Will, I may well be wrong, but I did not see that as a criticism of what the Conservatives are doing. It struck me as more of a commentary on levels of engagement. What follows is probably not perfection of the language in these things, but I hope what follows makes sense . . . Leaflets, messaged emails, posters, websites that display and don't allow comments etc are "transmit only" - sort of Web 1.0 I guess people would say. Meanwhile facebook, twitter, leaflets which invite a response, surveys, internet sites that allow comments, Labour's Big Conversation etc - these all foster a deeper engagement. The conversation. It's obviously not quite right to see all these things as Web 2.0, but they all seek to do a similar job in fostering a dialogue. This is what I have been trying to do. The next stage is that people go beyond the conversation and onto evangelism. Ordinary folk go and knock on their neighbours' doors and get involved in the campaign because they are inspired. This is where I would like to be. So would we all! The PBA agenda is not the same as the Labour agenda. There seems to me a fundamental separation of Worldview here. The tech agenda of the left has been to centralise and make it easier for Government to organise the people / tell the people what they can / cannot have. The PBA agenda seeks to make it easier for the people to tell the Government what to do and break up the monolithic nature of Government. These are opposite ends of the telescope. Charlie

Yes, trolls are another great internet feature. Note exhibit "A" above. And trolls that emerge from under the bridge . . . really can't complain about getting whacked! I am sorry you are so upset that the only thing the Lib Dems have to offer the people of Cornwall is bankruptcy in local government and the local airport disaster. Sadly complete incompetence is a feature of the Lib Dems. It just seems to go with the territory. Surely then it cannnot come as a surprise that your friend, the Lib Dem candidate there, is going to lose heavily to the excellent Caroline Righton. And personally, I'm really pleased about it. People like Caroline can and will end the shameful neglect and maladministration that great county has suffered at the hands of the Lib Dems.

Good point Charlie. As you so ably demonstrate, the internet is a great place to smear people in the most filthy ways. It's certainly going to be a dirty campaign by the Lib Dems in Cornwall isn't it, as they once again demonstrate how unfit for any kind of office they are? But then I guess we should not be surprised. For the Lib Dems are going to lose that seat and the fantastic local candidate from St Columb, soon to become Caroline Righton MP, will not only bring honour back to Cornwall - she will be a real tonic and a breath of fresh air!

Nice try. It probably has to be supported given the situation with the markets and so on. That is the fiscal responsibility of the Conservatives compared with the fiscal incompetence of Brown. Yet that does not mean the timing of Brown's latest gambit is responsible. Note that Philip Hammond in his excellent performance this morning made very powerful points about getting best value as well as the need to control the deficit. The fact is the country's finances will be safer and more secure with the Conservatives.

Thanks for that. I did not know that wanting a good price for assets made me dangerously left wing! My simple point is that you get a better price in a better market. The IRR demanded for equity at the moment for public infrastructure is quite high. Likewise, the availability of capital to the private sector is more limited than usual due to the difficulties currently being experienced by the banks. In a stronger market you get more competition for assets and a better price. This is why a slightly longer horizon would make more sense in principle. As for your central point, the public sector is indeed not very good at owning land and buildings, keeping track of what it owns and is very poor at property development.

I agree it is depressing. Yet I'm being realistic - you know Government is like an oil tanker, it takes time to turn around. And unemployment is a lagging indicator. So things are not going to ease immediately. So much damages has been done to the wealth of our nation. I wish it were otherwise. As for free trade, surely we should have that with Europe and more with the World as a whole. The BRIC nations, the US and the Far East grow strongly and we should surely develop better and free-er trading links there. The idea of a closed fortress Europe is a poor one and the dumping on foreign markets - especially in Africa - is positively harmful.

I didn't comment because I was writing about the incredible mess our economy is in! My comments on Europe are set out on my campaign website at http://www.elphicke.com/issues/europe

Well said WBG. Those are pretty startling numbers!

