Darren,

Good to hear from you in a political sense. I’m sure throwing of the shackles of UPSU impartiality must be refreshing in many ways.

The fact that the Conservatives are planning to make more cuts is certainly clear. But this is more than a pragmatic reaction to circumstance, it’s a return to the ideological differences that once divided the two parties and – as often in times of hardship – have been resurrected by political polarization.

If there ever was anything progressive about the Labour party, it was in 1997. Not in the final, desperate days at the end of a 12 year reign that promises to continue the same trudging, destructive, irrational spending practises and pick-axing of personal responsibility that have defined its tenancy.

Let us not forget that the financial crisis Brown did, admittedly, deal with fairly effectively – was largely exaggerated and exasperated within the UK due to his obscene spending patterns in the first place.

As Daniel Hannan said in regards to their phenomenal public sector growth, “You cannot continue to squeeze the productive part of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.”

Not only do I object to this ‘progress’ on the basis of economic sensibility, but the most offensive thing I find about New Labour’s mission, has been their systematic, aggressive trashing of any opportunity for personal responsibility with their overarching, Stalinist pursuit of centralized government.

This is best represented by the destructive demands placed on many public sector workers, from police and teachers to doctors on mountains of paperwork and targets – that completely undermine the notion of their own personal capacity to do their job to a high standard out of pride.

As David Cameron said, ‘Big government erodes social responsibility’.
Also, I do not believe that spoonfed handouts and excessive welfare help, or necessarily ‘care’ for people.

People need to be encouraged to work – and a competitive atmosphere, where hard work is rewarded well is the best incentive. Much like good, firm parenting – ‘Tough Love’.

The Conservatives are not perfect, but if Cameron sticks to his Libertarian promises of decreased centralization of power and less crippling, bureaucratic paperwork and statistical obsession over healthcare and policing – and begins to put faith in the fact that people perform better when given freedom and responsibility, then I do have hope for our country.

But, as I’ve said several times in debate recently – there is only one question on my mind right now.

What champagne should I crack open on May 6th?!

Hi Alex,

Always a pleasure – good to hear from you.

I totally agree with you on returns to formal ideologies but this can only be true for the Conservative Party for it was their actions in the last economic recession that resulted in severe problems for our country and its people; just see the comments from my colleague today in his PPC blog. In terms of Labour policy I don’t focus on it as ideological in the right/left sense that you might be referring to its merely where our values lie and, as I said, with whom our priorities rest with and I for one can only agree with a policy that aims to help and support people through this period.

Its great to hear that you think Gordon handled the recession well – indeed he did – and had been recognised internationally for his leadership not just here in the UK but abroad too. There was no such thing as obscene spending patterns, although this point can I’m sure be subjective, I reflect on it as investing into the things that mattered and continue to matter to peoples lives at a time when we were able to – as far as I’m concerned that what we should have done.

When it comes to Daniel Hannan I’m not even going to waste my time – I do usually like to take yours and others points head on but his comments surrounding our NHS when he was across the pond just highlights his invalidity as an authority on anything; even David Cameron agrees!

You are partly right on centralised government – although I wouldn’t go as far as you put it in your comments (certainly the Stalinist one!!) – but we must recognise that this drive was for a reason for before this was the case you might have to wait years to have an operation you needed or not get to have any say in how your community was policed and so on and so forth. However, I do agree that we need to localise decision making – and localisation is a big buzz word at the moment. Indeed in my own constituency in Torridge and West Devon I continually hear from people saying that they don’t feel listened to by the government, this is, in my opinion, a result of the centralisation of power; its time we had a re-think on how we ensure efficiency and effectiveness whilst letting people control their own lives and communities.

Its interesting that you denounce ‘big government’ yet affirm the idea of ‘firm parenting’ from government, I think this is a bit of a contradiction if I may be so bold to say so. My own opinion is that government has a role but shouldn’t be excessive.

You note how you might feel reassured if David Cameron sticks to what he says, should his party be elected at the General Election. This is a tricky area Mr Holland as what David Cameron says from one day to the next and what his party say and actually believe are all very different I’m afraid – this has been evidenced time and time again. I fear that should he win his government might not be anywhere near what he implies they will be.

As for the champagne, I’d totally recommend the Piper-Heidsieck Brut (Non-vintage), its not expensive yet provides a subtle quality and comes from the original place of champagne making; the Rhiems in France. Its great to know that you’ll be joining me in celebration of our forth term in government – who was it that called me a champagne socialist again?!