Bacon sandwiches and 50p tax at Cameron's presser
Fraser Nelson 1:56pm
There were cold bacon sandwiches on offer at Cameron’s press conference this morning, arranged for 9.15am to get it in before Gordon Brown’s presser with the Iraqi PM (no shoes thrown at Brown), and to time it with the passing of the Coldstream Guards band playing outside. Well, the latter was perhaps a coincidence. But it did make it all seem like one of those IDS-era party conferences where they had Nimrod playing in the background. Anyway, my highlights:
1) SPENDING "We’ve said for some time ‘you’re spending too much in 2009, you’re spending too much in 2010’." It’s hilarious hearing Cameron claim to have been some kind of prophet in the wilderness, wailing about cuts. In Cheltenham, he made it sound all historic: “We said they should reduce their spending plans back in 2008.” Way back in 2008, eh? What he really meant was “mid-November”. That, of course, sounds a lot less impressive. I’m sure part of Cameron does want to take risks. But I suspect his instinct kicks in, saying “we lost three elections by arguing outside the mainstream.”
2) WILL TORY MPs HAVE TO QUIT WHEN EXPENSES ARE MADE PUBLIC? “I hear the same stories that you do. Whether they turn out to be true, we’ll have to see.” Interesting that Cameron makes no attempt to deny that several of his MPs could have been caught out when expenses are released. He was asked about by-elections, and all sorts. He said he has no info (I wonder if the Tory whips do) but it’s a reminder that, come June, several chaps in blue rosettes will be in the dock with a lot worse than 88p bathplugs.
3) BEING HATED “Q: What does it mean for you that it’s no more cuddly Cameron, it’s going to have to be nasty Cameron.” A: “I think there’s a third way.” Bless. There isn’t. It’s his job to make 7% cuts across all spending departments over three years (average 2.3% a year) – such a draconian cutback has never been done before. There are going to be teachers marching down Whitehall burning effigies dressed in Bullingdon garb. I sympathise: it’s a horrible thought. But Cameron should steel himself for it. There’s no such thing as a popular hatchet man.
4) HEALTH SPENDING “The commitment for the NHS is very specific. The idea that you can have anything less than a real terms increase is not realistic.” Thought: what dirt does Lansley have on Cameron? What dirt does the NHS Confederation have on both of them? The NHS has had the most money spent on it, with the least results. It stands to reason that its budget could be cut, with the last pain. If health is protected, then all other departments will have to suffer something like a 10% cut over three years, averaging around 3.2% a year.
5) REFORM “If you’re going to get public spending under control, you’ve got to reform the unreformed public services.” I precisely agree. Which is why the ‘no reform’ approach to the NHS needs revisiting. As does the ‘no cuts’ pledge.
6) WELFARE “Sorting out that welfarism has got to be a key part of not just getting the budget under control but sorting out the broken society, because a life spent on the sofa is no life at all” I quite agree – but he should be careful on the first point. Welfare reform is highly unlikely to get the DWP budget under control – done properly, it costs. You’re saving souls, not cash. Even the Wisconsin model didn’t lead to much of a sav
ing, at least in the first few years, as you have to assess the “sick” properly, etc. 7) SWINE FLU “This is an issue where politicians should be working together”. I disagree. There is no practical basis, it’s not as if we’re sending a divided message to a foreign enemy. The Tory role is to scrutinise the government’s programme and hound them for every failing. Cameron is sometimes a little too quick to consensus, as he was on the banking bailouts. In wartime, unity has its points. But there is a reason that Churchill refused to rebuild the bombed Commons chamber in any other way: he wanted a fiercely adversarial system. Works for me.
8) INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT “On overseas aid, this issue has been plucked out of politics and all parties support it.” Only because the Tories caved into the agenda of the NGO lobby to devote 0.7% GDP spent on international aid. I’m against this, for four reasons. It saps people’s willingness to give direct to charity if they think their tax claim contains a component of charity (by 2013 it will be an average of £400 a taxpayer). Also because the 0.7% of GDP target is what the state donates - you should look at what the people of a country give. Should it really be the state’s role to forcibly collect charitable donations through the tax system? Thirdly, government does aid very badly, shipping £millions to places like China, whose millionaires are keeping our Rolls Royce factories going. Finally, too much money is intercepted by the sprawling, high-cost NGOs who ensure that much of it remains in London.
9) WILL THE 50p TAX RAISE ANY REVENUE? “I have looked at the reports that mention it is a very difficult calculation and where we are on the Laffer curve. I’m pretty convinced it will raise a lot less than the government tell us. It is difficult to be certain that it will raise less money. It is difficult to base plans on that.” This is vague, and that suits me – because the 50p tax could cost Cameron billions. I hope he doesn’t box himself into a commitment to keep it. And he shouldn’t use words like Laffer – while accurate shorthand, it makes it sound like some obscure 1970s theory. The idea that 'high tax rates = lower tax yields' is basic common sense, which can be traced it back to the book of Deuteronomy if you want to go back far enough.
