Thought for The Day

"Conservatives and Liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Government the funds for the programmes it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong -- in effect, legalized theft."*


* Paraphrasing (slightly) Walter E. Williams.

Telegraph 'Journalism' - Again!

The Telegraph has decided to air its views on the £780million Thanet wind farm and how it is the world's biggest; that it increases the UK's off-shore energy capacity to 1.34 gigawatts – more than in the rest of the world combined; that it is a landmark in the Government's drive to put wind power – both off- and on-shore – at the heart of its renewable energy strategy.

Not one friggin' word about the 'elephant in the room'; not one friggin' word about how we are being 'ripped-off' by spivs (both in and out of government); not one single word that our so-called government - you know, the one in a blue funk that has a yellow stripe up its back - are only following this hare-brained scheme to produce energy because another load of incompetents sitting in Brussels have told them to.

The Telegraph trumpets the fact that it is "Newspaper of the Year". I am not too sure which year, as it most surely has not been during the last five, I would think. The speed of its descent ensures it will not be long before it is torn into strips, perforated at regular intervals and then stamped with the word 'Izal', before being exported to the third world!

A Must Read

Two short items about the Government of Switzerland.

"Federal Councilor Moritz Leuenberger, a member of the Social Democrats, has often been asked who actually governs Switzerland. Can he also answer the question? "Of course," he says, speaking in his office in Bern. "The voters do. According to the constitution, they are the supreme power, and this also holds true in a political sense."

Coalition Speed Up UK Integtration Into EU

Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics:

"There was a press release from the EU Commission today that caught my eye via the Albion Alliance Presents site, which is a source for raw no spin EU related information.

The press release, which I doubt you will find any reference to in the UK press, was issued by Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier who said:

It’s essential that European rules aimed at making the Internal Market work are implemented in Member States – in time and properly.

The report provides an overview of Member States’ compliance with the implementation and application of Internal Market law, with a target of less than 1% of directives, regulations and opinions remaining outstanding to be transposed into National laws.

In total, 18 Member States meet the 1% target of which 8 improved or equalled their transposition deficit compared to six months ago: Denmark, Malta, Slovakia, Finland, Slovenia, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Ireland.

The UK Coalition government has been speeding up the implementation of EU law in the UK. So much for a Eurosceptic Tory party eh.

You can read the Press release by clicking on Go to Source here
You can read the full implementation report here."

"So much for a Eurosceptic Tory party eh" - Exactly why, Ian, yesterday I labelled this party and their leader as "deceitful, liars, dishonourable, unprincipled and unpatriotic".

Thought For The Day

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." Heinlein

Cigareets & Whuskey & Wild Wild Women

Not content with trying to limit consumption of the first two, it would appear that our political masters, in this particular instance in the shape of Viviane Reding, wish to arbitrarily increase the numbers of the third within the world of business.

It does not take a degree in logicality to realise that if there were sufficient women with the capability to fill senior management posts then their numbers would be higher than at present. Likewise it is not stretching the mind to also realise that no CEO or Board is going to appoint someone of inferior skill, knowledge, capability etc to a position to which they are totally unsuitable. Needless to say the same arguments in respect of inferior skill, capability etc equally apply when considering subjects such as diversity, equality, ethnicity and any other 'ity' you care to mention.

Society may well be driven insane if Viviane Reding remains in post as she exhibits one of the characteristics shown by those promoted beyond their abilities, namely insanity.

The Conservative Problem vis-a-viz The European Union?

I suppose the question can be summed up in just two words - David Cameron, but as that, would of necessity, negate the content of this post, please bear with me.

Today there have been two posts of note, one by Helen Szamuely at Your Freedom and Ours; the other by John Ward at The Slog. Helen Szamuely posts on an article by Iain Martin of the Wall Street Journal in which Martin ponders the lack of opposition to the EU by Tory MPs, bearing in mind certain matters which have been approved with barely a murmur of discontent.

