Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Daily Telegraph
#1
[Image: DailyTelegraph1.jpg]

Widely regarded as a national "newspaper of record", The Daily Telegraph has high readership. Ideologically, the paper is centre-right in its views.
Josh
Media | Home Office
Infrastructure, Energy & Environment | Chief Whips

When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans. -Jean Chrétien
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
1997 election endorsement: Conservative

2002 election endorsement: Conservative
Josh
Media | Home Office
Infrastructure, Energy & Environment | Chief Whips

When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans. -Jean Chrétien
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
Labour’s path forward

Labour needs a new leader. By now, all are aware of the tragic circumstances in which the country finds itself: its Prime Minister has been cut down far too early, a mere three years after leading the party to its first victory in decades. The choice the party makes will determine its success in an election one or two years away.

Who is running?
As of press time, there are three candidates declared for the position. The two contenders with a real chance, so far, are Elizabeth Tanner, MP for Camberwell and Peckham, who serves as the Attorney General, and Ben Maulty, MP for Hampstead and Highgate. Harri Pollitt, the MP for Blaneau-Gwent, is the hard-left standard bearer, who, as of press time, is awaiting someone to second his nomination.

Despite her long record of public service, little is known about Tanner’s positions as she seeks the leadership—though with a campaign ahead, we expect this is not a criticism that will hold true. She is known to be in the centrist wing of the party, and is positioning herself as the candidate to continue the legacy of John Smith. In comments following the late Prime Minister’s death, Tanner said “...it is imperative that we continue the course that he set out for the Government to ensure we deliver a better Britain for all.”

Maulty, perhaps recognizing that he is running second, is on a joint ticket with Belinda MacDonald, MP for Western Isles who is seeking the deputy leadership position. Together, the two have released a comprehensive—albeit sometimes contradictory—platform for their collective agenda for the party. Together, they promise to bring about an end to “tax and spend” but also propose massive spending increases. While this will certainly appeal to soft-left Labour voters and supporters, inevitably the question will arise: “how will you pay for all of this?” That is a question that Maulty has yet to answer. In his opening letter in his manifesto, Maulty says “Never in the past 50 years have we had such an opportunity to change so much for so many. We have always known that Britain is stronger, wealthier and fairer with a Labour government: so now is the time to govern in the interests of all British people, regardless of race, class, or background.”

Rounding out the field, so far, is the far-left MP Harri Pollitt with a background in the trade union movement and who has served in the House of Commons since 1992. It remains to be seen if he will receive a second for his nomination, and as of press time he still remains declared as wanting the job, but not even on the ballot. 

Where does Labour go?
That’s the question that all will be asking as the leadership race unfolds. The differences between Tanner and Maulty are clear as day: Tanner will continue the John Smith programme for government. Mr. Maulty will take the party to the left of where it is now, but is eagerly trying to make it clear that he won’t go too far to the left. What will be difficult for Maulty is to make a case for change. After all, it’s been a mere three years since Labour formed government. Change is not a top of mind issue for voters—and given the shock of the way the leadership became vacant, it’s very much likely that Labour members aren’t too keen for change either. However, with a whole campaign still to go, anything can happen.
Josh
Media | Home Office
Infrastructure, Energy & Environment | Chief Whips

When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans. -Jean Chrétien
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
GUEST SUBMISSION: “Winning on Principle”
 
Op-Ed by Andrew Summer, MP for Ashford.
 
One of the more fascinating aspects of politics is that there is often agreement from large groups of those who comment about politics regarding notions which, curiously enough, may not be as true as they think. One of those notions is that Thatcherism and views derived from it are better kept hidden a dash to the political center is the strategy that will win a general election. There will even be predictions of doom, arguing the Conservative Party is doomed to eternal division and disaster, and that only by becoming what I suspect they conceive as a watered down version of the Liberal Democrats we will ever return to Government. In the eyes of such pundits, those who argue for a principled, honest and traditional form of Conservatism as an actual road to victory can be dismissed pretty quickly.
 
