Sometimes I feel genuinely sorry for the Tories.

It must be hellish having to spout all this idiotic crap about "cutting waste" and "fair" taxes whilst never ever admitting or even hinting that the whole idea of taxing people to pay for so-called public services is a gigantic fraud.

Why else vote for them?

Because David Blunkett would not form part of their government?

The biggest problem the tories have is the same one they have always had: they are absolutely crap at making their policies easily understood. The vast majority of the voters do not understand policy that will be decided based on this and that. They want the political party to say "we will cut this tax and we will cut that tax..."

Its not complicated but the tories always have to talk to people as if they are addressing an audience of phd's. Why can't they just learn to state things simply?

From an economic point of view the tories are the best hope the UK has at present but I despair when I listen to them.

"The biggest problem the tories have is the same one they have always had: they are absolutely crap at making their policies easily understood."

Not so. There are only two possibilities.

1. Their policies consist of just tinkering around the margins; in which case there is nothing much to understand and who gives a damn?

2. Alternatively, their "real" policies entail substantial dismantling of the Welfare State etc; in which case making themselvses "clearly understood" would probably (sadly) be fatal to their electoral prospects.

The trouble is, how can one trust the tories to follow through? How can you be sure their "real" policies will be implemented?

Nathan:

"The trouble is, how can one trust the tories to follow through? How can you be sure their "real" policies will be implemented?"

I think their "real" policies are the tinkering rather than the dismantling, so I don't think the question arises.

There is a large government deficit and it is going to get bigger. To say clearly "we will eliminate X and Y taxes and cut (by such and such a per cent) W tax and Z tax, would mean that the Labour party would scream (correctly) "that must mean you will cut public services".

Cutting "waste" can only go so far. Although it could go further than Mr Letwin has - for example he has not even pledged to get rid of the absurd Department of Trade and Industry (just to cut it).

Of course (being a libertarian) I support the cutting of the "public services" (the welfare state), but the great majority of the British public are supposed (rightly or wrongly) to love this stuff.

I was more concerned by Mr Letwin refusal (in an interview with Andrew Neil) to say that he would never put UP taxes overall. Mr Letwin said what about a massive world recession - SO? The last thing the government should do in a massive world recession is to put up taxes.

Overall the speeches by Dr Fox and Mr Letwin did not impress me - they were O.K. but weak on substance and a strange mixture of serious business and weak humour.

I am told that the speech by John Redwood (on deregulation) was very good. But as the B.B.C. did not broadcast the Redwood speech I do not know how good it was.

What the Tories need to do is to work out how to emerge as a successful political entreprise in a post-Blair political world.

The answer is certainly not to return to post Callaghan rhetoric on tax. People don't like tax increases, but 1 they also understand the need for investment, and 2 rightly or wrongly, they don't believe the Tories when they say the Chancellor has shafted them.

Letwin is bright, but he seems only to be talking to other Tories. If they don't learn to talk about the state in terms of investment and how they intend to add value, they'll hardly be listened to until Gordon is settling in for his second term.

That's not to say new, new Labour. But if you going to tackle what the state does badly, short of a revolution, you need to demonstrate what it can do well.

Otherwise you are into an inverse of the Bush Kerry thing, where the US is likely to stay with the former because the latter hasn't really talked about how he might deliver a better and safer approach to Iraq.

What about naming some "public services" that aren't. And explaining why not. Dozens of "development boards" for this and that would soon get through to the public.

BTW, is it really hoping too much for the Tories to name some departments or Quangos for the ash-heap? Starting with the Arts Council.

I appreciate of course that 99 pct of the voting public want a fairly big, intrusive govt. Alas, despite the real achievements of the Thatcher years - and they were real, despite what some libertopians say - the Tories never really consolidated their gains by making a big shift in opinion away from Statism.

Lots to do, and so few of us.

The Arts Council? Maybe. But where's your working out? There may be a case for retaining government intervention to compensate for market failure - but perhaps not to duplicate what the market can provide by itself?

If you're simply going after the most defenceless departments/quangos, then you're simply choosing expedience rather than making a case for larger cutting back of government.