Freud defects to the Tories

West Brom Blogger

Very welcome news indeed

Andy, London

This is excellent news. Lord Adonis would be the real coup though, I think it's doable but Adonis won't switch until the last minute. If it does happen then I'd be delighted.

Nicholas

Is he a "Tory defector" or a "Labour defector"? Not sure your use of English on this.

Verity

To the naked eye, there are no Tories in Westminster.

Francis

Surely Freud has just moved from one Blairite party to another? Isnt it David Cameron who has defected?
My suspicion is that this is more about headlines and political manoeverings than substance.
Does the Conservative party not have any one who is any use? Couldnt say Peter Lilley contribute something?
And the last thing the House of Lords needs is more parachuted in ministers of this type. If the Tories want ministers in the Lords why not make use of people like Onslows Salisbury, Lamont, Forsythe etc.

Francis

I dont like the idea of "experts" as politicians. there is something corporatist/ technocratic about it. In any case a politician should be able to make use of experts and decide what is useful and what isnt.

"The Blairites did have excellent ideas for government"
I'm not convinced by this. I dont know enough about welfare to know if they contributed any useful thinking but I doubt it. Even when they have slowly inched towards the light it has normally been mixed in with so many bad elements that it hardly can be said to be progress. For instance city academies might be some degree of progress but only because of replacing something even worse. There is soemthing wrong in their very nature, in their soul. Abandoning traditonal liberal education is wrong. As I understand it they are large, "modern" business sponsored, specialist schools. Corporatist and technocratic spring to mind here too. Its not the rigth environment to educate a child. I think they are creepy. It might be a slight improvement in some areas with vast amount of money and new buildings (socialists really believe that this is the most importnat thing) but it is not as good an idea as say vouchers, grammer schools, Gove schools,church shcools, grant maintained schools, assisted places (the last two of wich were spitefuly got rid of - something they are insuffiently criticsied for) or indeed insisting on school, uniforms and some discipline. Its not even as good as making children wear stripy caps, silly shorts and learn Latin. Gove all ready has far better ideas than any Blairite but if he wants more he should look elsewhere to the likes of Janet Daley or Melanie Philips. Reform is certainly urgent but it should be a clean break not a continuation. The implication of the idea of the "reform agenda" is that the Blairites ever contributed anything worthwhile and that reform is in itself worthwhile. They did a lot of reform but generally for the worse. The Tories must be serious and determined about reform and not lose time but the only thing they should learn from Blairism is what not do - let that unloved corpse remain in its deserved grave.

Fraser Nelson

Francis, the divide in politics (in my view) is not so much between Labour and Tory but those who believe in empowering the people v state control. That line dissects all parties - but Freud, Cameron, Blair, Gove, Adonis, Reid, Hutton, David Laws are all on the right side of it. So Freud has defected party - insofar as he was a neutral adviser to Labour but will be advising the Tories. But there has been no ideological conversion - and nor should there be for Blairite voters who go Cameron at the next election. He will offer the best bits of Blairism, plus a whole lot more.

And as for the Blairites, their "choice" agenda for public services is the future for this country.

Bob

Frankly I think they should tell him where to go.

Meet the new boss, same as the old. Which in this would be literally true.

Ann

"WHOM has been working"? What IS it with journalists and using 'whom' instead of 'who'?

I see that Verity, not even a Brit any longer, is exhibiting her seething anti-Tory venom again.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Verity

Care to define 'Tories'?

TrevorsDen

Verity and Francis - you really are desperate and pathetic.

Freud isn't a politician - thats why he's going to the Lords' thats why Adonis is in the lords. they are backroom people.

Cameron is nothing more than a traditional mainstream conservative - your desperate smears are hollow and transparent.

Perhaps there is hope for Frank Field yet.

Alfred T Mahan

TrevorsDen - if you mean by 'traditional mainstream conservative' someone in the mould of Heath, or Butskellism, committed to consensus, then there's every reason to believe Cameron will ultimately duck the issue. Don't forget the school of thought that holds that Maggie was never a true Conservative.

You can't be radical and consensual at the same time. The two are incompatible.

Sadly, the evidence so far is that you're right.

JR

Mmmm. I'd be slightly cautious if I were the Tories. Freud is not an expert. He was basically set up to report what was wanted by John Hutton and his special adviser (confusingly also called John). He duly supported an expansion of what was called the AME/DEL transfer, the flexible new deal (to be paid by results), and moving lone parents onto Jobseekers allowance.

He made several very significant errors in his report - in particular claiming there was a £6000 saving for each person moved off benefits. In fact the average is nearer £4000 and it depends a lot on what benefit the person was on and the length of time they'd been on it. Quite boring but pretty fundemental when you're dealing with policies that pay by results.

Subsequently he showed signs in conversation of not actually grasping some things he'd recommended in the report. This slight limitation was realised and Paul Gregg was brought in to provide cover for the fundemental changes to the requirements on benefit claimants (contained in the current Welfare Reform Bill).

So a good bit of politics but I doubt he will have much real impact as a welfare reform minister in a future government.

Francis

Mr Nelson, thank you for replying. The way I see it, in the kingdom of the Blind (socialism) there are a few one eyed people (Adonis et al) who have started to realise in a few circumstances the bankruptcy of socialism and the correctness of conservatism. It is right for the Tories in opposition to support things which are an improvement even if they arent perfect and they shouldnt be petty - however half right is still half wrong and there are plenty of two eyed people (Conservatives). Isnt intelligent reform what John Redwood is for?

It is hard to see why the socialists should get any credit for public sector reform - they created most of the problems and have prevented them being dealt with. Surely their main "success" is showing beyond doubt that the problem wasnt just lack of money.

It is upsetting when it is implied that the tragedy of the Blair years is what he failed to achieve as opposed to what he did. He has left the country sadder,deeply weakened in so many ways, a lot less at ease with itself and now we realise poorer too. He never had anything to offer the country.

David Short

What difference is there between 'experience' and 'genuine experience', a 'real coup' and a 'coup', 'experts' and 'genuine experts', why 'deeply encouraging' rather than 'encouraging', and how is 'genuinely radical' different from 'radical', is 'refrom' a reformed version of 'reform', do we need to say now 'banker by training' now that we know many very senior bankers had no 'training'? Did he pass banker exams?

And how do we know this 'someone with genuine expertise will be in the DWP' when his party has not been elected to government.

I note that this 'piece' was submitted five minute before closing time.

marksany

Where's Frank? Now that would impress me

Simon Stephenson

For all those who may believe from this article that David Freud is so perfect that he represents little less than the Second Coming, I'd suggest that they might bring themselves down to earth by reading Matthew Norman's welcome to the White Paper on welfare reform, of which Freud was the architect.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-it-takes-a-rich-man-to-pour-such-scorn-on-the-poor-1061132.html

London Calling

Freud is a banker by training, but don't let that put you off him? (Bad timing) I'm off Bankers..

someone with genuine expertise?

Freud admitted he had no knowledge of welfare reform but wrote a paper on it in Three weeks? simply amazing...

Meanwhile back in the real world 3 million are expected to be out of work by 2010 (probably higher) of which will be thousands of skilled workers and higher who will not appreciate confidence building classes or asked to work for their welfare when they cannot afford shoes on their feet.

We don’t need radical, we need to be prepared for the very worst and I am not confident that Freud is the man for the job Fraser, as much as you admire him.

Chris

He was on the Today programme this morning. He just sounds like an opportunist to be frank.