General Press Comments

[Will Frost]

It has been the policy of the Conservative Party to push for a referendum on the euro since 1999, because we support the British people's right to make their voice heard on this fundamental issue. And, because we know the campaign to keep the pound that we will lead is going to win.

If Mr. Brown defines a 2 year period as "rushing," I fear for the glacial pace at which the British people will be forced to wait for local government reform.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

When the chips are down this Government always run away from solutions and kick the can down the road, preferably to any long grass they can find. When the country was outraged by corruption and dodgy political dealings to protect friends and allies Labour called for an inquiry, now that indecision is harming our economy Labour are once again found wanting. The people elect a government to govern, but right now we find this Government far more willing to let the bureaucrats and inquiries govern than actually take a position themselves. Truly New Labour spin and obfuscation is alive and well with this Prime Minister.

[Clarice Ashbridge]

Following my appointment to the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I have been delighted to lead our amazing team in a review of local government, encompassing not just English local government, but local government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst this will of course depend on situations with the devolved governments in the other three nations, the whole of the UK will be taken into account as we craft our positive vision for empowering people through strong local government.


I will be meeting in the near future with council leaders and other local government actors to work with us in drafting these proposals. They will be proposals based on one simple vision: local government is at it's best when it is simple and accessible to the people who live there and the people who use their services. We'll cut down on inefficiency, we'll increase accountability, and we will devolve powers to bring our councils on par with other European nations.

[Corgi]

This set of GPC comments break down into six distinct issues: immigration, education, Trevorrow’s ‘Breakthrough Tour’, business tax rates, the Euro and the appointments system. In this marking I'll cover all bar appointments, which will see all relevant comments rolled over into the marking of PC 5.

Immigration and “extremism”

The immigration topic opens with a sound comment from Andy Edwards, who highlights the inconsistencies in the anti-immigration argument. It’s XP worthy, but i’d be cautious not to make it sound like you want open borders. Whilst such a position would win in the battle for my heart – and amongst the notably small part of the base that cheers for it – it certainly won’t do in the Labour heartlands.

The most interesting fight here is between Sir Tristan St John and the PM. Sir John raises the important divide between Labour and its traditional voters on the issue. It’s a good comment, but it’d be wise to avoid reusing the phrase, “I know a lot of fine people who came to this country...” – it comes across quite like the old “I have a lot of black friends”. But the PM fires back nicely with a message of investment, negating the attack. But whilst the line is good, it is only kicking the can down the road. If she cannot deliver the investment she’s talking about, it will only cause the issue to reemerge with a vengeance later down the line.

Sir John, William Croft, the PM and Amelia Lockhart then lock horns, leaving the battle all square.

Momentum:
Labour: +2
Conservatives: +2
Liberal Democrats: 0

XP:
Andy Edwards (+1)

Education

This was a very small, but important battle between Astrid Goldman and Dame Evelyn Redgrave. Whilst Goldman criticises the Assisted Places scheme nicely, Dame Redgrave handles it excellently, and pushes back hard. The comment of “Blair vanity projects” is excellent. It really makes one start to believe that AP wasn’t a huge waste of money...

Momentum:
Labour: 0
Conservatives: +1
Liberal Democrats: 0

XP:
Dame Evelyn Redgrave (+1)

The Breakthrough Tour

It’s great to see Charles Trevorrow out and about selling his ‘Breakthrough Tour’. The best way to sell a speech is to rock up and push its merits in the GPC. He does that well here, and presents the Liberals as capable of cutting through the political divide. He does slightly lean into a Jo Swinson-esque ‘I can be Prime Minister’ with his proclamation that there are “no off-limits areas for the Liberal Democrats”. But having publicly said that he does not believe this on Newsnight (marking coming soon!), it does no harm.

Clarice Ashbridge puts in a withering put down of the [lib]Liberal leader[/lib], cutting down on the potential momentum gains.

Momentum:
Labour: 0
Conservatives: 0
Liberal Democrats: +1

XP:
Charles Trevorrow (+1)

Business tax

Another minor battle here, this time over business tax rates, and William Croft and Sir Jack Anderson disagree (what a surprise). Croft plays the good card about Labour hampering business as the ‘party of tax’, but Sir Jack shoots this argument stone dead by reminding everyone that corporation tax is at its lowest level in recent years. Oops. Net zero.

Momentum:
Labour: 0
Conservatives: 0
Liberal Democrats: 0

XP:

The Euro

For the party lifted to tremendous heights at the 1999 European elections on the back of euroscepticism to now offer a referendum on the Euro is a gamble and a half. Seemingly out of nowhere, the Tories have decided to have this very public battle. I’ll keep this very brief here because we have PC 6 still to come, but the Tories cannot afford to lose the optics war here. The problem is that they have a hill (but not a mountain) to climb to convince eurosceptics that this decision protects the Pound. Labour nicely show up the Tories’ failure to have a common line (confusion about Sir Tristan St. John’s position versus William Croft’s), and can sit back to defend the simple position that they aren’t the ones putting the Euro on the table.

But having said that, Labour’s lines aren’t completely free from holes either. There are issues with calling a referendum a “half-baked solution” (are the decisions of voters “half-baked”?).

Regardless, it is a bit of a messy scrap. Nobody really gains ground here (limited Labour presence – though their activity will be picked up in the marking of PC 6 – mixed with Tory confusion), but the teaming up of eurosceptic Cosette Beauvais-Becker and the Labour frontbench negates any Tory lead coming out of this. The lack of Liberal Democrat contributions is noted, but is not yet an issue. They should definitely get involved in PC 6, however.