10) WORKING WITH NICK CLEGG “I thought yesterday [the Gurkha deal] was just a good example of being constructive and building a trust that we can work together”. It’s easy to forget how the prospect of a LibDem coalition haunted Blair even when he was 40 points ahead in the polls. It’s evidently haunting Cameron too. A major question facing the Tories right now is whether they go for a large majority (ie, safety first and tax the rich), or a large mandate (ie, hard truths and agenda for change). The prospect of Clegg in the Cabinet is always enough to make the Tories err on the side of caution.
Previous
Simon
April 30th, 2009 2:20pm Report this commentLarge mandate or large majority! If Dave listened to you we would be looking forward to another 4 year of Brown.
johnny come lately
April 30th, 2009 2:26pm Report this commentSo. The Blair Tribute Act Continues. Same Songs! For goodness sake will this man EVER come out and say something constructive.
Just what is his policy on the EU. We could save a massive amount of money each week from that undemocratic quango!
Just what is his policy on defence? Is he for or against our nuclear arms?
Just what is his policy on law and order? What is his plan for the police?
Just what is his policy on ANYTHING as he got one?
Will he sack those conservative MP's who have milked the expenses?
What does he believe in?
Will he tell us if he is Common Purpose trained?
What leadership courses has he been on? Can he give me two examples of his leadership qualities?
Has he ever shopped in £Shopper?
I cannot believe the British public going to sleep walk into another Blair like government.
"FINGS ARE GOIN TO GET BETTER"...err, really?
strapworld
April 30th, 2009 2:29pm Report this commentMr Nelson, what I read from your report is that in a David Cameron Government. SPIN and half truths will be the order of the day!
Has he learnt nothing from the past few months?
I am seriously worried.
JM G
April 30th, 2009 2:37pm Report this commentIt seems that Frazer essentially wants Cameron to say "yes I will cut, cut and cut some more to stop the debt" but with a government spin machine ready built to attack and weakness he cannot say that.
When has honesty ever worked against New Labour?
WIlliam Blakes Ghost
April 30th, 2009 2:56pm Report this commentWhat's up Fraser do you prefer your bacon butties hot?
I'm afraid your analysis here is too cynical as have some of your other articles recently.
Go back to finding those economic graphs they are far more informative......
Rush-is-Right
April 30th, 2009 3:01pm Report this commentThis International Development nonsense really takes the biscuit.
On what moral authority do politicians borrow money that our children are going to have to repay, and then hand it overseas?
This is borrowed money. It's not even tax revenue. Staggeringly immoral. Outrageous.
Wight Tory
April 30th, 2009 3:03pm Report this commentIt’s his job to make 7% cuts across all spending departments over three years (average 2.3% a year) – such a draconian cutback has never been done before
7% isn't an average of 2.3% per year, its 7% for 3 years. In simple terms. Are you saying?
100-2.3%= 97.7+100-2.3%=193.15+100-2.3%=286.41
or 300-7%=279
They aren't the same, a 7% cut per year requires a 7% cut per month,week,day and hour.
Or is this a political 7% if so, is it a NuLiebour 7%...
Publius
April 30th, 2009 3:19pm Report this commentLess is more. Why say more?
Verity
April 30th, 2009 3:21pm Report this commentStrapworld - Agreed. Blair Mark II.
teledu
April 30th, 2009 3:26pm Report this commentSeems like the EU / referendum issue figured as high as usual with DC. Perhaps only a massive UKIP vote in June may get the EU-scepticism of the public across to him.
Hawkeye
April 30th, 2009 3:36pm Report this comment@William Blakes Ghost - Bacon butties should always be served hot. Having said that my sausage & bacon butty (with HP sauce!!) so too hot and I've got a blister on the roof of my mouth now. Still - it was a yummy butty.
Hmmm... better make a political comment.....
I still think that the biggest danger for Cameron is to spell out a cuts and tax reduction agenda in too much detail this far from April 2010. He needs to keep reinforcing his poll positions and consolidate that 20% lead and ensure that Brown stays in charge up to the election.
That last bit is very important. We need Brown to self-destruct the Labour party and go straight into an election.
Joseph
April 30th, 2009 3:43pm Report this commentNothing on Cameron not ruling out cutting the trident programme when his government looks at 'overall spending'? I was quite surprised by this as I know the majority within the party tend to be pro-nuclear. Personally though, I wouldn't care if we didn't replace the laughably 'independent' nuclear deterrent. I'd rather see the trident programme cut than have tax rises to pay for the black hole in public finances.
Matt
April 30th, 2009 4:14pm Report this commentTeledu- quite happy to be proved wrong and as such am placing myself here as a hostage to fortune but,
in the event that there isn't a massive UKIP vote in June,
what will your response be?