Consider the findings of a poll conducted by Conservative Home amongst the candidates for the top 220 Tory target seats - and commented upon in an article in the Guardian. When one remembers that all but two candidates for Tory seats were selected from those chosen and approved by Tory Central, it is therefore hardly surprising that there has been no murmur of discontent amongst their MPs. It is also a fact that during the election campaign Tory candidates were 'controlled' by CCHQ on any statements concerning the European Union. This is borne out by the findings of the Albion Alliance during the 2010 general election, when they published replies from Tory candidates to emails and letters sent by members of the electorate requesting a referendum and asking whether those candidates supported that request. It is not unreasonable to state that 99% of the replies received had used the 'template' supplied by CCHQ, with maybe a minor tweak here and there.

The Conservative Party presented itself as the Europsceptic party during the Euro elections of 2009, after which their Leader performed the biggest 'U' turn that has been witnessed in history. They then repeated their Eurosceptism during the 2010 general election. It can also be justifiably argued that not one of the three party leaders wished to discuss 'Europe' during the general election, witnessed by the fact that it only received just a few minutes attention during the second debate, part of the sham that was the "Leader's Debate".

Contrary to their manifesto (page 103), their website at the time of the election and the Coalition programme for government (page 19), they promised no further powers would be transferred without a referendum. Iain Martin's article notes four areas where power has been transferred, yet no referendum has been granted.

It must therefore follow that Cameron and his party are guilty of deceit; they are guilty of lying; they have no understanding of honour, principle or patriotism, being obviously more concerned about personal standing, privilege and power; and consequently they are unworthy of holding office. Yet another unfortunate example of how our democracy is indeed broken is that those accusations can be levied at 80/90% of their parliamentary colleagues.

As history has shown, those in public life found to be deceitful, liars, dishonourable, unprincipled and unpatriotic have both metaphorically and physically invariably 'danced on air' at the end of a piece of hemp. Our political finest would do well to remember that salutory lesson!

An Interesting Question?

One paragraph of a post by James Forsyth on the Coffee House caught my eye, which prompted a bit of thought:

"But then again, as one liberal Liberal Democrat said to me last night, of the party’s MPs only half a dozen are authentic liberals. Such a small group can drive change in a party—just look at the Blairites and the Cameroons. But this change is always vulnerable to the party reverting to the norm." (my emphasis)

Consider how Blair 'De-Laboured' Labour, how Cameron 'De-Conservatived' the Conservatives. More importantly, consider the response of their elected MPs and Prospective Candidates who, it can be said, generally did not actually agree with the respective decisions of Blair and Cameron. Is it not logical to question the beliefs of people like Skinner, Prescott,  Cash and Carswell - to name but a four?

This leads one to believe that ingrained 'beliefs/concepts' matter not, when compared to the possibility of position and power. If that suggestion were not true, would there not have been a 'rebellion'? Would not Labour have rebelled against the reversal of Clause 4? Would not Conservatives have rebelled against the downgrading of country, the belief of self-government and personal ambition? In both cases the party leaders offered the opportunity of power, something which bearing in mind the time they had been out of government, held a greater allure than party dogma. Consequently, the allegation can be laid at those elected MPs - selected candidates and party members - that they forewent principle for personal gain. It can also be alleged that those seeking nomination as candidates agreed to temper their opinions in order to gain said nomination.

All of which leaves our democracy in an unenviable situation, does it not? If we are unable to elect candidates of principle and resolve, how on earth do we get the type of government we would like?  Are not elected MPs supposed to represent the views of their constituents? How often do we see MPs going through voting lobbies because either they have 'decided', or have been coerced by Party Whips, or dare one suggest, for personal reasons, in the hope they may be noticed as having followed the 'party line' and thus be considered as candidates for advancement up the party heirachy ladder?

The foregoing just underlines the need for the introduction of referenda; the need for open primaries where the electorate, irrespective of party affiliation, elect candidates who they believe will best represent their interests; a recall system decided by the people, rather than Parliament - which would cement the basic principle of democracy that it is the people who should decide on matters affecting their lives*.

Just thinking....................

* Far be it for me to introduce the subject of membership of the European Union.........!

Choice

Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics:

"Next month David Nuttall MP for Bury North is due to present his Bill as follows:

Wednesday 13 October

Ten minute Rule Motion: Mr David Nuttall: Public Houses and Private Members’ Clubs (Smoking): That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt public houses and private members’ clubs from the requirements of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006 relating to smoke-free premises; and for connected purposes.