The basis of that myth, apparently, lays in the belief of pundits that a mythological political “center” is a Holy Grail to victory that only accepts and votes for less ideological postures. Or, to put it in a different point of view, a party that doesn’t water down its ideals and beliefs to become “the less offensive option” cannot win. Such vision, such dismissal, such arrogance, is something the Conservative Party would do well in confronting and overcoming. Because to such notions I can only say: nonsense. The Conservative Party has had the distinction of winning several resounding and historically significant electoral victories over the last fifty years, and it has always benefited from running on principle and belief rather than surrender to the temptations of a center which is all too vague a concept.
 
We may only ask the Liberal Democrats, who shift from time to time on that infamous mantra of being “somewhere in between” in a manner that makes the Labour Party look consistent on European Policy. We are not the Liberal Democrats, chasing the myth of the ideologically vague center that, so are we told, wins the elections. We are the Conservative Party, proud of the accomplishments of eighteen years of government in which despite enormous challenges both foreign and domestic Britain was reinvigorated and transformed, and restored in a sense of purpose which we seem to be losing only now, under an ineffectual Labour Party in government. And while we certainly did not get every single thing right, to learn from our mistakes and correct what did not work should not meant to abandon the deeply held ideals and beliefs that not only were rewarded by the electorate, but were also implemented in government to great effect.
 
The history of the past General Elections showcases very well how the Conservative Party was won, particularly since the party became more democratic in nature and leadership contests were no longer up to the “Magic Circle”. 1970, a historic election victory against a Prime Minister whose spin would make some current Labour MP’s blush, was won not the back of a harmless centrist platform, but on a brave, bold and ambitious message of economic liberalism which at the time was anything but the norm, message was abandoned. And the Conservative Party lost two general elections after that, along with government. Restored our vision, our enthusiasm and our belief that things should be done different, Margaret Thatcher and her brave leadership won us three general elections in a row, and the powerful legacy of Thatcherism won us the fourth consecutive triumph.
 
Even though several of past few years have been hard for the Conservative Party in many aspects, particularly due to harsh divisions over Europe and the electoral defeat of 1997, the signs of hope are there, and they are clear for us to see. Thanks to Michael Portillo our sense of purpose is renewed and fresh, and there are ideas and enthusiasm to take the fight to the Labour Party. And I believe, passionately so, that we can win with a platform of principled Conservatism, which I’ve been pleased to promote in the course of this leadership contest. As I’ve repeated again and again, hoping to win by out-Labour Labour on issues such as spending or even Europe is not only wrong in the sense that it would represent going against what the Conservative Party is about and what our members passionately believe in, it is also wrong because that is not some sort of a unique, infallible route to victory.
 
A Conservative Party which is Eurosceptic and committed to saving the Pound, a Conservative Party that believes in family values and promotes British values, a Conservative Party proud of the economic record of Thatcherism and prepared to defend economic freedom, a Conservative Party prepared to reform public services, to stand tough and unyielding on defence, to reward the brave men and women of the Armed Forces for their service, to fight for British sovereignty to the end and stand in principle, can win. Those are the principles I subscribe too and wish to represent in this leadership contest, and I believe those principles coupled with a direct, honest rhetoric represent a route to victory for the Conservative Party which does away with the belief that only by standing for what we do not believe we can win.
 
Principles and ideas must never be overshadowed by egos, like the Labour Party has seen fit to put in full display on their leadership contest. And as Sir Harold Saxon and myself go out to win the hearts and minds of the brave membership of the Conservative Party we do so with our differences, but, I believe, in mutual respect of what we stand for and with the common purpose of bringing the Conservative Party back in government to give Britain a strong, committed government that knows exactly what it wants to accomplish. This contest, while unfortunate in the resignation that led to its existence, is already providing us with a chance for a civil, informed debate on the issues and the state of heart and mind of the Conservative Party, and it will provide us with a chance to renew our spirits, seize the moment and take the fight to a divided, inefficient and unstable Labour Party which appears to be unable to stand united, let alone govern this great country.
 
So those who support the Conservative Party I say without a doubt that we can win, and that we can win on principle.

The views expressed in guest articles are those of the author.
Josh
Media | Home Office
Infrastructure, Energy & Environment | Chief Whips

When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans. -Jean Chrétien
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
SIR HAROLD WHIFFS ON FIRST MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION

In its first piece of legislation since the change of leadership, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sean Manning introduced a bill to provide parents with an additional eight weeks of parental leave. Debate in the House of Commons has been largely supportive, with members from all sides rising to support it and generally having very few criticisms of the initiative. This is good; it is well established that the longer parents have to spend with newborn children, the better. A stronger family unit is good for British society, and we applaud the government for the principles behind the bill.