This idea we should congestion charge is absolute rubbish. And a total con. Since Labour came to power, people still travel 6,000 miles a year by car and about 1,000 miles by public transport. The only thing that has changed is that it now takes 27 minutes to get to work on average, rather than about 22 minutes. That gives you the true indicator of rubbish transport planning which so harms our environment and has a massive social cost in terms of frustration, anger, money and pure waste of life time. And London is even worse. It takes 44 minutes to get to work in London on the latest figures rather than around 33 minutes ten years before. How about rather than bash the motorist with more taxes and useless money grabbing bureaucracy, we sort out road planning to (a) help protect the environment (b) save the country money and (c) make Britain a bit less angry!

Exactly Freddy! Signs warn of fog hours after it has cleared up and motorway closures after whatever caused the closure has been cleared. And what are the Highways Agency doing running a highway patrol thing that overlaps with the Police? Have you also noticed that when they do that late night closing off thing, there never seems to be anyone actually doing any work? It's even more annoying that the revenue raiser 50 mph speed cameras stay on when no one is doing any work. As I say . . . there are a lot of quick wins to be had on the roads.

There goes the neighbourhood! And we were having an interesting debate about things that affect the future of our country . . .

John Moss makes an interesting point - the property boom was fuelled to excess by lots of debt and the ability to use that debt to reduce profits. The result is that much property in this country became massively overpriced and we have seen just how hard it's all hit in the commercial property bust. Cheap and easy debt that is encouraged by the tax system ramps up booms and busts. Less leverage will mean more stable growth, less boom and bust. John speaks of property. Now here's an interesting question. Why are rents a deductible expense? If that was axed, businesses would not be penalised for owning freeholds and would be encouraged to use land more wisely. And getting rid of the deductibility of rents would allow even bigger cuts in the rate of tax. Moreover, another essential element of tax haven planning and tax avoidance would be stopped. Further, why exactly is land owned offshore free of capital gains on sale? The average person in the UK has to pay gains - not so for big international funds and businesses. It drove our asset bubble. We're all paying for that now. Taxing gains on land, wherever held, would be fairer and put Brits and non Brits on an equal footing, as well as helping further to stamp out tax haven avoidance. The third pillar of avoidance is IP and "know how". We could look at the deductibility of those (often manufactured) expenses as well . . . knock out interest, rent and intangible assets and, coupled with a very low tax rate, you pretty much stop tax avoidance. This is far more radical than most would ever dare to contemplate. Property companies and big business will loathe what I have written here. With a passion! Yet think about the wider consequences of the simpler vastly lower rated tax system, a more equal footing for the little guy as respects big business, property with more stable values for the longer term and the dampening of wild booms and busts, as well as the prevention of avoidance and it all adds up to a debate we should have.

No so John - I much preferred the proper old outfit. This business of just wearing a gown rather takes away from the majesty and mystery the House of Commons used to have! My greater concern is that this dumbing down, as you describe it, should not distract from the deep reforms that are needed to renew our democracy.

I would expect Flint to go as well. The comments that this is very bad for the country struck a strong chord with me. They are spot on. We must not forget we are in the worst downturn in 60 years. Having a Government that is now "in office but not in power" is an appalling state of affairs. Confidence simply won't return without a general election. And we really need that because, you know, people *are* losing their jobs and homes.

My post is looking at the tale of two strategies for dealing with this issue. I am really noting that David Cameron's way of dealing with it is better than Gordon Brown's. Don't think I'm excusing any of the behaviour or that I have any sympathy at all! I certainly don't and I share the views and disgust - see http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/05/rotten-to-the-core.html#comments for more on what I think on the matter itself. I particularly dislike the buy to letting. Yet to repeat my post of last week would have been more of the same. I wanted to look at something slightly different, which is how the crisis is handled.