XP to Clarice Ashbridge for her first comment – the argument about holding a referendum to avoid Labour incompetence is a winner – and to Cosette Beauvais-Becker for being that thorn in the side.

Momentum:
Labour: +1
Conservatives: +1
Liberal Democrats: 0

XP:
Cosette Beauvais-Becker (+1)
Clarice Ashbridge (+1)

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

I welcome the Shadow Foreign Secretary's latest foray into the presses to outline a 21st Century approach to foreign policy. It is absolutely essential that we maintain constant vigilance both at home and abroad to protect our interests and uphold international norms and standards in areas such as human rights. I look forward to working with Mr North and with Mrs Blakesley in the Chamber of the House of Commons to craft a stronger foreign policy for a stronger United Kingdom.

[Andy Edwards]

I'm intrigued as to whom the Shadow Foreign Secretary thinks he represents. In labeling countries an "axis of evil," the Shadow Foreign Secretary references Iraq continuing to be hostile to America. If that's how Britain is supposed to be a global leader- to demonise and to attack countries that are mean to the United States, then I'm glad that the Conservatives will be in Opposition for some years to come.

[Will Frost]

It is deeply concerning to see the level of open hostility directed at the United State by a senior Government Minister. Enemies of the United States are enemies of the United Kingdom, and it is concerning that the Home Secretary seems to place little value on our special relationship with America. It was the special relationship that kept the world free from Nazism, defeated Communism, and that today acts as one of the greatest forces for global good around the world. The Home Secretary is a senior representative of the Government and the Prime Minister, and his attack on the UK-US special relationship is a major disservice to the British people.

Just as importantly, the Home Secretary seems to miss the point entirely: Iraq presents a grave threat not just to the people of the United States, though his lack of concern for our American friends is alarming, but to the whole world. The destabilizing force they play in the Middle East, the violence and brutality they employ against their own people, and their stated intent to oppose democratic societies makes the Hussein regime one of the most dangerous in the world.

On the matter of Iraq, our interests with the United States happen to align, and that's a good thing. We should want to work with our allies towards mutually beneficial goals, especially when it comes to working with our American friends. But make no mistake: the United Kingdom, as a champion of freedom and democracy around the world, has an independent obligation to hold Iraq accountable for the destruction and discord they sow.

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

Since the 1940s, the Special Relationship between the US and the UK has remained strong, ranging from excellent relations in commerce and trade through to standing firmly together in military partnership and intelligence sharing. In the last decade, this has notably extended to being allies in the Gulf War and in the Bosnian War.

The Home Secretary takes issue that the UK under a Conservative government would be allied with the US when it comes to policy on Iraq. I find this particularly concerning given the US and UK have been close allies on foreign policy over many decades and given the danger of the Hussein regime. With his criticisms of a foreign policy closely allied with the US, is the Home Secretary, therefore, confirming that the MacAndrews government will deviate from established policy by not standing with the US when it comes to Iraq and indeed other major policy areas too? I would welcome urgent clarification given the Home Secretary’s position as a senior government minister.

[Andy Edwards]

((OOC: LOL. I mean what I'm really against is incredibly obvious plagiarism, but go off I guess.))

IC:

I have nothing against our special relationship with the United States- our cooperation and partnership has worked to bring peace to the world. But the language used by the Shadow Foreign Secretary isn't about bringing peace; it's actively antagonising foreign countries because they don't abide by U.S. interests. It's creating an "axis of evil" when, in the Shadow Foreign Secretary's own words, we should be a force for good. I am sure the Tories will call this a "u-turn" as they scatter around for arguments to make this political or something like that. But this "incredible forward-looking policy" that the Tories are hailing says one thing... then advocates another. It's a mess of policy proposals. We should be mean to Iraq because they were mean to America. We should do trade with China... while looking towards an "Asian NATO" that will apparently oppose them.

What this Home Secretary believes in is a sensible foreign policy where we work with our allies, not second ourselves to them. What this Home Secretary believes is a sensible foreign policy based in reality, not barely-strung-together ideas. I support this Government and our efforts to build a better world working with the United States directly. Attempts to say otherwise are pathetic attempts to spin.

[Will Frost]

In attempting to walk back his obvious disdain for our alliance with the United States, the Home Secretary has now seemed to suggest that the worst thing Iraq has done was to, "antagonize," the United States. The Conservative Party believes in countering Iraq's influence not because they are "mean" to the United States, but because they are led by a man who has tortured and murdered thousands of his own people, wants to wipe Israel off the map, and who leads a violent dictatorship with zero respect for human rights or international law. The Hussein regime is evil, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to categorize them as such. The Iraqi government represents a significant threat to both the United States and the United Kingdom precisely because of our special relationship; because our joint effort to advance freedom and democracy threatens their backwards world view. Unlike the Home Secretary, who believes we should be less willing to back our American allies, I believe that the mutual threat presented to us by countries like Iraq makes it all the more important we be willing to do so.

Our country, and its influence in the world, is better off when we leverage our relationships with key allies. The United States is one such ally, and the Conservative Party is incredibly proud of the good Britain has been able to achieve in partnership with the US. It's a shame to see that a senior member of the Government views Britain as the junior partner in a relationship that offers us the raw end of the deal, when that simply could not be farther from the truth.