Conservatives, we expect, would support such an initiative. After all, there was much talk in the leadership race about a return to British values and the importance of the family unit in our society. Sir Harold Saxon, the winner of that contest, was largely seen as the weaker candidate on the issue, but won the vote convincingly. He has since faced criticism of his commitment to these values, and it seems that criticism is valid. Why? One needs to look no further than his response to the bill to see that Sir Harold seems to be a bit over his head in the early days of his leadership. There's time to turn it around, but in his first legislative test, it's been a whiff.

Liberal Democrats and Labour MPs lined up after the Chancellor tabled the bill, which provides parents with 26 weeks of leave after the birth or adoption of a child. But Sir Harold rose and did two things: first, he accused the government of not moving fast enough to eliminate poverty in Britain. To that, we say if Labour had eliminated poverty in its first mandate, with time still left before the next vote, Sir Harold may as well have conceded the next election now. Reform of the welfare state is needed, but results don't happen overnight. While it is the opposition's job to critique the government, "you haven't eliminated poverty" is not exactly a winning critique. Had Sir Harold been a bit more nuanced—finding ways to hit the government for not moving on certain issues—his critique would hold a lot more water with the voters he needs to convince to return to the Tory fold. 

But second, and perhaps even more curious, is Sir Harold's critique of the Employment Leave Act itself. The Tory Party, the party of family values and tradition, seems to be opposed to the bill (though their position is vague) simply because they don't know how much it will cost. While we admire the Tories dedication to managing the public finances in a better manner, there are some issues in which cost should not be the primary concern. Ensuring strong families is one of those issues. If Sir Harold continues down this line, the attacks in the next election are very easy: with Sir Harold in charge of the purse strings, nothing will get spent because the Tories care more about pounds than people.
Josh
Media | Home Office
Infrastructure, Energy & Environment | Chief Whips

When you're a mayor and you have a problem you blame the provincial government. If you are provincial government and you have a problem you blame the federal government. We don't blame the Queen any more, so once in a while we might blame the Americans. -Jean Chrétien
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
RCGP Endorses the Tory Budget

The Royal Society of General Practitioners (RCGP) today released a statement where they endorsed the Conservatives' Shadow Budget, describing it as a "positive step for our health service and a vision of hope for doctors everywhere."

The RCGP Chairman made further supportive comments to the media, stating: "In the past and even more recently there has been concern that the Conservatives have put the NHS on the back burner - but with the recent Shadow Budget we know that is completely false and the Conservatives and Sir Harold Saxon are managing to put their money where their mouth is, doubling investment in our health service compared to the government."

"There is also concern that when it comes to taxation and National Insurance, the Labour government are taking with one hand and giving with another - the investment and pay rise are appreciated, but their taxation changes threaten to mitigate some of their investment. We need to ensure in future the landscape is completely friendly towards doctors so we can attract them to our health service."

The endorsement could be a big boost with the Conservatives, where they have found themselves an unlikely ally. It also contradicts a statement made earlier by the British Medical Association (BMA), who had recently endorsed the government's budget.

(Note: this is a reward for the Conservative Party).
Head Admin.
Admin Responsible for the Houses of Parliament.
Cabinet Office/PM's Office/Foreign Affairs & Defence.

“In politics, guts is all.” - Barbara Castle.


Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
The Conservatives have a chance - but they aren't taking it

Op-ed by former Conservative Chief Whip (1990 - 1995), Richard Ryder

[Image: maastricht-rebels.jpg]
Harold Saxon is making the same mistake as the Maastricht Rebels

When I resigned from the Commons in 1997, it seemed as if the Conservatives might be out of government for a decade or more. Four and a half years later, there is a chance that the Conservatives win the next election and form a government. But the uncomfortable fact for many conservatives is that the current crop leading the party are not showing themselves as an alternative government.

When I was John Major's chief whip, my most difficult task by far was to deal with the so-called "Maastricht Rebels". At one point, there seemed a very strong chance that they would bring down the government. It was ultimately their hubris that brought them down - much as I would like to take the credit. In Parliament, more eurosceptic colleagues who might otherwise have voted with them were put off by a rhetoric and an attitude that seemed to put narrow interest above their government and their country.

