Cameron's half-baked economics

Having chided the Shadow Chancellor yesterday for focusing too much on trendy social psychology and think-tank-esque ideas rather than getting on with his day job, I guess I have to comment on David Cameron's economic strategy as outlined today in a speech to the CBI. I didn't hear the speech just read it so I can assume that he didn't say the following with any hint of irony:

The more you look at [the Government's economic plan], the more you realise that it isn't an economic strategy, it's a political strategy."

Good one David. His speech is actually more interesting for its political meaning than as an expression of economic policy. Not because it could in any way be described as an economic strategy. It's not. It's a rag-bag of loose ideas that are chucked in the economic sack and fail to meet the challenges they set themselves. What marks the speech out though is a wicked sting in the tail. The Spectator has been spitting feathers at the proposals to introduce a British version of the US bankruptcy protection, Chapter 11. So Cameron has given up on creative destruction. He might well get another visit from Margaret Thatcher soon.

That's not the real sting in the tail though. What The Spectator did not comment upon was the policy of massive state intervention that Cameron appeared to sneak in under the radar.

"Businesses need the infrastructure to succeed. And I mean infrastructure in the broadest sense of the word. Transport. Education. Skills."

Wow. That seems to imply major intervention. Are the Tories finally reconciled to post neo-classical endogenous growth theory? Governments do boost economic growth after all. This is a complete accommodation of the economics of new Labour. Perhaps that's something for Gordon Brown to celebrate?

I'm afraid on the specifics, the speech was sorely lacking. Just some examples:

- His welfare to work policy is basically a copy of Labour's with public sector providers excluded. Why, for example, would you exclude further education colleges from provided basic skills? It's what they do, it's what they have expertise in delivering, and they are trusted by local communities.

- Taking first time buyers out of stamp duty. Fine at the margins. But surely David you've read about the credit crunch and its impact on the mortgage market? Stamp duty is not what is holding people back in the housing market, it's the availability of affordable mortgages. You've missed the point.

- On the cost of living, he says, "Of course, many of the problems families face come from abroad." You may be revealing your little Englander instincts there David. We are part of the global economy. Our demand contributes to global demand as does our supply.

- Funding corporation tax reductions by reducing complex reliefs and allowances. Well, (i) firms are interested in their overall tax burden not necessarily just the headline rate; (ii) Does this mean abolishing measures such as R&D credits and how does this sit with promoting hi-tech investment?

- Shire Pharmaceuticals and United Business Media have not left because of the 'burden of regulation.' Most regulation is European so applies pretty much anywhere they HQ.

I was sceptical about the fair fuel stabiliser but I think it's worth having a closer look at for one major reason. It would have an impact on inflation which would mean that interest rates could be more focused on the real economy rather than the price of oil. Though notice that the oil price has increased relative to other EU nations due to the depreciation of the £ vis-a-vis the Euro. There is something you could do about that David......

So this is not an economic strategy at all. There are some good ideas, many just copied from the Government (did I mention underwriting all deposits up to £50,000? There are others....), and there are some largely irrelevant ideas. There is nothing in it to reduce the cost of living in the long-term as his conclusion claims. It confirms my view that George Osborne needs to spend less time on extra-curricula activity and more on economic policy. If you really believe that you are going to form the next government, time to get serious about economic policy, Dave and George.

Saving David Cameron's bacon?

The European Parliament is introducing a rule change according to Tory, Dan Hannan MEP, that will mean that European Parliamentary groupings will not be recognised unless they have members from seven countries. This makes Cameron's proposed breakaway euro-sceptic sect much more difficult to achieve (it is not even clear that they would have achieved members from five states, however....)

Of course, the Tory euro-neurotics are screaming conspiracy. I've got a little conspiracy theory of my own. The former Leader of the Conservatives in the EP, Timothy Kirkhope, was instrumental in this new measure progressing. Perhaps Mr Kirkhope has come up with a cunning little device to save his Leader from himself?

