What is more, the Labour Party, as a whole, are ideologically in favour of the European project and ever closer union between EU member states. They are willing backers of the increasing burden of unaccountable regulation that arrives daily from Brussels and now enthusiastically support ‘the destruction of a thousand years of history’ as their former leader Hugh Gaitskell once pertinently observed. They do little to disguise their views on the issue.

Meanwhile, millions of conservatives will feel deeply betrayed by the Conservative Party; an organisation in which they had placed their trust and support, often over decades, through the ballot box and paid membership. Cameron’s climb down on his formerly ‘cast iron’ guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has signalled that the party no longer represents their interests.

Even after all that has happened many millions of people will continue to consider the Conservative Party to be ‘eurosceptic’ – a phrase that supposedly betokens a stance of disapproval and opposition to the European Union and all its works. In reality however, ‘euroscepticism’ has revealed itself to be nothing more than a facade for Conservative politicians both past and present to make vaguely anti-EU statements in opposition, only for them to betray their voters and capitulate to the perpetual slow motion coup d’état of ever closer union once safely in Government.

Tomorrow, David Cameron will announce his party’s new stance on the European Union. Do not expect much. Despite knowing for months that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would be likely, they had not prepared for such an eventuality. Such planning does not exactly bode well for their performance in Government.

In his statement tomorrow, much will be made by Cameron of Labour’s deceit in reneging on their promise of a referendum. Much will be made of how the Treaty will have been implemented into EU and our law by the time of any UK General Election in which the Conservatives could obtain office. Little however will be made of what the Conservatives might do about this. It will all be rather vague. Pointers will be made to the repatriation of powers, though without specifics or indeed how this will be achieved.

Cameron is therefore set for an historic moment. As Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph noted, he will be the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments before even taking office. Warner also remarked that:

There is always some shambling excuse, some pseudo-sophisticated ‘reason’ for submitting to humiliation: we cannot have a referendum on a ratified treaty… It would lead to our ejection from the European Union… We mustn’t let Labour back in… The illusion of inevitability – a fundamental Marxist tenet – has successfully been foisted upon British voters by the Frankfurt School Marxists who control the EU.

Despite Team Cameron’s best efforts to sideline the major issues surrounding our membership of the European Union, they have come back to bite him in the backside – as we knew they would.

But how exactly can you vote for a change when the alternative is virtually identical? What exactly are David Cameron and the Conservative Party going to do that is fundamentally different to the current Labour administration?

The BBC article suggests that Conservative run councils will ‘keep council tax down’. Yet, what is really mean by this is that taxes will rise by less than under the current administration. How very considerate, but what of all those millions of people who wish that their taxes would actually go down, rather than up?

At the weekend Neil Parish, likely to be the next Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, told me that the Conservatives, when in Government, can’t lower taxes in the face of terrible economic conditions. But is it really that they can’t, or won’t – and is it any wonder when the Conservatives have now largely accepted the economic and high taxation arguments of the Left?

David Cameron also said that the Conservative Party believes in localism. So do I, but I know that such a view is incompatible with our membership of the EU. Will David Cameron admit that?

What’s more, when eighty per cent plus of our regulations and new laws are dictated to us by the European Union, without scrutiny from our Parliament, then the main political parties have even less reason to be radically different from one another on a whole range of issues over which we no longer have any control.

Yet, even if David Cameron and the Conservatives win the next UK General Election (which is still not anywhere near as certain as the media would have you believe) then we will, by and large, end up with exactly the same government we have already. The personalities will change, the policies will not.

The title of the dissertation is ‘New Leader, New Conservatives?’ The document was submitted for review on the 1st May 2009 and I will receive word of the grade in the middle of June. The abstract for the dissertation is as follows:

Since the election of David Cameron as Leader of the Conservative party, very little scrutiny by academics and the media has been afforded to the nature of its policies and the political agenda of the party leadership. This study argues that David Cameron has fundamentally re-aligned his political party, and attempts to rectify the notion that the Conservative party still pursues conservatism in any meaningful way. In doing so, this study shall highlight how the Conservative party in Britain has surrendered itself to the neo-liberal Leftist political consensus.

