Why I write these letters
Dear readers,
Sorry, little bit busy this weekend so I’m not able to do any blogging. However, I would still like your help with something. At the top of my blog you will find a page called ‘Why I write these letters’, which lists a set of principles that I think should be used to run this country. As I have just updated this page for the first time in over a year, I’d be really grateful for your feedback on:
(a) whether you agree with the principles or not, regardless of which party you support;
(b) any spelling or grammar mistakes because I haven’t had time to check it yet;
(c) whether you think I’ve missed anything off (e.g. something about how annoying environmental pressure groups are, which I was considering as a principle in some form).
Your time and thoughts are much appreciated (unless you disagree with me, naturally).
Regards
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Agree with most of it; minor quibbles here:
1) “if they have previously had a ‘real job’ i.e. have worked outside politics”. I think it depends on the job. Something that isn’t ’snakeoil selling’ and doesn’t rely on contacts might be best – some of the consultants I’ve met wouldn’t be qualified as dogcatcher.
2) “They should listen to experts in every policy area “. But must take care not to pay too much attention to paid political lobbyists – and that includes charities!
3) “Terrorism can only be defeated by opening communication channels to terrorists.”. Only when they’ve repudiated violence and agreed to accept a political rather than violent solution. Having an ‘under the table’ group to carry out the violence while maintaining plausible denial doesn’t count!
I’d vote for you, so long as you don’t turn out to have an annoying voice or wear those very long-toed shoes which have recently become fashionable amongst people who think shoe trees are for old folk, and thus have shoes which turn up at the toe like Rumplestiltskin.
Basically, you’ve proabably got me.
Hang on, just spotted the “no swearing” and “no offensive remarks” rules of the blog. This makes me uneasy. I may vote for Guido.
Julia, don’t worry about the lobbyists, they irritate me intensely and should be ignored for pure amusement value if nothing else. Previous employment certainly deserves some decent scrutiny as well, as I take your point about terrorist organisations.
Oscar, my voice isn’t that annoying (relative to Boris, at least). Apologies for the lack of swearing on this blog. I’m happy to let all the nutters have their fun on Guido but I like to think that this blog is more about debating the stories instead of swearing at those involved.
You should make a voice post, then we’d be able to hear what y’sound like…
I agree with some, disagree with the rest, but that’s only to be expected. You say you are socially conservative, but maybe I am in a way because I agree with a lot of your social agenda and am open to the rest. Rather that than some guns, God and gays type from America!
There’s nothing I massively disagree with. I suppose the main difference between us is I’m much closer to the green lobby than yourself.
Also, when you sya “this country should be a meritocracy”, I’d lay emphasis on the fact that it should indeed, but it currently isn’t one!
I award you a high 2:1. Will you ever get a first?
Sensible debate? Surely this is the first crack in the dam…..it can’t be healthy.
However, for the record and removing my hat with the flashing bulbs and smoke machine for a moment, I’d say I agree with much of your agenda (and am pleased to see the all too rare provision of some actual suggestions for implimenting it) but:
- I’m against you on prisons. The Mail and Co overlook the fact that having one’s liberty removed is terrible, even if the conditions in which it happens are not. What I do think is many more people should face jail than do so today, but that jail should remain (after protecting the public’s safety) predominantly about rehabilitation.
- Career politicians. Yes, instinctively I agree but space must be made for those who are passionate and enter politics early and work their way up. It’s unfortunate that all the examples I can think of are pillocks (is “pillocks” acceptable?)
- Welfare. I support the radical reform of welfare for all the reasons we all know about, but I think you over-simplify. The test of the maturity of a nation state (political and otherwise) is how it treats its worst-off and its most difficult, not its easiest. It’s for this reason that I think the dealth penalty is so damning an indictment on a nation which uses it.
There you go.
The penaltys for corrupt Mps should be draconion
also for attempting to corrupt an Mp.
LFaT, given JuliaM’s contribution, which is at least more sensible that her usual ramblings over at Tim W’s place, would the British Government have to agree to the same preconditions… ie. stopping violence and accepting a political solution as the way forward? It could get us out of Iraq pretty quick and stop us taking sides against two sides attacking each other in Palestine too.
You’ve been reading my mind! All most of us want in this country is fair play and a fair deal from a government which does not resort to underhand tactics in order to maintain power. The ethnic English in particular have had to sit back and watch our country go down the pan simply because we don’t demonstrate very well. Unfortunately I am still not convinced that your man David Cameron is the man to turn the situation around. We need radical action to turn around the appalling social neglect but all our politicians seem too bland (scared) to rock the boat!
10. Where do you stand on dangerous sports, like mountaineering? The difficulty seems to be that while they are extremely characterforming the consequences of an accident injury or other mishap can fall on the rest of us. (I speak as a motor racer)
16. This can / is being done by polarising the sectors into ‘advice’ or ‘sales’. If people understood that Banks Building Societies etc sell you a product and represent themselves (only acting as your fiduciary when providing banking services – a/c admin etc) then they, the public, might take more care when acting on the advice of such institutions.
Generally. To effect a lot of what you propose will mean leaving the EU or at the very least fundamentally changing our relationship from ‘ever closer union’ (aka federalisation) to free trade area. Are you up for this?