If David Cameron can't form the new breakaway grouping because the bar to official recognition is raised, he will be able to wriggle out of a futile gesture of a policy made when he thought he needed to stretch further to the right than was actually the case in the Tory Leadership election in 2005. What's more, he gets to blame Europe for it! What an ingenious climb-down Mr Kirkhope has engineered.

Tories on social justice: back to the future

Just when you think that the Tories have changed, along comes a sharp reminder that there is a Thatcherite instinct lurking within. Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, argues that the Conservatives are becoming the home of social justice.

Montgomerie's argument is without content. It is a broadside at the deeply ingrained social problems that we face with some random policy solutions. Quite why this claims the mantle of the 'party of social justice' is beyond explanation. If this is representative of the depth of thinking in the modern Tory party then Labour can breathe a little easier.

What are these 'values' to which Montgomerie refers? Take 'commitment to the family' as a case in point. Well, this is just as much an outcome as a cause of deprivation. Of course it is desirable that kids are brought up in a stable home environment. That stability can not be legislated for or incentivised using the tax system. Instability at home is corollary of unstable communities characterised by casual labour, uncertain futures, an absence of hope and self-confidence, and infected with organised as well as petty crime. It's all well and good discussing family breakdown as a adjunct of 'social breakdown' but a hectoring approach will reap few if any rewards. It may actually cause more harm than good.

Into the fray, enter the Leader of the Opposition stage left. Previous posts will demonstrate that I take the intellectual and political challenge posed by the new Tories deadly seriously. Yesterday David Cameron announced that the Tories will issue sentencing guidelines that anyone convicted of a knife crime should receive an automatic custodial sentence. The vast majority already do of course. What was interesting though was the language that David Cameron is now deploying:

"We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion - it's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.

"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.

"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong.

"We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people's feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said.

"We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.

"Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.

What is this if it isn't Thatcherite moral posturing? More seriously, it is yet another attack on the public sector which actually has a fundamental role to play in fighting knife crime. Instead, Cameron is going to rely on the likes of Ray Lewis to deliver his social policy.

Self-styled community leaders and reformers are a mixed bag, some are inspirational for sure but you never quite know what you are dealing with. Working alongside the police, social services, the schools, and local authorities they can be effective. To contract your entire welfare policy to them, without proper vetting or oversight, is absolutely barking mad. The impact on deprived communities will be patchy and minimal and the waste of state money will be serious.

So with their voluntary approach to social policy shaken to its foundations, the Tories have reverted to type. We are now back to hectoring the poor for being poor. Public policy ideas have a habit of coming back around every decade or so. In the Tory universe, you can watch the policy cycle on fast forward, ideas swing back around every few months. The only conclusion has to be that they haven't really decided who they are and what they are for. Whatever it ends up being, this vacillation will in no sense claim for them the mantle of the 'party of social justice' no matter how many times they assert it.

Post script: The Spectator launches a predictable attack on The Mirror's predictable attack (as the arguments are roughly similar, I guess that makes my attack predictable as well. Everyone's predictable just like the English Summer!)

Climate change- the issue of our time

96% of respondents disagreed with the statement, "my home energy bill needs to rise to help combat climate change," in a Yougov poll reported in The Independent today. The same piece reports an Ernst and Young estimate that bills will have to rise by an average £213 to meet the Government's targets (though, given that it's bad news, the E&Y report says 'the EU's'- that's just the formula I'm afraid.)

There is no further political advantage to be gained from being green for either of the two main parties. Green politics played a central role in the de-toxification and re-brand of Cameron's Conservatives. It wasn't the issues in and of themselves. It was that they served a semiotic function. This was a new party that could talk about new politics- specifically the environment- in a refreshing way. Job done. No further advantage to be had.

Similarly, the Government's renewable energy policy announced last week will not secure it political advantage. It simply neutralises the Tory surge in this area. It is the right policy and it has rightly received a positive reaction in the liberal press. That's it. No further advantage to be had.

