Yesterday, David Cameron, in his address at the conservative party conference told us that he was a man with a plan. The generally accepted definition of a ‘plan’ is ‘A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective’. Now, whilst I accept that he may have a plan, his speech was short on detail and therefore, he must either expect the electorate to take him at face value, or he intends to publish more detail in the future. If it is the former, then it is a very big ask, given few, if any politicians have earned the trust of the electorate. If the latter, then I would suggest that it be sooner, rather than later if he wants to be considered a heavyweight, rather than a lightweight.

It was clear that David Cameron wanted to come across as sincere, a man of depth, with honesty and sincerity at his core. Excellent values, but if I may be so bold? David Cameron adds little, when he simply repeats what we already know, that the economy is sliding towards a recession, the government has incurred significant debts and that the overall tax take is on a decline in line with the economic downturn. He tells us that we must fact a period of austerity and that he must make, indeed will make the tough decisions for the long term benefit of the country, “no matter how unpopular” that makes him. Really? Well I have got news for you mate, we have just had 11 years of tax rises and there is no point in the electorate voting in a Conservative government that is promising more of the same, No way sunshine, not in a million years.  

David Cameron may, albeit based on yesterday’s speech this is hardly guaranteed, win the next election simply because so many people are fed up with New Labour. But, if Cameron thinks he will be whisked into Downing Street on the back of tax rises, I think he is wrong. Okay, so he hasn’t said it in so many words, but isn’t that the point, we are all fed up with politicians talking in code, saying one thing and meaning another. However, if he tells us he is going to put up taxes, he would probably need to explain which one’s, by how much, when, and of course, why. So instead, we get coded threats about David Cameron being willing and ready to make the ”tough decisions”. Sorry mate, that doesn’t make you clever, because we could all do that, even Labour. David Cameron doesn’t deserve to be elected on a principle of using higher taxes to prop up government finances, after all, surely a principled man like David Cameron wouldn’t approve if we all went and helped ourselves to more money from our employers pockets and lets face it, there is no difference.

With a bloated public sector employing one in five of the workforce, massive government waste on projects and initiatives that have gone nowhere, or are going nowhere, there is plenty of ‘fat’ that be cut before dipping into our pockets. Much as many of us want to get rid of New Labour, I would urge floating voters not to vote for David Cameron on a mandate, coded or otherwise, of higher taxes. This is because it really doesn’t take a very clever man to increase taxes, in fact, that is the easiest thing to do. Increasing taxes is what we would expect from a novice, a man of little experience and man short on ideas, ability, depth or lets face it, credibility. It takes a real man, or woman, to tackle the reason why so much of our money is needed in tax and that, is what we have come to expect from a conservative leader. There must be a war on government waste and excesses.

I believe Cameron is sincere, but I also believe his personal life is shielded from the real problems of the people in this country. He doesn’t have to struggle paying his mortgage, car payments or utility bills. Yet he meets a couple of people and think he knows what it all means. If I spend 10 minutes observing my car being serviced, does that mean I am a mechanic?

I have said, in the past, that anything is better than New Labour. But if I am honest, a new government, that still believes that they are entitled to increase their tax take from the British public, in spite of the hardship, before knowing how much they could save by cutting government excess and waste, doesn’t deserve our vote.

Think again Cameron….the LibDems have failed miserably for the past 3 or 4 elections because they thought the British public would agree to higher taxes. They were wrong and you are wrong. It is possible that the conservatives will get in because of the significant backlash against New Labour, however, if we know that the conservatives are going to put up taxes, we may just decide that it is better the devil we know and stick with experience.

I have always been a conservative, but I could not and will not bring myself to vote for any party that includes tax increases as part of its commitment, not least because this current administration has left enough fat within government to keep a butcher employed for 5 years without losing any of the meat. Think about it Mr Cameron, get rid of some of your Eton boys and get some real people in to advise you….before you cock it up!

Today, David Cameron provided what, for all intents and purposes, could be described as a ‘presidential’ address to conference, albeit the intention was to address the nation. Although this may described as political opportunism, he did, actually pull it off, at least insofar as to make it look as if the conservatives want to be an ally of the Labour government in this time of crisis, rather than an adversary.