At roughly ten thousand words, it might take a little longer to read than most of my usual blog postings. I hope, however, that you will feel it is worth the time and effort. The content of the document has not been added to since it was submitted and therefore represents the dissertation in its original form.

Download a copy of the dissertation (.pdf – 487kb)

I would imagine that a number of people may not necessarily like my conclusions. However, I am hardly alone in taking this point of view. If you disagree with any point that I’ve made or have any remarks then please leave them in the comments area.

This obvious reluctance is why so much ambiguity surrounds the issue and why the party leadership will not, if they can help it, be pinned down on the matter.

In late 2007 it became clear that Gordon Brown was readying the Labour party for a snap election. At the Conservative conference in Bournemouth there was an atmosphere of worriment and discontent. Opinion polls were consistently showing that the Conservatives were many points behind Labour when they needed to be quite a few points in front, and that as a result they were likely to lose any coming General Election.

Defeat would have condemned the Conservatives to another five years on the opposition benches and made it an unprecedented fourth election defeat in a row for a political party who were once considered the ‘natural party of government’ in Britain.

At that time the Cameron project was still very much a work in progress. In many ways it still is. However, before the party conference in 2007, David Cameron had seen little success in actually attracting the wider electorate to vote Tory. Despite all the hoodie-hugging speeches (okay, so he never actually said that) and pledges that marriage could, in his view, be between a man and a woman, a man and man, and a woman and a woman – the electorate were still not all that interested.

The liberal metropolitan elite whom the Cameron project had initially targeted with such vigour had merely shrugged their shoulders and continued supporting Labour or the Liberal Democrats. They no longer really hated the Conservatives under Dave (because the Conservatives no longer stood for conservatism), but this certainly didn’t mean they were going to vote for them either.

Meanwhile, those who were once considered to be the socially conservative ‘working class’ and who are now affected by the grinding drudgery of crime and increasing moral poverty were none too impressed that the Conservatives would try, like the Left, to ‘understand’ crime as if it were some sort of social disease, rather than treat it as what it actually is – an unpleasant measure taken by the greedy and selfish.

Therefore the Conservative party was not increasing its electoral base and the party’s independent polling was showing that what was considered to be the core Conservative vote were certainly not enthused by Mr Cameron’s socially liberal, ambiguously high tax, big-state approach to a future Conservative Government.

With Gordon Brown having just become Prime Minister in June of that year and gained a resulting polling bounce, the Conservatives were quickly learning that just because millions of voters had voted Conservative in the past didn’t mean they would do so again – especially if they were not given any incentive. In addition the party were not picking up many votes from electoral dissatisfaction with the Labour Government.

With defeat staring Cameron and his leadership team in the face, and in a desperate attempt to limit their election loses, he and his advisers rushed to introduce a policy at conference that they thought would prove popular with their core vote.

As predicted, the new policy on inheritance tax was popular with many Conservative voters. However, as it happened, after more than a decade of repressive levels of taxation under Labour, many non-Conservatives voters were also fed up with seemingly ever higher tax bills and they grabbed onto this policy fig leaf of raising the inheritance tax threshold in the hope that a Conservative Government would provide more tax relief.

It would be fair to say that that one policy saved David Cameron’s bacon and that as a consequence of the swell in support for the Conservatives in opinion polling, Gordon Brown called off the election that he had been planning to hold.

One might have thought that would be the end of it all. The pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold had been made, and this would be carried out if the Conservatives managed to form a Government at the next election. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case and David Cameron, with the help and support of Ken Clarke and his Shadow Cabinet, is trying to wriggle out of that seemingly solid commitment.

