituency which such a safe Labour majority. It was with a pleasant surprise then that I found a hall packed with young and old, all politically charged and buzzing with a keenness for political debate. Indeed, there were some startlingly brave and impassioned speeches from the audience. It was an encouraging reminder to me that there are still very many people who are politically engaged. The trouble is that this is not reflected in turnout (turnout at the 2005 election for Hackney South and Shoreditch was less than 50%) or perhaps more pertinently, what seems the likely failure of any of the main political parties to achieve a majority on 6th May

Indeed, what was striking amongst the audience was not their passionate support for any political party; rather their cynical distrust of them. the passion not of their support for any political party or policy but their cynicism and distrust of them.

As for the performances of the respective candidates for the three main parties (there were representatives from all the minor parties also), it was remarkable that they seemed to represent a microcosm of the first leaders debate on Thursday. The sitting Labour MP, Meg Hillier, must have been to the school of Gordon Brown debating as she was very keen on trotting out statistics about crime falling, schools increasing and such like. All very well, but treated with the highest contempt given the experience that all voters have of Labour’s failures in the last 13 years. The Conservative candidate, Simon Nayyar was a polished performer. He spoke articulately and the content of his answers was very agreeable. But he failed to get the audience to warm to him and he came across as sounding not particularly genuine. That is probably an unfair comment as I am sure he is very genuine, but nevertheless it is perception that counts and this is the same major issue that David Cameron has. The Liberal Democrat candidate, Dave Raval, was certainly the best received. He was a little quirky, but he gave succinct answers, never tried to dodge them and often made the audience laugh. Again like the first leaders debate, the content of the Lib Dem’s answers was not really relevant. What was, was the fact that they sounded different and represented change.

As an aside, I should mention who I personally thought the performer of the night was, both in the content of his answers as well as the likability and warmth of his personality. This was the retired police officer, Michael King for UKIP. However, he was always fighting a losing battle in such a left-leaning crowd as I noted to him at the end of the evening.

But back to the Lib Dem surge. As Daniel Finkelstein amusingly commented on Newsnight last night, that although he did not predict their recent marked success, it should have been predictable. For months now the polls have been telling us the people want change; they are just not sure that Cameron has been the man to offer it. While still in this unsure state, the public were introduced last Thursday to a new possible representative of change that they had previously not seriously considered: Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. Albeit, it was not a particularly useful cross sectional audience, the local hustings I attended suggested that serious consideration of the Lib Dems is taking shape.

I am hoping for a better performance from Cameron tomorrow evening, but I fear that he has left it too late to convince the public that he is the true man to deliver change.

Nothing-to-lose Clegg outshines risk-averse Cameron

As somebody who watched last night’s debate and wanted Cameron to perform well, I feel a little bit like Liverpool fans probably felt following their defeat to Wimbledon in the 1988 FA Cup final. Largely, wondering how an earth they lost to a lowly under dog who should never have been on that stage. I exaggerate of course. I am sure this debate will not have anywhere near the effect that such detailed analysis and reaction (this post included!) would suggest, but nevertheless it must be said this was a disappointing performance from Cameron.

Cameron never seemed to get going; his answers lacked direction, focus and a consistency of theme. This was all the more frustrating, given the strength of theme in the manifesto launch on Tuesday. At times he even looked a little distracted. He was under huge pressure going into the debate as he was the only one with anything to lose and the one with the greatest expectation of performance. Unfortunately, his performance faltered under the weight of pressure.

Don’t get me wrong, his performance was still very good, still very solid; the content of his answers clearly outshone the other two, but it fell short of the Cameron performance we have come to expect. The sort of breathtaking, game-changing speech he gave in the Tory leadership campaign in 2005 ... where was this Cameron?

It must be said, much of Cameron’s performance was due to a strategic decision. The pollsters have told him that the electorate don’t like it when he is aggressive, and therefore time and time again when Brown spouted absolute rubbish, Cameron decided not to hammer him as he would have instinctively done had he been at Prime Ministers question time. We shall see whether this strategy pays off, but my gut feeling is Cameron needs to be a bit more free and less scripted and stage-managed.