It is ultimately going to be one or both of these parties that has to confront that 96% figure. So why try to grab minuscule political gains in this area when there is bigger prize on offer? What is the bigger prize? Doing the right thing. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition need to say in clear terms, perhaps on the same platform (gosh, aren't we grown up!):

"Climate change is deadly serious, we know that you are hurting from increased energy prices, we have different ideas about how to make it easier for you, but let's be clear, we are stood in absolute unity on this, we have a stark choice that is no-one's fault, it's just that the earth's resources can't keep pace with the current rate of economic expansion. That choice is to make the adjustment now and see energy prices increase, or don't and they will rise anyway to unimaginably high levels AND we will continue to trash the environment which will lead to millions of deaths, disease, starvation, who knows what it will do to our climate, and will lead to wars and untold human suffering. That's the choice, we all need to do our bit. There are some things that are beyond politics and this is one of them. It's not all bad though. If we make the adjustment we'll create lots of jobs in green technologies and that will make us a more prosperous nation. We stand united on this issue. Thank you."

This may all seem crazy but that 96% figure is terrifying. It can only be confronted on the basis of a genuine, cross-party, political consensus. Unless we enter into a proper national dialogue politicians of all different colours will have to bear the periodic and volatile consequences. The need for national and international consensus has scarcely been more important than it is on this issue. Climate change is the issue of our time.

Love in the fight against crime

If Danny Kruger is an intellectual driving force behind Cameronism, things could get quite interesting. As the author of Cameron's notorious 'hug-a-hoodie' speech, Kruger has put his money where his mouth is and now works with his wife in a charity that rehabilitates offenders using the performing arts to engage them. The charity is called Only Connect and its work sounds inspiring and successful.

In an article in this week's Spectator, Kruger stands by his 'a little love' argument and actually develops it further. Perhaps 'love' was the wrong way to describe it and trivialised the broader point that we shouldn't pursue only punitive measures against young people who are finding themselves in educational, personal, or legal difficulty. Perhaps if he had called for 'more personal care and attention' it might have got a fairer hearing. His expansion of the argument in The Spectator gives us a better insight into where he is coming from.

He criticises, rightly, the middle class who are happy to provide the market for drugs locking the less fortunate in this illicit and illegal trade. He argues that we should not condemn a whole generation of the disenfranchised young to large scale state institutions, whether they be prisons or impersonal inner city comprehensives. Overall, he argues that we somehow have to wean the powerless off the welfare and drug dependency that imprisons them. We do not do this by punishing them (which they are almost happy to see as a legitimisation of their active failure) but by engaging them.

It's an interesting and powerful argument. It is also an idea that could create a new climate in British politics on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. We can not simply allow whole groups of young people to remain on the outside of society. For our sake sure. More importantly, for their sakes as well.

Cameron Conservatives?

A poll released by Conservative Home about the political attitudes of Conservative party candidates demonstrates the unfinished nature of the Cameron revolution. It is quite clear that there has been a process of creeping Cameronisation but it seems less than wholehearted. This poll is important because, should the Conservative party make large gains at the next election, this cadre of candidates will be MPs in the next Parliament.

How would you describe them? It's a bit of a mixed and sometimes contradictory bag. On issues of family, they are socially conservative: strongly support lowering of the abortion limit, support the tax system recognising marriage, and support the right of Catholic abortion agencies to refuse same-sex partners (this last one was based on a slightly smaller sample.) On issues of security and justice, they face a number of ways: oppose capital punishment even in the case of the murder of a police officer and strongly oppose the extension of the pre-charge detention limit. In all of this, there is nothing that fundamental differentiates them from Cameron is positioned.

Interestingly though, they care much more about terrorism than the environment.

This last point demonstrates the one area where Cameronism has not caught the imagination of his party, even amongst those who want to represent it in Parliament. On the environment the candidates would refuse to tax cars and airlines more even if it means reducing taxes on lower income families.