Harold Saxon's conservative party is making the same mistake: and is making it consistently. Since John Smith's tragic death the Conservative Party has become a deeply reactionary force, dominated not by any ideological or policy coherence but by a dangerously exaggerated and  opportunistic rhetoric. I am not the only Conservative uncomfortable with the way our Party handled the fuel protests, or how our Leader had to be publicly reprimanded by the leader of the free world, or how he has recently ignored suggestions from the government on opposition legislation only to turn around ten minutes later and claim credit for almost precisely the same suggestion.

Saxon's antics are often beyond explanation, and his lieutenants have a strong habit of following his example. The Shadow Home Secretary referred to the Foreign Secretary as a "sissy" for raising a legitimate point of order upheld by the Speaker.

I am a Conservative, and I want the Conservative Party to form the next Government. But I cannot be alone in my discomfort at how we are trying to achieve it. I think it is vitally important that we get into government to reverse the tax and spend agenda of this government, protect NATO, and tackle the violent crime epidemic - and these are some of the issues where the opposition has genuinely held the government to account.

What needs to change?

First, the Opposition needs to give government business a hearing and real scrutiny. The government is getting away with implementing its policy with little clarity on the Conservatives' position. Does Harold Saxon support the government's child poverty targets (which will require billions in spending to achieve), the aim for 3 million apprentices (funded by an extra tax on business), or the increase in the minimum wage (which will certainly mean less jobs)? We don't know. They have been easy, quick wins for the government because the Opposition has barely looked at them.

Second, the Opposition needs to tone down its rhetoric and its underhand tactics. They have burned them more often than they have helped. It is hard to look at Harold Saxon and see a Prime Minister.

Finally, the Opposition needs policy it can sell to conservatives. They made a good start on crime and on foreign policy but have otherwise lacked any clear vision for the country, and certainly nothing to match a clear economic vision as Labour has laid out - partly because that vision has gone unchallenged. All too often the Conservatives have devoted furious energy to a random collection of issues that barely register on the public's radar: their reaction to the proposals for an elected senate are case in point. A bad idea for sure, but hardly one that could get the public excited even with the most frenzied rhetoric devoted to it.

Saxon has every chance of being the next Prime Minister against a very beatable Labour Party. But he will only win if he can show that the Conservatives are an alternative government. No Party has ever won office in the United Kingdom simply by not being the other option. Unless they take a long, hard look and show that they can be the Government the country needs, voters will do exactly what Tory MPs did in 1992 - and vote with the devil they know.

Richard Ryder was Government chief whip 1990 - 1995
Steve
Acting Acting Head Av | Parliament | Prime Minister's Office | Cabinet Office | Treasury
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
Reforming Politics
 
Op-Ed by Andrew Summer, MP for Ashford.
 
It was roughly a year ago as I stood for the Leader of the Conservative Party, that I noted with some concern that the public’s trust in politics and politicians was decreasing. Even further, that spectacles such as the race for the Labour Leadership did not gave politics a good image, and that carrying on as usual was not the answer to what seemed like a rise in cynicism when it came to politics. I didn’t stand for that particular view because I desired a moralistic crusade, but because I was concerned that the trust of public was eroding and because I believed Westminster could, and rightfully should do something about this. 

A year has passed and gone by – along with two different Prime Ministers -, and as corruption and scandals take the center page of the news once again I feel that concern to be justified, and rather relevant as well. Politicians like Belinda MacDonald and Solomon Trevitt give politics and politicians a rather bad name on account of their indiscretions, irresponsibility and yes, self-serving behavior, and while it is important that they’re made an example of rather than getting away with a slap on the wrist – as it would appear to be the case with the Deputy Prime Minister -, it cannot stop there. Indeed, I would argue this is an excellent opportunity to take more proactive steps to reform politics not by tinkering with our constitution, but by promoting accountability and transparency to the benefit of the public. 

One of the areas we cannot neglect, of course, is that of values. Without wishing for an excessive, moralistic crusade on personal political standards – which can easily turn into something else -, I would strongly argue it certainly would not hurt to see a more open, sustained promotion of traditional values and principles which in the opinion of many in this country promote, encourage and give a good example. Some are rapid to scoff at the idea that standing up for patriotism, or civic duty, or families, or the rule of law, or even religion, and yet I would certainly bet that those values can often serve as a bulwark to less ethical behavior, even when it comes to politics. Whilst I would not go as far as to share some of the more fatalistic views on our current society, there is room for concern, and there certainly is room for improvement as well. 