What was interesting was, that Cameron came across as mature, thinking and determined, even though the content lacked real meat. However, he has promised to elaborate on this tomorrow. In his speach, he announced that he was going to drop his party’s minor objection to the current Banking Bill, in terms of who has the final say on the event that the Bank of England needs to intervene to save a bank, the BoE of the FSA, the conservatives originally favoured the former, whilst the Labour party the latter. He has also vowed to support the rapid introduction of further guarantees for savers money.

Finally, he suggested that he would support the government in its endeavours to address the complex issue of “marking to market”, a process whereby banks price daily their assets which, it is argued, is causing bank stocks to fall even further. The proposal is that this practice should be suspended. Quite how this would work, Cameron did not explain, therefore, we can assume that it will be challenging or perhaps, not even possible.

What is perhaps more important, is that the conservatives in general and David Cameron in particular, have, throughout this crisis, remained in the shadows, so to come out and make this type of statement is significant, if, perhaps underwhelming. Nonetheless, what was important was that Cameron emphasised that the conservative party was not a subsidiary of the CBI or the city, two areas where they are seen as possible lapdogs. One other very significant point, was that he made clear, that there must be a day of judgement for the bankers, not now, whilst all this turmoil is going on, but once the dust has settled.

Yesterday, I argued strongly, that the bankers and executives that have presided over this chaos and brought many very powerful, established and well-known companies to their knees, or worse and should be investigated. Further, this should be done quickly, in order that their assets can be frozen, less a small allowance, pending a criminal investigation, which could lead to the permanent sequestration of their assets. [Banking Crisis, a time for reflection and payback]

What I would like to see now, is David Cameron come out further on this issue, by providing a direct challenge to the Labour government to make a commitment, here and now on the issue of their ‘day of judgement’. If the government and other parties want the ongoing support of the public, they must agree to mount criminal investigations, into the actions of the bankers and city executives and they must not allow those same people the opportunity to salt away their assets through uneccessary or avoidable delays.

Well done David, timing was good, the tone was excellent, now you need to keep the pressure on and come up with tangible solutions, because of course, the offer of rapid passage of two acts through parliament is not going to fix things, more, much more needs to be done. Time to turn words into action and if necessary, show the government wanting if they fail to act quickly and decisively.

When the dust settles, governments around the world need to reflect on precisely how a situation arose, where taxpayers were required to bail out struggling banks and insurers. This should be wide ranging and lead to both regulation and prosecution.

It is insufficient in the extreme to state that the stock markets require regulation, the truth is that executives of some of the largest banks and insurers in the world have acted recklessly and in return, have profited through bonuses and dividend payments. They have manufactured products that could be traded for profit, even though 10 years or so ago, these types of trades did not exist, in fact, some are so complicated, that even financial experts and city observers have struggled to explain how they worked.

It must be remembered, that the executives of these banks and insurance companies were charged with a fiduciary duty to look after their shareholders interests and act responsibly. From what I can see, they have created products that allowed them to make short-term profits on traded mortgage securities and the like. In many cases, shareholders have lost everything, many of whom are pension companies, which means that the ultimate losers will be all those that have invested their hard earned money in a pension fund and of course, the taxpayer.

Few can argue, that the actions of many of these top executives has been reckless in the extreme, because previously solid businesses have now had to be bailed, whether through nationalisation or central bank loans. With the position, salary, share options, dividends and bonuses, must come the responsibility. Anyone who has been party to the decisions that have lead to the failure of the business they were responsible for, should be required to forfeit any profits they received.

During these tough times, there is a need for cool heads, particularly from government, but we will come out the other side. The government’s however, must act now, by freezing the assets of all executives who are believed to have been party to this reckless behaviour, before they are allowed to salt away their assets, as they surely will. The public will not forgive government, for allowing these people to protect their assets and avoid paying the price for their reckless behavior.

This is not about starting a blame game, nor is it a witch-hunt, both of which may even be justifiable. It is a method by which government, on behalf of the people, can make clear, that reckless behaviour, for short-term profit, which leads to business failure has a price. In the UK, company directors can already be held personally responsible if they have continued to trade whilst insolvent, based on some of the recent examples of spectacular business failures, it is difficult to see how some of the banking executives could claim that their business was solvent.

