Conservative C*ck-up? Or Honest MP?

[paraffin]

The Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley MP, let it slip today on Radio 4 that a Tory Government would reduce public spending by 10% after 2011. Was this a right royal gaffe by Mr Lansley, or a deliberate "slip of the tongue" to test public reaction? Or could this be why David Cameron has been so reticent about Tory policies should he become PM?

[Gromit]

Should read:

Now it appears it might be working and we can de-nationalise some of the assets we have bought, you are saying Cameron would have done exactly the same thing.

[jake-the-peg]

OK Geezer now that you've agreed that Brown took the best course can we all stop blaming him for the economy?

But back to the original point - seriously . Cameron does have to publish policies.

You can't go into an election promissing to "do good stuff" especially in economic policy.

That was the mistake the Labour party made in the 80's and was crucified for it - the electorate will then think your plans are uncosted and not worth the paper they're written on.

But you also don't want to show your hand too early. Does Cameron actually have policies he could bring out if Brown called an election? Is it a bluff - who knows.

The one thing I do know is that he's standing up calling for fixed term parliaments at the same time as calling for an early General election!

[R1Geezer]

Brown reacted to the world financial crisis correctly.

He has however prisided over disastrous policies from 1997 onwards. A lot of problems are his fault, I'll blame him for those. OK?

The electorate won't give a rats ar5se about policies, they just know they've had enough of Labour for now. Oppositions don't win elections, governements lose them.

Most of the public do not have your level of knowledge and reasoning, they are more interested on what's happening in Eastenders.

Not saying policies don't matter I'm saying that they are as nothing compared to the yearning for a change.

[R1Geezer]

I sure hope so Steve.5, I'm pi55ed off paying taxes to fund usless idiots in needless jobs.

[Kromovaracun]

That was the mistake the Labour party made in the 80's and was crucified for it - the electorate will then think your plans are uncosted and not worth the paper they're written on.

Actually, Labour's plans in '83 were a lot more detailed. What destroyed them was partly (ignoring the obvious 'Falklands Factor' which is another issue) that people were very wary of their policies (nuclear disarmament, higher tax, renationalisation etc.).

The promise to 'do good stuff' is actually a lot closer to Labour's strategy in 1997...