Phil Johnson, Chairman of the Freedom to Choose campaign said, It would be helpful for people to send emails/letters to as many MPs in their immediate areas asking them to support David Nuttall’s Bill on the 13th October. It doesn’t matter if some MPs get several hits via ‘overlapping, the important matter is contacting them.

Thank you in advance.

We all know why the pubs and clubs are dying, and its got nothing to do with the recession. Please support this bill."

Please do write to your MP. Whether you smoke or not, this is about allowing those that run a business the choice to run it as they wish; it is about providing people with choice - the latter something the politicos obviously do not want us to have. With publicans being returned the right to decide (and advertise their establishments as smoking or non-smoking) the public also regain that right of choice.

Remember choice? It was something we all enjoyed before the 'Righteous' gained a foothold in our society!

Hear Hear!

Courtesy of Dick Puddlecote and a commenter on his post "Tears Of A Righteous Crocodile", I reproduce the commenter's entry (not sure if this breaches blogging etiquette) - but I feel this commenter's remarks need repeating (it does not, at the time of writing appear, but no doubt will):

"Letter to ASH

Dear Mr Reed,

I have just read your pamphlet,

“The Effects of Increasing Tobacco Taxation: A Cost Benefit and Public Finances Analysis”

and I am not sure what to say to you. You see, I am a well educated person,13 O levels, 4 A levels, Degree (in law, not one of these pathetic namby pamby degrees one can get nowadays), and a postgraduate certificate, as well as years of real life experience. I have learned over the years, and it is certainly a requirement of my profession as a solicitor of the supreme court of England and Wales, that it is always best that I write in measured and sensible terms. Having said all of this I cannot bring myself not to tell you that your pamphlet is one of the biggest piles of steaming shit that I have ever read. And don’t please forget that the shit I have read as a lawyer over the years is very shit indeed.

What immediately gets my goat is that you say:

Savings to the National Health Service - in 2006, £2.7 billion was spent by the

NHS on treatment of smoking-related diseases in England. As the risk of developing

diseases falls (due to lower smoking prevalence and decreasing risks for ex-smokers),

so would the costs of treatment.

I think that honesty in preparing a report like this is the fundamental benchmark of any competent author. But, as always seems to be the case, you have neglected to mention that the tax take from smokers massively outweighs the amount you say it costs to treat “smoking related disease”. Why do you never say this? Why does ASH never, ever, refer to this? Is it because you think that the people for whom, you prepare these ridiculous reports are so stupid and gullible that they won’t notice the omission? Why do you make such incomplete and essentially dishonest statements? Perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me. Likely, not.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the treasury is a massive net beneficiary from smokers. Why is it that you and your kind are so disingenuous that you can’t say this, ever?

Anecdotes are not evidence of a trend or evidence of reality. But, ASH seems happy to use them whenever it suits, so let me give you an anecdote of my own. I grew up in a small bungalow. We lived with my grandmother as well as my mother as mum couldn’t affords to live on her own, dad having left when we were toddlers. We lived with my nan who smoked 40 cigarettes each day, without fail. We had fag ash in our mashed potato, since she was “old school” and always had a fag hanging out of her mouth with at least an inch of ash on the end. Guess what? Three brothers, we were. One qualified as a lawyer, 16 stone of muscle and aggression who has played rugby for 25 years. The second, now a police sergeant, who spent 16 years in the Army, fit as a butcher’s dog for his whole life, runs marathons. The third, a little less athletic, but highly intelligent and the youngest ever branch manager of a high street building society. Clearly we have all been traumatised by the fact that our nan was a smoker. By the way, none of us has felt the need to see a doctor in over 20 years.

Why you people cannot see the basic truth that increasing tobacco taxation will a) affect the poorest in society the most, b) lead to more tobacco smuggling, is beyond me. It really isn’t rocket science. People who smoke will buy their tobacco come what may. Anything you propose will make absolutely no difference. Why are you so thick that you can’t see this? The fact that you think anyone will be deterred by a 30p rise in the cost of a packet of cigarettes shows that you have no idea what you are dealing with.