I read this via Iain Dale – thank you.
I agree with most of your points barring 5,9 and 10.
First of all, with regard to terrorism – There is no point in opening communication channels to terrorists if they do have a goal that hinders an aspect of the lives of people living in an established order. Al Qaeda for example is not demanding anything and their sole objective is to cause destroy Western values, institutions and people.
While I agree the Welfare State should only help those that need it – but that doesn’t mean those only with long term illness/injuries. It should be an available base of support for those that need it in the short term e.g. when looking for a new job.
Lastly in regard to your 10th point – While I agree that those taking care of their bodies/health should be given priority – this doesn’t mean ruling out everyone who drinks excessively or eats too much. I am a believer in second even third chances if the chance can be afforded to be given.
Except for these disagreements – Spot on!
Bob, I agree that taking sides in the Israel/Palestinian problems is outrageous. No-one is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and I cannot stand the West’s support of Israel when they continue to inflict brutal violence on the Palestinians.
Lola, I freely admit that my principles make it almost impossible for me to agree with full EU membership. I’d prefer a purely trading relationship because the social, political and financial baggage from the EU has become intolerable.
Mo, thanks for the feedback as you made some good points. I might change some of the wording, but I don’t believe in giving people ’second chances’ when it comes to something like obesity because it will mean a lot more taxpayers’ cash being lost unless the obese individual takes full responsibility for their situation.
Interesting quote from Jeremy Clarkson, which links nicely into my point about privacy:
“If we have a law that prevents the press from investigating wrongdoing among public figures then it is carte blanche for the entire House of Lords to spend the rest of the year gorging on swan while taking it in turns to do man love on the Woolsack”
Any thoughts?!
Re Clarkson. A certain type of Politician of all flavours plus ‘govenrment’ generically and the establishment are very worried about the glorious anarchy of the net. For example the bank charges rip off was made successful by the sharing of info over the net, and look what’s been done by the establishment to neuter that campaign. So in principle I am totally against all privacy laws, as they will be abused. Of course this presupposes that the press has the ability to discriminate and act responsibly, which, with it being under such financial pressure, is unlikely at the present time.
“…it is carte blanche for the entire House of Lords to spend the rest of the year gorging on swan while taking it in turns to do man love on the Woolsack””
And we’d notice the difference how, exactly…?
You have touched on an important point, which I have also raised with Newmania. Your support for a purely trading relationship is not realistically oin the menu from the EU, and the logic of your position drives you relentlessly towards Better Off Out. Is it not the case that you fall out with Camoron on this issue?
Yup, me and Cameron (watch your spelling, please!) disagree big time on this issue. A trading relationship is certainly not on the menu and it would need some clever strategy work by a Conservative government to make it so, but my principles make my position inevitable.
I know the excellent Global Vision think-tank have been looking into this area, and anyone who shares my stance should read their publications:
http://www.global-vision.net/
Well, strap me, I’ve been making the same spelling mistake over and over again
I must admit that I am very negative about the whole EU project, which is the main reason I have disassociated myself with the Liberal Democrats. Though I do agree with their domestic agenda, and certainly am not a Conservative or a ‘kipper, so I’m of no political abode.
I was always that way, I tried being pro-EU but you lot reminded me that my heart wasn’t, and shouldn’t have been, in it. But I’ll not be joining y’on the Tory benches.
Because this country has so many things that Europe needs, it shouldn’t be too hard to negotiate a trading relationship. They are statesmen, not toddlers, and will make a policy that suits their electorates, as we should be doing. Accordingly the good things about Europe such as exchange of students etc. can be kept without the bad things of the EU.
Will you give people to ability to opt out of the nhs then, and be able to use private insurance as they see fit?
Will you forbid alcohol, tobacco or any dangerous activity because of the potential costs on the NHS ? Will you stop people from giving birth to children who will be handicaped?
You assume a definite link between smoking and lung cancer, or alcohol with cirrhosis. Who’s onus will it be to prove that one has neither smoked nor drunk?
What is a healthy life?
If you do not let people the choice of health cover, you are not much better than a good old fashioned socialist.
Which you confirm by wanting to punish banks if they lend money! How can you ever say that it is reckless? Will you force every borrower to be vetted by some government agency to make sure they know what they are doing? Has any bank ever forced someone at gunpoint? What about the personal responsibility you are talking about?
Isn’t it a contradiction that you talk about education, and yet you think that you should decide for people what they can borrow?!
It also sounds a bit too fashionable a statement, since banks as we know are eeeevil at the moment (they weren’t so much when the going was easy, funnily enough). Why only banks? How about fast food joints? After all, following your logic, they are selling junk foods, which is bad. Where do you stop?
What have you got against faith schools? Or is it a choice that parents will not be able to make for their children? Have you even been to one?
These are just a few thoughts.
It seems to me that having the tories would just switch a bunch of authoritarian showers for another bunch. It does not please me very much.
“Faith” schools are just about as illiberal as it gets, I think a case can certainly be made for the state insisting that all education it funds should be secular. I don’t think the state should provide education, only fund it, but there should be some rules as to what taxpayers are paying for. You can’t just have any old knobhead running a school.