When you see that 85% of the candidates believe that the party should become the champion of the lower-paid worker by reducing their tax bill, you have to take it with a slight pinch of salt. They would not be willing to do that on the basis of an increase in taxes on cars and airlines. So is this concern for the least well-off just political positioning rather than deeply held conviction?

If I was David Cameron looking at these results, I would be quite concerned actually. My message is clearly getting across and my candidates seem to be going along with it. However, the conviction seems in many critical areas- the environment, welfare- to have a very soft under-belly. When the going gets tough, as it inevitably will, I will face some difficulty here and the welfare/ environmental aspects of my agenda, i.e. the stuff that has returned me to the mainstream, is going to be difficult to sustain. Oh, and that David Davis seems to have struck a cord as well.

To refrain a Labour mantra of a few years ago, a lot done, Mr Cameron, a lot to do.

Mr Cameron, are EU for real?

Today's Prime Minister's Question Time was one of Gordon Brown's strongest performances and one of David Cameron's weakest, if not his weakest to date. It is clear that David Cameron has got himself into a complete mess over his European policy- a mess that is difficult to see getting anything other than worse. The clip is below:



The major weakness in David Cameron's position, populist Europe-baiting to one side, is that on so many issues it is impossible to devise effective solutions without genuine and enforceable EU cooperation and commitment. On climate change, crime prevention, justice, counter-terrorism, jobs, investment, and growth, as well as migration, equality, and quality of life, it is hard to imagine truly effective domestic policies without the binding strength of an effective European Union. These issues are all things David Cameron claims to care about. Yet his European policy has been a calamity from the moment he put his name forward for the leadership of the Conservative party.

As Patrick Hennessy argues in his Telegraph blog today, David Cameron's approach to Europe and his pandering to the euro-sceptic wing of his party demonstrates that his modernisation project falls woefully short.

In the Tory leadership campaign, David Davis had the courage to stand up to the euro-loonies by refusing to countenance severing the party's ties with the moderate European People's Party. David Cameron showed no such conviction or good political sense and capitulated.

On this area more than any other, we are getting a glimpse of what a Cameron Prime Ministership could be like: ineffective, vacillating, unprincipled, doused in gesture, and doomed to collapse under the weight of its own rhetoric. His inability to properly address the European issue highlights the shallowness of the entire enterprise. It is modernisation without purpose and that will ultimately harm the nation's interests. The stakes are rising.

David Davis- he's got balls and they are in the air.

Politics is patient game, incremental in many ways, painstaking, about subtle positioning and differentiation. Just occasionally, someone takes a chance, tries to change the game, takes a gamble. Wise old heads shake and sometimes tut, the media has to try to decide whether to give the gambler a line or let them go over the top alone, supporters have to decide whether to go with it or turn their backs.

We'll see what happens in the case of David Davis. I suspect, judging from the initial reaction, he is going to fall flat on his face. The Labour party may not even field a candidate. Deprived of oxygen, David Davis's political career could just quietly expire.

The Telegraph is even sceptical. Adam Boulton is saying that the pressure has just been taken off Gordon Brown and now the focus is on the Tories. If that is the case and the Tories can not withstand the pressure, this could be the most spectacular political gamble in living memory.

David Cameron must feel very frustrated that David Davis is gambling with his chips as well. Game on.

Tories and the Voluntary sector

David Cameron has a habit of praising the voluntary sector in order to undermine state provision. His proposals today to promote the delivery of public services by the voluntary sector are very interesting indeed. Labour's welfare reform proposals move in that direction also.

There are a number of dangers the Tories should be aware of. Most particularly, state-commissioned services are still state services. There will have to be monitoring, contracts, conditions, even where front-line delivery is contracted out. So even if Age Concern run care homes, Barnado's run social services, or Eton runs state schools, and I'm not dismissing any of this at all (OK, maybe I'd dismiss the idea of Eton running state schools....) there will have to state direction as well as democratic accountability.