Government must use existing legislation to investigate and if necessary, charge reckless company executives. If necessary, they must introduce further legislation to increase their powers in such circumstances, but in a first move, they must seek to freeze most or all of the assets of these failed bankers and their cronies. It does not matter if they have been donors to party funds, politicians responsibilities are to the electorate, not a few failed bankers. The predict, that the first party to promise to freeze the assets of these bankers, pending an investigation, will receive a massive boost in the polls, so even if they don’t do it because it is right, they could try it for the poll boost!

There is an inevitability in politics that your unguarded, or newor that matter your carefully delivered words will come back to haunt you. Here are some of Gordon Brown’s.

During his Labour Party conference speech in 2000, Gordon Brown said “We will not put hard won economic stability at risk. No return to short-termism. No return to Tory boom and bust” and he went on to say “why did the Tory party give Britain twenty years of stop-go, twenty years of boom and bust. It is Labour that is now the party for stability and growth.”

Now we know that whenever anything goes wrong, Mr Brown always blames the “Tory party” or now, he prefers to say that our problems are as a consequence of “world economic issues and the credit crunch”. Okay, for a change, there is some truth in that statement, but that is only a recent phenomena, it does not really answer the question of how we got into this position of boom and bust.

On Gordon Brown’s watch, we have seen house prices rise some 200% (23% in 2003 alone) from 1997 to 2007, we have seen a massive increase in the availability of credit and people have felt relatively wealthy as a consequence of the increase in value of their homes. Easy credit meant that many people could remortgage their homes so that they could buy a new car or go on a fancy holiday. During the same period, 1997 to 2007, average wages rose by just 52%, so it was quite obvious that consumer spending had nothing to do with increased wealth through rising wages.

People were offered interest free credit for car and electronic purchases, 125% mortgages, equity release programmes and would receive credit card offers through the post every day. Because many people considered that the increase in their property value was a one way bet, they continues to borrow, believing that they could release equity as and when they needed to. Experts were telling us time and again that the level of consumer debt was at record levels and wasn’t sustainable. Gordon Brown chose to ignore this advice, in spite of the assurance he gave in his conference speech and on numerous occasions since, that he would not allow a return to boom and bust, what he termed a Tory disease.

Gordon Brown knew that the consumer boom was financed by debt, much of which was secured against property prices, which he knew could be volatile, he know that savings were down and debt has spiralled. But he did nothing, previous governments had put in credit controls to address these issues and risks, he sat there preening his feathers and claiming credit for growth figures, yet ignoring that one day it would all come to a dramatic end. It is unlikely he understood just how dramatic that would be, but he knew it would end up is a “bust”.

Gordon Brown’s relationship with prudence was a mere dalliance, personally, I am at a complete loss as to why political commentators and the tabloid press continue to refer to him as a good chancellor, an iron chancellor or one who places prudence first. At the same time as this country was experiencing an economic boom, financed on credit, he himself was, in spite of the fact that he had increasing tax revenues, on a government spending and borrowing spree. Fancy footwork ensured that the PFI initiatives, which will cost us £170bn between now and 2032, did not end up recorded as government debt, but it is still there and it has to be paid. In the good times he should have been repaying government debt, to place us in a better position when the inevitable “bust” came, he did not, he ignored it and continued to spend.

Rising commodity prices and the credit crunch have exacerbated the problem, but ask anyone with a little understanding of basic economics and they would have told you that the crunch was going to happen anyway, debt financed growth was not sustainable even in dreamland that was New Labour. Gordon Brown inherited, whatever he says, a steady and sustainable economy, he just blew it!

It is also worth noting, that manufacturing in this country has been in decline, yes, even under this government and our economy is heavily reliant on banking and financial services. Two areas that are under significant and sustained pressure. It remains to be seen how this will affect employment, tax revenues and our balance of payment deficits. With many banks and financial institutions making substantial losses, these will transfer, not just into an immediate loss of tax revenues, but, because they can accumulate these losses, a further reduction of tax revenues in the coming years.

Gordon Brown’s economic credentials and reputation for prudence is in tatters and we shall be paying the price long after he has left office.