However, it doesn’t only have to be an issue of values. 

There are, of course, multiple roads to reform and multiple potential priorities as well. There are also misguided priorities, and measures which while backed with persistent claims of a supposed moral high ground do not deliver on what they promise. This road is best exemplified by the Liberal Democrats, who have for years attempted to sell an alternative voting system just for the sake of having more seats in Parliament, and by the more irresponsible, reckless elements inside Labour, who for the past four years have tinkered with our constitution and with the House of Lords without regard for the consequences, and are now attempting to bring about a chaotic, unnecessary Senate while pretending this is not the case. Even they seem to have suddenly realized what a folly this is, judging at how they rush for cover against the criticism of their own backbenches.

Reform should not come at the expense of tradition and functional, working institutions just for the sake of change. It should come with a clear target in mind, with clear purpose, and with the clear and unmistakable target of improving politics to the benefit of the people of this country. Lest we forget, given how prominent scandals have been lately those of us who serve in Westminster should be more aware of the bad image that these scandals present to the nation, and the grave consequences that it brings to the public’s trust – or increasing lack of it – on its politicians and elected representatives. Business as usual is a phrase we would do well in pushing aside when it comes to the necessary task of breathing some new life into politics, and enacting changes that do not come at the expense or tradition or for politically self-serving purposes, but in the spirit of more principled, transparent politics.

I, for one – and in strictly personal terms – believe this would be a good opportunity to introduce the concept of a recall for Members of Parliament. Whilst I do not believe in witch-hunts without a clear reason, I also believe MP’s are accountable to their own constituents, and the spectacle of MP’s guilty of wrongdoing or involved in highly morally questionable matters hanging on until the next election and refusing to resign is a troubling one. If the constituents of MP’s like Solomon Trevitt or Belinda MacDonald believe they have to leave the House of Commons on account of their behavior, then it is only right that they should be able to gather a sufficiently large number of signatures – say, 15% or 20% of constituents to ensure a recall is a truly serious proposal – and call a by-election to make their own voice heard, and hold their representatives to account on their questionable behavior. 

The same applies to other measures which can be taken for the sake of transparency and accountability, from decreasing the number of MP’s and the cost they represent to the taxpayer, to increasing the oversight of the backbenches as well as their influence over debates and their schedule, to allowing petitions from the public – again, backed by a large, serious number of signatures – to be at least debated in Parliament. It would have been interesting, for example, to see the protests over fuel duty lead to a petition and to a larger debate in the House over the issue, and that is just a recent example on how the public can be more present in Parliament and politics benefit from it without it turning into the sort of reckless reform we’ve seen from the current Government. 

Measures such as this will not reform politics for good, far from it. But they can be a start to improving standards and giving the British public a greater say, and help start a long-term sustained public debate on what exactly is wrong with politics, and what should we do about it. 

But to do nothing, and carry on as usual as the trust of the public continues to be eroded by questionable, sometimes immoral behavior would be wrong.
Head Admin.
Admin Responsible for the Houses of Parliament.
Cabinet Office/PM's Office/Foreign Affairs & Defence.

“In politics, guts is all.” - Barbara Castle.


Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
Samuel Burman "outed" on Newsnight
BBC issues a gag order, banning any mention of it


[Image: jeremy-paxman-0-57ff74fc6e10a-57ff74fc83307.jpg]

The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Samuel Burman, has been "outed" as gay by Times columnist and former Conservative MP Matthew Parris on last night's episode of Newsnight.

During a conversation about Section 28, Parris told host Jeremy Paxman: "Many MPs are gay, and there are at least two gay members of the party front-benches". "Are there?" asked Paxman. Parris replied: "Well, for example, Chris Smith is openly gay and I think Samuel Burman is certainly gay."A flustered Paxman responded: "I think we will just move on from there. I'm not quite sure where he is on that."

Following the programme, the BBC has reminded producers of its guidelines about unjustifiable intrusion into the private lives of individuals unless "broader public issues" were involved. It annoyed many staff who felt that the wording of the memo was singling out Mr Burman for special treatment. The memo also made it clear that the issue was not to be mentioned. "Under no circumstances whatsoever should allegations about the private life of Samual Burman be repeated or referred to on any broadcast," it read.