The worry for charities themselves, and some international aid agencies have experienced this, is that they become an extended arm of the state. Donations collapse (people pay their taxes, why should they pay twice? Also, what incentive is there to fundraise when you can meet all your resource requirements and make a healthy surplus from state cash?) The voluntary sector could well lose its distinctive character and ethos. That doesn't matter to the private sector as long as they make a buck. But it should be a concern for charities.

So more voluntary agency provision sounds like a nice idea and it is certainly worth pursuing but the Tories evade a lot of the tough questions about how it would work in practice. Low accountability and high risk or high accountability and lower risk?

The British Obama?

Fraser Nelson is a very talented commentator. I don't think that this line, good though it is as a journalistic construction, will be seen as his finest hour:

"Cameron has plenty heavyweight ideas, he just needs a good slogan. Obama has the reverse problem."

Hmmm. Let's compare. Here is the Conservatives' policy page:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.opportunity.page

Three pages, three basic areas, not many actual policies and certainly very few costed policies.

Now compare Barack Obama's policy-rich agenda:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

There is no comparison. Just take one critical area, both America and Britain are both facing difficult economic times. Barack Obama's economic plan (notice the link), whatever you may think of its merits, is clearly something that is thought through and actionable. The Tories' economic plan (notice the absence of a link)? Do they have one apart from the usual platitudes? It's certainly not any of the 'policies' listed on their website.

It's interesting watching the US elections- the early attacks on Obama for lacking substance have completely disappeared from the terrain. Experience is now the dividing line. Clearly the collective conclusion of media commentators, political opponents and friends alike is that Obama is a candidate of substance.

The off-the-mark attacks on Obama's lack of substance of a few months ago still ricochet around the UK political landscape. It's time that the bullet hit the ground- how on earth could anyone get through the most gruelling political process in the world without having solid and defensible policies? It just doesn't make sense.

The suggestion that David Cameron has the substance where Barack Obama just has rhetoric is just a tad fanciful. OK, it's utterly ridiculous. David Cameron's challenge is to find the slogan AND the heavyweight ideas. We'll wait with bated breath.

The missing link

I re-read the article in Prospect by Danny Kruger, one of David Cameron's court that was referred to by Jon Cruddas in his speech on Tuesday night. I have to say it was a brilliantly constructed piece, intellectually dense, but nonetheless felt a bit contrived when it moved from the theory to practice. Was David Cameron's attack on supermarkets really an example of 'fraternalism' in action or did it just make a good headline at the time?

Having said that, it is clear that a substantial amount of intellectual work is being done on the right of British politics in a similar way to the 'Third Way' and 'communitarian' debates that influenced New Labour thinking in the 1990s. In fact, Kruger takes Giddens' 'Third Way' as much of his reference point for the construction of a modern conservatism.

In a nutshell (with a lot of texture removed....) Kruger argues that both the left and right of British politics have been trying to free themselves from their historical positions in politics- the left grounded in 'equality' and the right 'liberty.' Modern conservatism is based on a liberty-loving fraternity. He defines 'fraternity' quite eloquently as the 'sphere of some.' It is about small groups, cooperatives, communities, families, and so on. In other words, it is the spontaneity of civil society that provides security and prosperity. Kruger doesn't mention Burke's 'little platoons' but he could well have done. Essentially, small is beautiful but this is not the same as Conservatives pursuing an individualist 'society' (if there is such a thing in the neo-liberal creed.) It is easy to see why the Conservatives have courted the voluntary sector so effectively.

Essentially, what Kruger is attempting to do is glue the incoherence of conservatism that has been at the root of its crisis. Thatcherism has also been described as 'liberal conservatism.' It is good term because it demonstrates the crisis quite clearly: liberalism is chaotic, radical, subversive whereas conservatism is about stability, continuity, and certainty. Thatcherism unleashed market forces and in so doing tore apart the very type of society that conservatives hold dear. That societal damage was the source of new Labour's intellectual and political opportunity.