To simply tear down an institution is not the best way forward. I know how angry everyone is about the disgraceful way the system has been played. Yet it's necessary to set out the positive way ahead and how things can be changed to the good for the long term. Here are some ideas: 1. Reduce the size of the House of Commons to 500 MPs. 2. Scrap all personal expense allowances (houses, travel, bathplugs, carrier bags etc.) and replace with an enhanced, taxable, salary of, say £99K a year. 3. Other allowances - secretaries, staff and communications and such like should be kept basically the same. Yet bad practices (like surveys using the stationary allowance) should be stamped out. 4. There is a short period of grace before publication. There are bound to be a few rotten apples on our side of the house. They will know how they are. David could say pay the money back now and if they don't do that before publication, they will be fired. It's very important we are seen as serious about this. 5. All expenses to be published on a rolling basis from now on and available on the internet. There must be total transparency and accountability on the spending of public money. What do readers think of these ideas? What other things could or should be done?

Tim is being typically generous - it was in fact very much a team effort at web experiementation. I want to thank Rishi Saha, new media director at CCHQ, who gave me such great encouragement and inspiration. And Michael Dent of www.michaeldent.com, the brilliant web designer who put it all together, I cannot recommend highly enough to anyone looking at doing stuff on the internet. Also, Harlow's Robert Halfon, Bristol North West's Charlotte Leslie and Sutton's Philippa Stroud gave great guidance on blogs, writing style and the use of photographs which I deeply appreciate. Last, but by no means least, Tim himself provided a whole range of amazing help and advice. I hope some of the ideas that are tried out will prove more widely useful.

That's very funny. I'm sure there are for those interested in that kind of thing. No doubt offers to help with the school pick up are flooding in. On a more serious note, I'm not going to make any apology that my interest - and it is longstanding and consistent as looking through back posts here, platform articles and various think tank papers I've written clearly show - is in cutting public borrowing, lower taxes, reining in public spending and getting Britain to grow more strongly so that we are richer and more powerful as a country. And I cannot think of a better place to make the case for fiscal conservatism than here. The leadership have adopted a fiscal conservative position. At a time when it was unique and bold. It was a big gamble. Yet it was the right thing to do. It's a good thing the British people agree. I would hope all sound money small state conservatives would endorse that. I hope that our economic policy will develop over time when it comes to public spending - and I note the British people see tough decisions there as pretty inevitable. And the Conservatives are going to have to be very, very tough as things are and will remain very, very bad. Labour have made such a complete mess, it will probably dominate the first term of a Conservative Government. It seems likely we will have a re-run of the early 80s and require the strength to see that through. My voice, for what it is worth, will be raised in favour of those tough decisions to turn the country around. I make no apology for that. Nor should any right thinking person who wants to avoid an IMF bailout and who hopes to see our country return to a position of strength. As the numbers currently stand, it's likely to be a close shave.

Thanks for pointing that out, Mike A. It was a note of sound money. It's safely back in my wallet now . . .

Couldn't agree more Hawkeye. Simple common sense . . . also known as fiscal conservatism!

Of course I'm not suggesting that women with children should be left without financial support. The key issue is how to get a mechanism in place that is fair and accepted all round. It should be borne in mind that many people complaining to me are women owed money who are deserted without financial support and also badly affected by the CSA not getting it right. The idea that the Courts or agreement sets the amount and something like the CSA enforce could be a very interesting idea and one that might be generally acceptable.

A father, this is a big problem that I've picked up. Those who try to be honest get hit hard, while those who are rogue are often not pinned down. The current system appears to encourage honest people to feel a great sense of unfairness and to go rogue. So everybody loses and a great deal of resentment is generated all round.

William - You might think this is as obvious as sliced bread . . . but the fact is it hasn't happened and things are clearly amiss. They need to be fixed. It is to be hoped that Conservative thinking will continue to develop in this area and result in a firmer stance. Then the political pressure for transparency would be so great things would have to change. The current state of affairs is frankly astonishing. Having fewer MPs would not be victors justice. The right principle is even constituency numbers so that every vote is worth the same. It is a struggle to see why we should not have Fair Votes (whoever the voters choose to vote for) and why we should have quite so many MPs. David Cameron has - as ever - hit the nail on the head and his instincts seem to be in line with those of the British people as a whole.

If I were elected, I would publish my receipts and the whole lot. Bottom line for me is this - the taxpayer would be paying me, they'd have a right to know.