And will that prove that your personal hobby horse is just that?
George Laird
April 30th, 2009 4:26pm Report this commentDear All
Well done PR tactics should seem flawless.
"There were cold bacon sandwiches on offer at Cameron’s press conference this morning".
What fool thought cold bacon sandwiches was a good idea?
If you are going to the trouble to offer food, do it right or don't do it all.
Very tardy, the kind of Bullingdon boy stunt I would expect from the Cameron machine.
'Let them eat cold cake'.
This is on a par with that daft EU poster, small things matter!
Another example of lack of attention to detail from the New Labour MK2.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Harry
April 30th, 2009 4:32pm Report this commentFantastic post Frazer. It is one hell of a task but a major opportunity if grasped with both hands.
www.indhome.com
TGF UKIP
April 30th, 2009 7:49pm Report this commentWell there you have it Coffee Housers. If any of you were in any doubt over what you might be getting yourself into, it's all there in Fraser's point 3) above - Cameron answer; "I think there's a third way." Truly, truly, truly he really is The Heir.
Then if you still have doubts, on to Fraser's point 8) (I'm ignoring all the other ammo in between) and we get to the ringfencing of International Development. Now while Fraser does a commendably objective job on Dave's stance here, I would add two other observations. Firstly, there were originally only three areas of expenditure ring fenced by Dave, Health, Education and I.D. Then, following a bit of a furore on sites like this, defence was (questionably) later added sotto voce, and indeed the ring fencing of defence expenditure under the Tories remains open to question today (please verify next time, Fraser.)
Secondly, putting the state in place of charitable private donations to the overseas needy is quintesstial Social Democratic politics. Indeed, Oxfam and the rest of the leftist NGO gang make much of the US devoting less than .7 GDp to overseas aid. They choose to ignore how much Americans give individually - the discrepancy between US and British/European overall charitable giving is truly shocking (perhaps someone more internet familiar than I would like to produce the actual figures.)
Overall the above is an excellent expose of what Cameron really is, but even then I think you are letting him off very lightly, Fraser. Remember it was not just last November when he was "still at it" on the touchstone issue of spending. On Marr in mid January he was still promising that whereas Gordon's spending for this year was budgeted to increase to £650bn Dave would increase to only £645bn! Indeed, in the same interview, he roundly rejected the contention that a Cameron government would set about reducing public expenditure and cutting taxes.
Anyone hoping they will get a conservative government by voting for the Cameron Tories, truly is in a fool's paradise.
Oscar
April 30th, 2009 8:46pm Report this commentWhat a mean spirited post Fraser. You don't deserve bacon sarnies - hot or cold.
TGF UKIP
April 30th, 2009 10:40pm Report this commentNow 10.32 pm and last post on this very provocative piece timed at 4.32 pm.
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that there have been no comments in the past 6 hours especially as I made one myself earlier tonight.
What on earth is the point of Coffee Housers going to the trouble of making comments if either they don't appear at all or do so many hours later.
Either sort yourselves out Speccie or spend some brass on a functioning blogsite.
wonderfulforhisage
May 1st, 2009 12:02pm Report this commentCold bacon sandwiches, that the equivalent of wearing a dinner jacket with an open necked shirt.
What a bounder the chap is.
Publius
May 1st, 2009 1:11pm Report this commentMy Speccie arrived today, with its vulgar headline, "Greed is still good" and complete with a drawing of the kind of thick, ungrounded, red-braces oik that has got us into this mess. (Yes, I know it comes from the film, but it's still depressing.)
I hope this is merely intended to be provocative, and perhaps ironical. After all, one can support lower taxation without recourse to the crass notion that greed is good. And there is an older conservatism that sees these loud-mouth conspicuous-consumption City-oiks for what they are.
And on another matter, Mr Hoskin, I for one would much rather that you were able to go out and enjoy some quality time away from your Blackberry and away from the goddam noise, than have to spend all your waking hours responding to verbiage on the net. I mean, how else will you retain your perspective and proportion? It is the intelligence and humanity of The Spectator that makes it worth reading. If you lose that, you lose your point.
TGF UKIP
May 1st, 2009 5:15pm Report this commentPublius, as the complainant above, I am in complete agreement with your final para.
I think it is absolutely crackers that Pete's and/or James weekends or evenings are disturbed by having to collect, vet and transmit our comments.
It should be unacceptable to them and, given the spirit of amity which exists between journos and Coffee Housers, it should also be unacceptable to us that our witterings inconvenience them so much.
Given the speed with which posts appear on Guido and Dale no such pre-vetting occurs and it really is time, in the interests of the mental health of its employees, that the Coffee House changed either its format, or if necessary, its domicile, that the Speccie emulated them.
Back to top