I note that you mention that people would live longer if tobacco was more expensive. The only benefit you appear to glean from this is more tax for the state from people who have probably already paid tax for all of their lives, and significantly more than the average given that they have paid the duty on their tobacco products. Christ on a bike. When will the hectoring, nannying, condescending, “ we know better than you” class” of apparent “academics” realise that we do not want to be working until we die at our desks, or sitting in our own shit in a state controlled nursing home, worried and abused by illegal immigrant “carers” who don’t give a shit whether we live or die, with the state finally giving us the terminal insult by stealing all of our accumulated wealth to pay for the privilege of sitting in our own shit. What you appear to recommend is that I live long enough to carry on paying tax whilst someone else is wiping my arse. You can guess my response, can’t you?

So please, for the love of god, keep your righteous, hectoring| “I know better than you how to live your life”, prodnosed, interfering, nannying, sanctimonious, bullshit to yourself. One thing you need to realise. The Righteous, of whom you are one, are decimating society at present and have been doing so for years now. It has always been a matter of puzzlement to me that some idiot who I have never met, and who seems to have contributed pretty much fuck all to the well of human knowledge, thinks he knows better than me how I should live my life. I will say this for myself and all of us who despise your self-righteous arrogance. Who the fuck do you think you are? There is no indication that idiots like you will stop. Be aware that one day the proles might be on your lawn with a pitchfork and a rope. The day that happens you can guarantee that I will be there.

In short, Mr Reed, you, Paul Johnson, and Ash can just fuck off."

'Potential' - FFS!

Speaking at the Liberal Democrat Conference Chris Huhne, Coalition Climate and Energy Secretary mentioned the wind farm to be built at Gwynt Y Mor, off the coast of Llandudno, North Wales. 

This wind farm is costing £1.7billion and has the potential to power a third of Welsh homes, according to Huhne. Further details can be found here, although this site mentions 322,070 homes and the last census showed a total of 1,209,000 homes in Wales - so either Huhne was stretching the actualite - or he has a 'maths deficit'.

Unfortunately, one fact that would seem to show the illogicality of political economic thinking is that they are prepared to spend £1.7billion on a scheme which only has the potential to power less than one third of Welsh homes. In actual fact the figure of £1.7billion needs to be increased by £83.2million as that is how much the vessel is costing which will be used to install the 160 turbines at Gwynt Y Mor.

On the basis that alternative power stations will require building to provide cover when the wind turbines are unable to produce electricity, why on earth are we spending £1.7billion (plus £83.2million) on something which so obviously is not required?

There is Grey And There Is Gray.........

James Gray, Conservative MP for North Wiltshire, has put his latest offering for the Gazette & Herald (of where, one knows not) in relation to the Big Society, on line for all to read.

In this example of literary failure he states:

"Its [the Big Society] definition is perfectly straightforward. Its about people doing things for themselves – and for their friends and neighbours in the community – rather than relying on the State to do them for them."

In his article, Gray mentions various projects he visited and continues:

"Government has become overweening, interfering, bossy, centralised.......Rules, regulations, quangos, centralisation – they must all be swept away....."

Unfortunately, James Gray forgets to mention that however much people would like to resolve issues within their community they are governed by central government policies - the need for compliance with planning, health & safety, local authority bylaws - all of which, in one way or another, are derived from central government policies. They are also, in some cases, subject to the availability of government/quango/fake charity 'grants' and it is a well known fact that he who controls the purse strings, controls the 'project'.

If James Gray - and his puppet-master, Cameron - wish this 'Big Society' idea to be a success then not only must rules, regulations, quangos and centralisation be swept away, so must central government. If he and his Master really wish 'localism' - and the Big Society -  to be a beacon for 'devolution of power', then a radical change of thinking is sorely required!

Where David Cameron is concerned, within the system of democracy we presently have to live, are we not all a:

"I may win on the roundabout
Then I'll lose on the swings
In or out, there is never a doubt
Just who's pulling the strings
I'm all tied up in you
But where's it leading me to?"

Thought For Today

Some bloggers have "Quotes of the day" so I thought it may be an idea, with a view to stimulating debate, to begin a series of "Thoughts for today" with, where possible, a comment - and consequently offer as a starter:

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him" Heinlein

Kinda reinforces the argument for government butting out of our lives? Goodbye State and Hello Localism?

Clegg's Speech & Inconsistences

A copy of Nick Clegg's speech to his conference today can be found here - with the proviso that it should be checked against delivery. (seemed fairly accurate compared to what I heard - yes, ok sick me, I did listen to it) Picking out certain points in that speech raises serious worries about Clegg's thought processes and reasoning.