David Cameron and the Conservative party are now in a wholly different position. They are consistently ahead, by some distance, in the opinion polls (though I really can’t see them winning a General Election by the margins predicted) and as time has gone by Gordon Brown has become an increasingly unpopular Prime Minister. Furthermore, the economy is disappearing ever further into recession and millions of people find themselves out of work, often with very little prospect of employment in the short term.

The upper echelons of the Conservative party therefore feel that they can renege on the inheritance tax pledge which they had never wanted to give in the first place. They know from their independent polling that there will be a large anti Labour Government vote at the next election, and they believe that their core vote will be enthused enough by the prospect of removing Labour from office that they will come out and vote Conservative regardless of what policies the party are actually advocating.

On this basis they also know that they do not need to make any further concessions to actual conservatively inclined voters, and that they can now rather conveniently change the terms of their pledge on inheritance tax knowing all too well that the party will not electorally suffer for doing so in the polls.

David Cameron and those who currently control the Conservative party are not ideological. They are perfectly happy to copy New Labour’s taxation and spending habits (or be completely ambiguous and not have a policy at all) because they don’t have any plans or ideas of their own. Come the next election, if the Conservatives somehow manage to win a majority of seats in the Commons then there will be a change of faces but without a change of policies. These days in Britain, whoever you vote for, the Government always gets in.

An intelligent move by Mr Cameron, though it did take him some considerable time to get around to it seeing as others had been asking for an inquiry months ago.

However, even if Mr Cameron does get the inquiry he wants, the report may not come soon enough. Already, the great and the good in Europe are pressing ahead with plans to pass the regulation of all financial markets and hedge funds onto the European Union’s undemocratic institutions.

Although it was entirely predictable that the EU would use the financial crisis (which they played their part in creating) as a means to further their process of political integration and ever closer union, it would have been helpful if, just for once, they ignored their political project and attempted to understand the causes of the regulatory problem they are supposedly trying to solve before legislating to correct it in the way they are now.

The FT article briefly notes that Cameron wishes to cut the size of the Commons by at least ten per cent, which in real terms would account for around sixty MPs and could lead to the axing of a number of safe Labour seats.

In spite of the supposed independence of the Boundaries and Electoral Commissions, as Zehra Zaidi rightly remarks, Labour has helped create a substantial imbalance within the system over the past ten years – which of course has been to their benefit.

Therefore, as all political parties that obtain power attempt, in some way or other, to use the system to garner electoral benefits, it’s not that surprising that the Conservatives have now said they will try to rebalance the system if elected.

However, these proposals also come after a notable increase in the number of reports over previous years highlighting the decreasing legislative workload of MPs. For example, The Daily Telegraph noted back in October 2007 that:

MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament.

In the Financial Times, David Cameron is also quoted as having said that in his efforts to cut public spending he thought:

The House of Commons could do the job that it does with 10 per cent fewer MPs without any trouble at all.

Back in 2007, when The Telegraph originally covered the increase of holidays for MPs the Chief Executive of the Taxpayer’s Alliance, Matthew Elliott was quick to wade in and comment, saying:

A three-month holiday for MPs is a ridiculous luxury, especially since the politicians have also been awarding themselves larger pensions and higher pay. But having MPs sitting in Parliament for shorter periods may at least mean fewer new taxes and regulations.

The question we should really be asking ourselves though is why our MPs have so little to do, and why it is that David Cameron could possibly propose to do away with ten percent of them and still maintain the same level of output?

Well, you don’t have to look far to discover the answer. With approximately eighty percent of our legislation originating in Brussels, our Westminster Parliament has simply become a rubber stamping institute through which EU law passes without amendment or debate. Then there are EU Regulations which are decided on in Brussels and don’t even have to pass through our Parliament to be enacted.

This is why the comment by Matthew Elliott is so ridiculous. It doesn’t really matter for how long our own MPs sit in Parliament or how many of them there are these days, the volume of legislation coming from the EU, which we cannot prevent, will arrive and be passed into our law regardless.

There are alternatives of course. Back in June of last year, Conservative MP Peter Lilley proposed that all MPs should have their pay cut if they gave away powers to the European Union. Such a system might actually bring home to MPs the importance of the powers and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them by the British people.