So does fraternalism provide the glue? Is it the missing link between liberalism and conservatism? Well, let's just take what David Cameron has been saying about poverty. He wants to combat poverty but asserts that the old statist solutions have failed. So in a new alliance with the voluntary sector mixed with some conservative tax allowances to promote marriage, hard-core poverty will be tackled. But the problem with this analysis is that a lot rests on the ability of the voluntary sector to meet these expectations. The work of the voluntary sector is critical but its weaknesses are obvious: capacity, comprehensive coverage, and variable performance. I'm not saying that the state doesn't have some of these weaknesses also but there is a danger of relying too much on the voluntary sector to achieve enormous social policy goals.

Perhaps the Conservatives are aware of this? Perhaps that is why they have lowered the bar on the definition of poverty from 60% of median adult earnings to 40%?

So the critique of the new conservatism can't be that it's just superficial or it's not real. It is. The better criticism, and this was a line pursued by James Purnell on Tuesday, is that it is wistful and ultimately won't achieve the aims it sets for itself. It can't deliver in other words. To make that argument effectively, Labour has a great deal of thinking to do itself.

Some of the mist clears?

There's quite a bit of 'down and out' analysis this morning and there will be more of it over the weekend I'm sure. Martin Kettle and Matthew Parris both come to an apocalyptic conclusion.

John Curtice in The Independent offers a more sanguine view. It's not over yet but boy does Labour have a job of work to do. My only quibble with his analysis is that he takes the economy as perhaps the overriding and predominant factor in voting motivation to the exclusion of almost everything else. There are broader factors at play here that Labour has to address.

One final analysis on the optimistic side by Hopi Sen is worth a read. Valiant and swash-buckling, Custer had nothing on Hopi. Cheered me up immensely. On one point in particular, I absolutely agree with Hopi- organisation is critical. In Rugby we were hit by the same factors as elsewhere (and yes the 10p tax abolition was an issue with white, working class voters in particular and, yes, many of them did vote Tory) but we didn't lose a seat as a result of some pretty keen targeting. That sort of targeting won't enable us to win back the Council but it keeps the Labour Group in tact and ready for better times. It was the equivalent of a defensive 0-0 away in the Champions League. But that is what was needed.

Local election aftermath

So the blood-letting begins. And already it has got off to a false start (and Mayoral results haven't been announced yet.) It has been characterised as the Progress line (don't forget the southern, middle-class) versus the Compass line (it's the core vote, stupid.) The reality is that if you read the Progress and Compass responses to last night's appalling results, they are basically arguing a similar and rather superficial point. Apparently, we have to assemble a winning coalition to win. Get it?

As Neal Lawson of Compass concedes, Labour has the to retain the support of both the working-class and middle-classes. The genius of Blairism is that it unified the interests of both. Now I don't see how a political strategy that achieved a majority of 64 in some the most trying of circumstances just three years ago can be described as 'dead' as Neal declares in his piece. My experience on the door-step yesterday is that Labour is hemorrhaging support from both the middle classes and the (white) working class. More worryingly than Neal Lawson suggests, the white, working class was often jumping straight to the Tories. The BNP were a fleeting concern and they have flatlined in this election with some local exceptions but it is the Tories who pose the major threat to Labour's core vote now.

Politics moves on and the priorities of the last ten years are not necessarily the same priorities of the next ten years. There is no doubt the Government has reached an impasse and only a new appeal will induce a recovery. This appeal can not be about sprinkling goodies on this group and that group as a desire to secure their allegiance. Instead Brown needs a clear vision, consistently and clearly communicated, and backed up by a political sensitivity.

What is that vision? Nothing I have heard so far is in any way convincing- 'big challenges', 'on your side', 'unlocking talents', it all sounds hackneyed and wan. We know we have to build a winning coalition. But how?