Last night Jimmy Mulville, executive producer of Have I Got News for You, described the Burman ban as "chilling". This week's edition of the panel show, recorded but not yet broadcast at the time of writing, is believed to obey the letter of the ruling but feature an almost continuous stream of jokes about the Shadow Foreign Secretary and the incident.

((For the avoidance of doubt, IG, Parris did not out Mandelson on Newsnight in 1998))
Andy
Advisor for the Labour Party, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Communities, and the Regions
Poll wrangler and election psephologist
Scandalmonger

I forget Andy has political opinions. I always just think of him as a Civil Servant in real life - Mac
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
Revealed: The MP Tax Cheat

[Image: Colin-825.jpg]
Miles Goring, laughing all the way to the bank

The Conservative MP for Croydon South, Miles Goring, has been avoiding tax by funnelling his finances through a complex legal structure, according to documents seen by the Daily Telegraph. The documents show assets of the Goring family being held by a private trust located in Jersey.

Mr Goring, an Old Etonian, and an author and journalist before entering parliament, used a trust to separate his legal ownership of the assets from his ability to profit from them. As a result, he would be able to benefit from the assets whilst minimising the tax he was due to pay. This separation also means that the assets did not appear in the Register of Members' Interests, the document that records MPs' external financial dealings.

Locating the trust in Jersey has allowed Mr Goring to benefit from the Channel Island's low tax rates, which are even zero for some common types of income, and benefit from Jersey's very strict trust privacy laws. These laws can make identification of the parties to a trust practically impossible. We spoke to representatives of the trustees and to the Jersey tax authorities, but in both cases they were legally forbidden from providing any information, regardless of whether they wanted to or not, due to these privacy laws. As a Crown Dependency, Jersey is not part of the UK and is not subject to laws made at Westminster.

Based on the information provided in the documents, there is no suggestion that Mr Goring has broken the law. However, questions must be asked about the suitability of these arrangements, and whether public servants should be taking advantage of them.

Mr Goring was not available for comment.
Andy
Advisor for the Labour Party, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Communities, and the Regions
Poll wrangler and election psephologist
Scandalmonger

I forget Andy has political opinions. I always just think of him as a Civil Servant in real life - Mac
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
50 Business Leaders Tell The Telegraph only the Tories can deliver on business.

The Telegraph has received a letter from up to 50 of the UK's most senior business figures who employ up to a quarter of a million people, where they outlined their reasons for advocating a vote for the Conservative Party and turning away from the Labour Party.

The letter, which includes the signatures of prominent bosses such as Phillip Green, head of the Arcadia Group, Ben Gordon of Mothercare, and most notably Sir Terence Conran - previously a Labour Party donor - praised the Conservative Party's policy on an array of business related issues, such as reversing Labour's infamous 'jobs tax' and reducing corporation tax to historic lows, criticising the Labour Party's attitude and policies relating to businesses, particularly on employment. It is believed the letter reflects growing credibility and respect for the Shadow Chancellor, Elizabeth Atwood, and symbolises growing tensions between the Labour Party and business following their pre election budget. 

You can read the letter here: 

Quote:
Dear Sirs,

We run some of the most prestigious businesses in the UK. Because of this we understand the importance of business in creating wealth and jobs - we worry that the Labour Party, having forgotten the moderation and entrepreneurial spirit that got them into government, have forgotten the importance in businesses. Without thriving businesses, that means fewer jobs and less investment that could benefit our public services, antithetical to the supposed Labour mantra.

Labour seem to have forgotten this and have turned back to their old habits of demonising wealth creation: their recent budget has been disastrous for business and aspiration, and their proposed jobs tax cannot come at a worse time with unemployment projected to rise.

That is why we believe only the Conservative plan can bring investment and jobs to the British people, by radically reducing corporation tax and scrapping Labour's job tax they will benefit us all - both business and worker. That is why we will be voting Conservative and advocating a vote for the Conservative Party on the 30th May.
Head Admin.
Admin Responsible for the Houses of Parliament.
Cabinet Office/PM's Office/Foreign Affairs & Defence.

“In politics, guts is all.” - Barbara Castle.


Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)