"It’s not smaller government I believe in. It’s a different kind of government: a liberating government. This government will transform the state. Reversing generations of centralisation. Putting power into people’s hands. Because the job of government is not to run people’s lives. It is to help people to run their own."

It is how the Coalition will transform the state that concerns me; it is the Coalition's belief that we, the people, need help to run our own lives. It is necessary to read David Cameron's speech on his Big Society to fully understand how this help will be delivered. Putting to one side his obvious belief in the thesis put forward in the Spirit Level, it is the central government 'control' in how that help is to be delivered that is worrying as it shows once again that no government will willingly give up a power that it has usurped.

"So yes, in the fight against poverty, inequality, social breakdown and injustice I do want to move from state action to social action. But I see a powerful role for government in helping to engineer that shift. Let me put it more plainly: we must use the state to remake society.........But the state must go further than enabling these opportunities. It must actively help people take advantage of them. Our enabling reforms depend for their success on a social response: and that is not something we can leave to chance......And if we are to break the culture of charities and social bodies being dependent on the state for hand-outs we need to look at how government can use loans alongside grants to help make them more sustainable and effective......" (my emphasis)

It is not necessary to remind readers that he who controls the purse strings also controls how any project or plan is put into effect. It is also apparent that this is in direct contrast with the statement that Andrew Stunnell has made, that:

"We don't presume to know more than local people about how their area should be run.........We're not going to be micromanaging, second guessing and interfering in local affairs anymore."

Moving on, later in Clegg's speech comes this passage:

".........A foreign policy forged in George Bush’s White House.........."

There is only one question that should be put to Nick Clegg in response to that statement. Nick, please explain how a foreign policy forged in George Bush's White House differs to a foreign policy forged in the EU's Berlaymont? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please Nick, as the letters 'N', 'O', 'N' 'E' just about fit!

Unbiased as I am (and I can but hope you detected the sarcasm in those four words?) I felt the speech was extremely poor and the delivery abysmal, bearing in mind this was from a man who is Leader of his party and also Deputy Prime Minister.

Really?

Andrew Stunnell, Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove and now the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Minister for the Coalition, has stated that local authorities will be allowed to:

"decide with local people what system is best for their community, whether that be a Mayor or Leader and Cabinet or a Committee system"

On the DCLG website, Stunnel is quoted saying:

"For the last decade councils have been forced to implement a one-size fits all model of Government. This Government will let councils and communities decide how to organise themselves. We don't presume to know more than local people about how their area should be run. The Coalition Government is committed to localism and pushing power away from Westminster and back to local communities. We're not going to be micromanaging, second guessing and interfering in local affairs anymore." (my emphasis)

If the above is to be taken at face value, then we can expect no more one-size-fits-all government policies on, for example, Education, Health, Law & Order, Refuse Collection; no more 'in-your-face' government intrusion into our lives; central government will therefore return all the powers, usurped over the years, back to the people.

On the past record of governments over recent decades, the day this happens we shall see pigs flying!

A Little Humour For A Sunday Evening

If in seach of the above, go view this.

My two personal favourites are:

Irritable Climate Syndrome

Climatus Interruptus

Two Bloggers Most Definitely 'Hit The Nail' On The Head

In this post I would like to pull together two bloggers, Mark Wadsworth and The Boiling Frog, the latter not just because he links to a post of mine.

Mark Wadsworth links to a survey carried out in which the top ranking result was:

"Payments to international bodies such as the UN and EU"

which kind of makes a mockery of the statement of MPs that the EU does not feature in their postbag or on the doorstep.

The Boiling Frog makes some interesting points as a result of a survey in which he took part. Underlining the point of my post on Ashcroft, to which he links and the Times point about the fact that 16,000 votes cost Cameron an outright majority, just "how long are the Tories going to maintain their 'fingers-in-ears-we-can't-hear-you' strategy?"

Just thinking................

Who Asked EU For Advice?

Nile Gardiner, writing in the Telegraph, posts on a letter sent to the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, by the new EU Ambassador to Washington, Joao Vale de Almeida, who requests that the death penalty not be imposed on a convicted kidnapper, murderer and rapist on September 29, who isn’t even from Europe.