Brown's choice: re-erecting the tent v the strategic strike

Labour is poised for a period of internal reflection no matter what the results are like tomorrow. You can speculate endlessly about what the outcome will be but in low turnout elections (and with rain on the day turnout could be affected further- the forecast for Rugby where I am campaigning is here.) The reality is that a great deal depends on local factors such as the effectiveness of local organisation when you are looking at turnouts in the low 20s. That is difficult to judge in advance. So I'm not going to make a prediction other than to say that the London count will be very exciting indeed.

So there will be a weekend of hysterical reaction when actually the results mean very little from a national perspective. Next week, a fierce internal debate about how Labour should begin its recovery will swing into action. Tuesday sees a Compass 'what now?' event and it's the Fabian's turn on Thursday with a talk on Labour's appeal in the south by the thoughtful John Denham MP.

Jonathan Freedland clearly defines the terms of the debate. The Compass approach of 'recovering the lost Labour vote' of public sector workers, ethnic minorities, "urban intellectuals" and the traditional working class versus the strategic strike approach of targeting a small number of swing voters in a small number of constituencies. Freedland describes this as the approach of the centre-left Progress Group.

This strategic discussion is all very well but in practice what will it mean? Instinctively I tend towards the broad Compass approach but until we see what it means in black and white it is difficult to conclude that they have the answers. We will see over the coming weeks.

Nothing I have heard yet is a convincing platform for halting Cameron's march onto Labour ground. Some of that can be undone tactically- i.e. undermining the credibility of Cameron by challenging the substance or effectiveness of what he is saying on the NHS, the environment or poverty. But there needs to be something broader also.

I will cover the debate as it evolves over coming weeks as this is a key moment for the Labour Government. These debates will be critical in determining the outcome of the next election. Just one comment is worth making at the outset. The Government is going to have to get itself in a position where it is assessing the politics of its decisions not just the administrative merit. This is where it went wrong over the 10p tax issue. This is not government by focus group but it is a more sensitive form of government. If it gets the politics wrong then the strategic discussion becomes an irrelevance. Instead, Brown's administration will simply be playing back-foot politics. The damage will be limited but victory will be denied.

Labour ignores Tory poverty drive at its peril

I am a 'guest author' on The Independent's website today on the latest Tory march onto Labour territory.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/04/anthony-painter.html

Beware the cunning of this quiet man

My latest article in Tribune is available here:



Good to hear thoughts and reaction.

David Cameron- 'cycling menace'

The Daily Mirror tailed David Cameron on Wednesday and caught him violating four road laws on his cycle ride to the House of Commons. Red lights ignored, one-way streets transgressed, bollard flows flouted, the Leader of the Opposition, a 'cycling menace', according to the Mirror, is hanging his head in shame.

Actually, only four traffic violations on route shows him to be a relatively responsible cyclist. Compared to the standards set by most cyclists anyway. On the same route I reckon your average London cyclist breaks a dozen or so. London is slowly being adapted for cyclists without any real thought about the consequences for pedestrians, public transport users, or cyclists themselves. Cyclists don't have to know the Highway Code, they don't have to pass any sort of safety or proficiency test, they don't have to take out insurance, there is no real enforcement of road safety laws when it comes to cyclists. So it's a bit of a ridiculous (and dangerous) situation really.

It is impossible to walk from my place in Hackney to London Fields station without walking on a cycle lane or taking a detour. From time to time, I'm barked at by a cyclist on the way (yes, despite the fact that they have no training, London cyclists tend to be very vocal), only to be nearly mowed down by a cyclist bombing down the pedestrian lanes in the Fields. How many times have you been on a bus crammed with 100 people or so crawling behind a single cyclist going at about 3mph?

All the Mayoral candidates want to expand provision for cyclists in London. Can I suggest that they properly think through the consequences for all Londoners before they do so? In the dash to look green and appease a vocal pressure group, nobody has given this issue proper strategic consideration.

