Jam today, jam tomorrow but never jam again

Nicholas

When Phillip Hammond spoke about tax cuts and the economy on QT it came across as meaningless waffle and was easily drowned out by the "something must be done now" consensus.

In contrast, Fraser Nelson's article in the Speccie ("Want to cut taxes? First cut spending. Here's how" 15th November) covered similar ground but with some very powerful messages about government waste, ineffective investment and the ballooning size of the state. Those messages resonate but Phillip Hammond did not use a single one of them in his response on the economy.

The lead "fiscal responsibility" is not as powerful as the lead that would demand immediate cutbacks in government waste and spending. I fully understand that it is difficult for the Conservatives to pinpoint the specific targets of cuts but where they lose ground is in not appearing to be able to craft resonant soundbites, whether true or not, that become the "change we can believe in". There are enough horror stories of government waste and scandal to craft at least one soundbite to rival the "3 million jobs" that is trumpeted at each PMQs.

The Conservative narrative, whilst perfectly legitimate, is unfortunately dry and increasingly seen as irrelevant to the here and now. It just does not resonate consistently and when articulating it it is too easy for Tory spokesmen and women to come under fire from clichéd soundbites long established in the public consciousness by the New Labour spin machine.

It's perhaps time for the Conservatives to link waste with the intrusive nanny state, their breathtaking incompetence and their many broken promises to create a single narrative, a figurative toilet seat to hang round Brown's neck, rather than tackling him separately on issues. Characterising the New Labour state as a whole would avoid Brown being able to choose the ground on which he fights best, the economy, with all the other nasty aspects of this government fading to black.

Just some examples of this would be that, in respect of hospitals, Conservatives should say that they are not going to invest in MRSA, in respect of schools that they are not going to invest in failing standards and meaningless targets, in respect of social services that they are not going to invest in abandoning children to abusive parents.

EyeSee

Expect some lies of monumental proportions.....

Prodicus

"three times the European Union’s deficit limit."

Which means joining the Euro is out for the foreseeable future. Gordon.

Every cloud, eh?

J H Holloway

This would pivot around Darling being a fundamentally honest politician and the Treasury refusing to bend to Brown's pressure on telling the truth about the future.

Left to Brown, there's no way he will be honest about the consequences of the collapse of the great consumption economy (copyright G Brown 2002-2008).

Mrs Campbell

It's jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today

TrevorsDen

"When Phillip Hammond spoke ..." you mean when he was not being interuppted by Dimbleby.
Note how he did not interrupt the drivel being spewed out by Melanie Phillips, nor allowed a rebuttal by Hammond.

This raises two questions

1 - 'Coffee Housers' completely underestimate the possibility of conservatives getting a clear hearing on say the BBC and their constant whines about 'why don't the conservatives say more etc' are ignorant piffle.

2 - just what is a numpty like Melanie Philips doing being promoted by The Spectator.
Every Spectator columnist and commentator who criticises the conservative front bench should remember that they have emblazoned all over their front page the name of a woman who last night on prime time TV praised Brown for borrowing like a man possessed in order to give meaningless tax rebates which will merely ultimately impoverish us all.
And we still get you all complaining about the Tories message !!!

Nicholas

TrevorsDen it's not about how much they say but about what they say.

I fully agree with you that Hammond was being interrupted by Dimbleby and that Melanie Phillips outburst drowned the impact of what he had to say. I also fully acknowledge the difficulties with the BBC's partisan approach but surely that is an argument for crafting the simplest most resonant soundbites? The Conservatives just don't get the opportunity for a reasoned argument.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Where will it all end? In another humiliating application to the IMF to bail us out. But this time the IMF will play hardball: no loans without a commitment to balance the books with massive spending cuts and increased taxes.

The cuts will be targeted in Tory constituencies. The taxes will be levied on private enterprise.

Come what may, the civil service and local government will continue to grow, with inflated salaries and gold-plated pensions.

The Laughing Cavalier

Darling knows he won't have to pay for it; that mess will be left to an incoming Conservative Chancellor to sort out.

Stephen Rothbart

I think Nicholas is correct. The Tories need a meaningless sound bite to counter Brown's spin machine.

The Democrats managed to get away with 'change' and in Washington, the Clintons are back. So much for change. People never learn.

The Dems then managed to blame the Bush regime for the sub-prime market debacle that they greatly contributed to, and in both cases they fooled the voters.

So the Tories must do the same if we are not be subjected to another dose of New Labour.

I agree with the Guardian's sentiment that it would be better for the Tories to do nothing and let the Prime Minister hang himself, yet to say nothing while this sleazy bunch destroy our future and the Pound, is political cowardice.

Having principles in politics is usually a bad idea, but even though the voters in a recession usually veer left, the Tories have to try to point out the alternatives. But not with convoluted discourse, but a real catchy soundbite, like they did with 'Labour is not working' all those years ago.

I suggest 'Brown is going for broke, and he is taking us all with him!'