In his post Gardiner makes an extremely valid point:

"I don’t recall Washington ever signing up to the Treaty of Lisbon or the European Convention on Human Rights, or the United States Congress rubber-stamping the ludicrously named European External Action Service."

For a 'state' that has 'a Roma' problem (yes, the EU stinks!) to instruct another country on how they should manage their society is surely the height of diplomatic discourtesy, especially when couched in the terms that this letter is written.

Anyway, rather deliciously, the problem of the death penalty is going to rear its head right on the doorstep of the EU. In this regard I refer you to this post by The Anger Of A Quiet Man who reports that signatories are being gathered for a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty in Switzerland.

The example of Switzerland is how democracy should be and this is brought home when one considers that our MPs are supposed to represent the people's views - yet how often does an MP ask his electorate when a vote is held in Parliament on what is called a matter of conscience - witness, for example when the abolition of the death penalty was debated.

Until such time as referenda are the norm, MPs realize they are but the voice of the people, that voters are the instigators and controllers of any re-call system, that a government is only responsible for those matters delegated to them by the people and that their authority is not theirs, but that of the people, democracy is surely dead in this country.

Respect & The Lack Of

Nigel Farndale, with a comment piece in the Sunday Telegraph, writes about the Duke of Edinburgh and his quips - 'gaffes' is the wrong word, Farndale maintains. In his article he relays a quip from Princess Anne, addressing Cherie Blair

"......there will always be the Duke’s daughter to uphold the family tradition. When the PM’s wife said, “Call me Cherie,” the Princess Royal replied: “Actually, let’s not go that way. Let’s stick to Mrs Blair, shall we?” Given that the Princess has only two words for journalists – “naff” and “off” – it can be assumed that this exchange made its way into the papers via Mrs Blair. And, indeed, it is repeated in her husband’s memoir, along with the conclusion that the Princess was “stunningly rude."

Cherie Blair may be a successful lawyer, she may have been, at the time, the wife of the Prime Minister, but she is/was still a commoner. Like so many 'ordinary' people in public life today, she forgot that her own view of her self-importance is just that - her view and that of no-one else.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who should show respect - and don't - consider they have suffered stunning rudeness when corrected. It is, of course, yet another example of the decline in courtesy and good manners so prevalent in our society today.

Lord Ashcroft

The Sunday Telegraph leads on the Ashcroft 133 page book "Minority Verdict: The Conservative Party, the Voters and the 2010 Election", due for publication tomorrow, in which amongst the criticisms levelled are:

"Failing to get its "message" and "brand" across to the voters. Relentless counterproductive attacks on the Labour Party and Gordon Brown. Agreeing to a televised debate of political leaders which enabled the Liberal Democrats to seize the "real change" initiative."

Commenting on the election result, Ashcroft then poses this question:

"The Conservative Party faced a shambolic government, an unpopular Prime Minister, a recession, a huge budget deficit and an overwhelming national desire for change. A year before the election the Conservatives were 20 points ahead in the polls, yet they failed to win an overall majority. Surely this had been an open goal. How could they come so close to missing?"

 In attempting to analyse the reason for Cameron failing to win an outright majority, as is usual with the present day Conservative Party, it is "the subject that dare not speak its name" that is most noticeable by its absence - namely that of Europe.

That one subject cost Cameron outright victory, a subject in which Cameron was exposed as a man whose word meant nothing - and I refer to his broken Sun promise and infamous U turn. Consider that it has been claimed, in a Times article, that:

"16,000 votes extra votes for the Tories distributed in the 19 constituencies in which the party came closest to winning would have spared us a weekend of coalition negotiations and speculation."

 To maintain, as Ashcroft does, that:

"We did not make as much progress as we should have done in transforming the party's brand, and in reassuring former Labour voters that we had changed and were on their side."

is a tad disingenious as the Conservative Party would never 'reassure' convinced Labour voters to vote for them. However, bearing in mind that across party divides and bearing in mind also the undoubted "UKIP effect" - the latter whose vote doubled by hundreds of thousands - there were voters whose overriding consideration was membership of the European Union and that they had never been given the opportunity of casting their vote on that one issue. 

It is therefore beyond any argument that Cameron's two decisions, mentioned above, cost him his victory.