A friend once described cyclists as smug, self-satisfied, narcissists. I thought that was very harsh even if their number does include the Leader of the Opposition and Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayoral candidate. But a bit more consideration of the consequences of turning London into a cyclist's post-industrial nirvana wouldn't go amiss.

Post script: Why don't I cycle? Have you seen the way I drive? If there are others on the road who are that bad then it is just not safe at all. And have you seen how silly those helmets look? No, thank you.

Post script 2: You can WATCH David Cameron's traffic violations here! God bless the Daily Mirror.

Army Cadets

I was fascinated to see that the Tories are considering a proposal to introduce the army cadets into every secondary school as reported by the Evening Standard tonight. You can take the boy out of Eton, but you can't take Eton out of the boy.....

Now I don't know what others' experience was of the Combined Cadet Force (as it was called in my day) but I remember feeling faintly ridiculous marching around the school playground for no apparent reason. I went once. Then played football instead for the rest of the year. That's not quite true. I went one more time because we were going to get to fire a machine gun (c'mon- that IS fun) but ended up being thrown in a river. That was it- back to football and hiding from detention.

Anyway, good one Team Cameron. Can't wait to see the reaction if the idea goes any further. What else? Dunkings for failing exams? Bring back fagging? School song and recantation of the Latin motto every morning?

POST SCRIPT: Nick Clegg was atrocious on Newsnight tonight- stroppy, incoherent, flustered. I am told by people who have known him for years that he does have talent. Surely he could have picked a policy area where his party isn't so ridiculously divided and tactically perverse for the first public demonstration of his leadership abilities?

POST SCRIPT II: Arsenal were absolutely fantastic tonight. Hats off to them. Manchester United were mediocre and still don't look the part in Europe.

Tories and the NHS

At 7.42am this morning just as I was spitting out my Sultana Bran in complete surprise, somewhere in Mannings Heath, Norman Tebbit was spitting out his cereal in absolute horror (an aside: what do you suppose Norman has for breakfast? Iron filings in Castrol GTX?).

Andrew Lansley, Shadow Health Secretary, has committed the Tories to increase health expenditure somewhere in the region of £30 billion! Fine. Maybe. But I just don't see how they can. They want to 'share the proceeds of growth', i.e. constrain public expenditure to a level less than the growth rate and use the remainder to fund tax cuts. To increase health expenditure by around 2% of GDP there would have to year on year increases greater than the growth rate to get there.

So what gives? Well, a Tory Government wouldn't be able to reduce expenditure on defence or law enforcement- there would be blue rinse flowing into the Thames Estuary before they could. Social security is sensitive to the economy and we are now into the base expenditure that is really hard to cut without leaving many people in penury. They could get rid of tax credits but that would hit families really hard. Education? Transport? All the big line items are pretty tough to significantly cut. Will they borrow more to spend locking in unsustainable debt?

No something will have to give: either economic competence, tax cuts, or expenditure pledges. Whichever one it is, they are going to look pretty incompetent. Which one it is will say a lot about where the Tories' real heart is. Norman Tebbit is probably chewing on scrap metal in anger as we speak.

No Barack Obama

It was only a matter of time before the Obama wave hit these shores. It was inevitable that it would be David Cameron that would go for it first. See below for a familiar anti-establishment/ change message:

David Cameron's first attempt to be Barack Obama

Incidentally, linked with this initiative is the 'opportunity' to sign up to be a friend of the Conservatives (for as little as a £1!) It's a great idea. From now on, I am going to charge people to be my friend too. The basic fee will be £10 with a 50% discount for under-25s, UB40 and OAPs. I know it's more than Dave's charging but most (OK, some...) of your friends will still talk to you if you are a Friend of Painter and they probably won't if you're a Friend of Dave. If you want to pay more you can. Fees will be reviewed on an annual basis. Please do not request special treatment- as Dave says 'you can get it if you really want it.'