Then there is our direct financial contribution to the European Union which amounts to roughly some £14bn an annum – far greater if you take into account the costs that EU legislation and regulations impose on us. Therefore, the costs saved from leaving the European Union would far outweigh the comparably insignificant sum of money Mr Cameron would supposedly like to save in reducing the number of Members of Parliament.

Sadly though, it appears that once again Mr Cameron has chosen to tackle the symptom rather than the cause of the problem in our Parliamentary system.

Despite the fact that our Westminster Labour Administration would not be particularly favourable to such a plan – at face value it sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Well sadly it’s not – and here’s why, as Dr Richard North kindly explains:

There are, however, just one or two tiny little problems with this idea. VAT is, of course, an EU tax, implemented via the VAT 6th Directive. A payment holiday on VAT would amount to a de facto reduction in the rate of tax, which is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

That, though, might be the least of Mr Cameron’s tiny little problems. Member states are required under EU law to collect VAT, a proportion of which goes to the EU coffers – known as the ‘own resource’. Collection procedures are also defined by EU law, requiring the imposition of penalties on late payment – typically one percent per month. Changing these procedures unilaterally, guess what, is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

Under certain circumstances, member states are entitled to adopt a simplified procedure for charging VAT, under Directive 2006/69/EC, but that does not include any provision for delaying tax payments. To the contrary, the Directive allows special provisions to enable member states to “prevent distortion of competition,” which rather shows where EU priorities lie.

If these hurdles were somehow to be overcome, however, unilateral action by the UK in offering a tax holiday would certainly be considered a ‘distortion of competition’ under Single Market rules. At the very least, Commission permission would have to be given, which will not necessarily be forthcoming.

And, since Mr Cameron’s proposals affect only small and medium-sized businesses, larger firms might be moved to complain. A company like McDonalds, for instance, would have a just complaint. It regards itself as a ‘group of small businesses’ under one banner. Fighting as it does for market share in competition with other high street outlets, it could argue that different rules on payment would most certainly distort competition.

There is also the matter of state aid. Broad-brush aid – which includes tax-breaks of any form, directed at one sector rather than applied uniformly – would most likely be considered illegal. At the very least, Commission approval would be required, which might not be forthcoming.

Then there is one other tiny little detail. Numerous studies – not least this one – have drawn attention to the danger of deferred VAT payments, making the system even more vulnerable to fraud. This is already a massive problem. Would Mr Cameron want to add to that problem?

David Cameron is calling for something which is practically unachievable. I’m just passing on this important message in case anyone is reading…

Well, unsurprisingly Tim’s efforts at actually rebutting Peter’s article were somewhat poor to say the least. Again unsurprisingly Mr Hitchens took the opportunity to reply to Tim’s criticisms – and he did so in stunning fashion.

It is worth reading both pieces and the comments in the section below each one. Take note of the fact that those that disagree with Peter generally do not argue against his points but just personally attack him and then dismiss him. Very telling I think.

Anyway, here is my favourite comment from Hitchens’ reply. It’s perhaps just as good as his previous statement that ‘you can’t be in Europe and not run by Europe any more than you can be in Wormwood Scrubs and not run by Wormwood Scrubs’:

In my view, the word ‘Eurosceptic’ means ‘a person who adopts anti-EU rhetoric in opposition, and then surrenders to the EU in government’. This is inevitable. You cannot be in the EU and not run by it, any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. If you don’t like being run by it, you must leave, as all serious students of the subject long ago realised. I don’t think there’s any serious dispute about which side of this fence Mr Cameron is on.

If Tim at ConservativeHome started to regularly post more critical articles (which ConHome’s sycophantic pages currently lack,) in a similar thoughtful vein to Peter’s piece then I might actually be tempted to started visiting and commenting on the site again. Just imagine it – reasoned, reasonable discussion rather than mindless wittering and blind allegiance.