As for the supposed winner, Clegg, this rather emphasises the absurdity that he was there at all. Less than 15% of people bothered to vote for his party at the last election, so why does that result justify his appearance at a Prime Ministers debate, when he is never going to be a Prime Minister? Of course he did well- he had absolutely nothing to lose! Given that however, I must be fair to him and give credit where credit is due. Content aside, his performance was slick, confident and engaging (I particularly liked his hand in the pocket stance when the others were speaking- proving his absolute relaxed confidence). In a sense, one moment defined his confidence when he asked for a questioner from the audience to reveal himself as he couldn’t see him properly, and then spoke to him directly. I am afraid Cameron’s less than par performance was summed up when he attempted to copy this a little later and fell flat.

A word on the worst performer of the night. No, not Gordon Brown; he was merely his monotone and shameful self, as expected (I must give him credit for getting the only laugh of the night- although it was an incredibly awkwardly delivered joke). It was, in fact, Alistair Stewart . His interruptions were completely out of context (sometimes it seemed as if he was being controlled by a random machine as he spurted ‘Mr Brown!’ ‘Mr Cameron!’ ‘Mr Clegg!’) and his limitations were sometimes only a few seconds after the speaker had started. His night was summed up when he announced the wrong day for the regional debate. I never thought I would be looking forward to Dimbleby taking the reigns again!

History may one day mark this manifesto as a significant turning point in society

How very refreshing! How very exciting! Thank you Cameron and co for delivering such a bold and potentially revolutionary manifesto. Just seeing the stark difference between the front covers of the Labour and Conservative manifestos promised something original. Labour’s with its slightly Soviet undertone of a family gazing out into the sunset, and the Tory’s with a serious cover and a simple phrase: ‘invitation to join the government of Britain.’ Read on, and within the invitation there are some fantastically (and in some ways radically new) ideas on how our society should be run. It represents power to the people and is fiercely supportive of localism. It is a final public acknowledgement from the establishment of what we all know: that big government produces the worst results; is usually over expensive, inefficient and at worst curtails our liberty. Finally, a mainstream political party has come forth and said this.

But OK, let’s not get carried away. Firstly, there was still a lot of rubbish in there, not least the emphasis upon ‘protecting the NHS’. This seems to run counter to the themes of localism and reducing the state’s involvement in our lives. It was interesting to note that in his blog yesterday, Daniel Hannan reported that the Plan (a reference to his and Douglas Carswell’s revolutionary publication to renew Britain) had been implemented. He must know himself that although the themes are all there, this manifesto does not go anywhere as far as he and Carswell suggest in the Plan. Indeed, regarding the NHS, it could be said the respective views are diametrically opposed. Yet I must be patient; for all their rigour in argument, Hannan and Carswell are wrong. In practical terms, a revolution of this sort does not come in 12 months. Cameron and his strategists know that they cannot say, for example, that they would dismantle the NHS for fear of people saying ‘same old Tories, cutting public services’, (this has been key to the detoxification of the Conservative brand as I wrote a few weeks ago. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives may not win the election and even if they do there is no guarantee that this revolution of society would actually happen.

But putting these reservations to one side, this was a genuinely exciting and, crucially, bold and risky manifesto. So much so, that there is a risk that the electorate may not go for this. The electorate has become so ultra-cynical about politicians and their promises that they may not buy this new message, perhaps least of all from the Conservative party. A party, that as I have said before, a great many people feel deeply cynical about. We shall see. But no longer can I criticise Cameron for simply regurgitating what he thinks people want him to say. Yesterday we heard distinct new ideas of how to fix the country and the society in which we live. Particularly towards the end of his speech, Cameron showed us that these are ideas of which he truly believes in and passionately wants to deliver on. At the least, for me he made politics exciting again.

I could be entirely wrong, but at the most, (and politics aside) I am hopeful that this manifesto could represent a genuine turning point in the history of how we run our society.

An invitation to the government

We have just learnt that the above heading will be something like the title for the Tory manifesto to be revealed tomorrow. Given this revelation and a few other snippets released on Newsnight I am very excited indeed. Is this finally the revolutionary small state, power to the people manifesto we have longed for?! We shall see tomorrow, I am sure it wont go as far as I might like but nevertheless I have a tentative feeling of excitement. Can't truly say that about politics for a while. More to follow later in the week...