Osborne's milestone article
Fraser Nelson 10:54am
George Osborne's article today is a breakthrough in the public debate about cuts. I argued in the NotW yesterday that, so far, no party is telling the whole truth because the Tories have been using phrases like "spending restraint," which is hardly commensurate with the cuts in prospect. That point is now out of date. As Osborne puts it:
"Even we - like Labour politicians - have fought shy of using the "c" word" - cuts. We've all been tip-toeing around one of those discredited Gordon Brown dividing lines for too long. The real dividing line is not 'cuts versus investment' but honesty versus dishonesty."
This is what we have been calling for here at Coffee House. Osborne goes one better: that extract I just quoted is implicit recognition that the Conservatives have been worrying for too long about what Gordon Brown might say. As Osborne says, tip-toeing around Brown's intellectual parameters has been the curse of the modernising project, repressing their bolder instincts. The error was to use Brown's rebuttals as reference points, when deciding how they should express the Tory message to the public.
Osborne's article today explicitly breaks free of this. It disavows the false parameters of debate that Brown has set for too long. It regards him, and his lies, as a squalid irrelevance. This is what an intellectually self-confident party does. As Osborne puts it:
"If you talk honestly to the public about the spending decisions that need to be taken, they will respect you and support you. It is time for the Conservatives to have that conversation with the British people."
This is, IMHO, the most significant article that Osborne has ever written. If the Tory party now adopts this strategy across the board: to speak honestly and directly to the public, ignoring the rantings of desperate and discredited Prime Minister. If they have the courage to do so, then they will find themselves after the election with not just a large majority, but a large mandate. And the latter is far more important.
P.S. THX1138 asked an important question yesterday: is there any evidence that cuts are popular with the public? This is a crucial point, because there is evidence aplenty. As the Canadian and Australian blow-ups demonstrated, the public have an acute sense of fiscal danger: national debt is not an abstract concept to them.
Westminster is (as so often) behind the rest of the country. The political cliches about cuts may resonate in the Commons chamber, but not in the country at large. Quite a few polls have found this, but I would direct CoffeeHousers to a deliberative poll commissioned by The Spectator and Politicshome into this very issue - it found that 72% support cuts. Full details here.
P.P.S. Simon Mayo is doing this subject at one on Five Live: I'll be joining the debate.
Previous
Hereward
June 15th, 2009 11:15am Report this commentAbout time. All they have to do now is promise a referendum on Lisbon and they might just get my vote. Not that they care because as as a white, rural dwelling, 40 something, just into high rate tax band (ie. cash cow), law abiding subject I don't seem to be in any party's key demographic.
Give me small government or give me death. Not very catchy I'll admit.
Ian C
June 15th, 2009 11:15am Report this commentThe timing is good. Many would say 'about time' but the realities of the political pendulum have only just become truly apparent since the 4th June elections. It is now safe for the Tories to build the true picture of what has to be done to reverse the devastating damage of this, the last Labour government.
If Purnell has the brains and the savvy you say he has Fraser he will be visiting Vince Clegg in his recovery rooms.
richard
June 15th, 2009 11:25am Report this commentCredit to you Fraser, you really are leading from the front on this one.
R
June 15th, 2009 11:27am Report this commentThis is great to see.
There is a real danger and opportunity for the Tories here: danger, because the fight is on Brown's chosen turf where he has won before; opportunity, because if Brown can be beaten in this battle then he really is lost - 'cuts vs investment' is his only political idea.
Personally, my gut instinct is that Brown is uniquely vulnerable. He has made this fight work for him in the past because he has been able to define the terms of reference and debate, and has been given an excessively sympathetic hearing by the media. But defining your opponents position requires you to have credibility, and Brown and his acolytes have none, increasingly few people care what they say; meanwhile, Brown's media support is looking very thin indeed.
Chuck Unsworth
June 15th, 2009 11:39am Report this commentWell, honesty is the best policy. Always was, really. Such a shame that only now are some politicians understanding that.
For Brown the major problem is establishing any form of credibility. Frankly he's never going to do that. Then again, which of his colleages could? So, given that the Conservatives manage to create the impression of integrity (vs New Labours evident turpitude and obfuscation) they'll easily win over the voting public - who are not as stupid as Brown seems to believe.
The 'dividing line' is clear enough.
Denis Cooper
June 15th, 2009 11:56am Report this commentBut Osborne still fails to drive home the point that the government is living on borrowed money.
If you read Balls' article in the Guardian today you might be left with the impression that plenteous revenues were flowing into the Treasury, and unlike the Tories the wise Labour government would invest this surplus for the nation's future.
James Strong
June 15th, 2009 12:05pm Report this commentI often 'the 'c' word' about politicians.
I don't like them,me.
IandA
June 15th, 2009 12:12pm Report this commentMillstone, more like. It's a bit early for frightening the horses, I think.
Ethan
June 15th, 2009 12:15pm Report this commentAn honest discussion would be welcome. But more than that, what is still not talked about is just how much could be cut without impacting in any way real services provided to the public. The individual examples are trivial – 47 delegates to a climate change conference in Poznan running up a hotel bill of £148000, say – but taken together they add up to a wilfully profligate attitude to the public purse. And we all know about the joke jobs in the Guardian. I know, I know – we need to save £30 billion, so why even bother to mention a hotel bill of £148,000? Because it illustrates the simple fact that although they would deny it vociferously, and we are always hearing about efficiency savings etc., the public sector has never been subject to the kind of grim and arbitrary budget review that is commonplace in the private sector. Ministers in a new Tory government will be offered the choice of programs to cut – all with varying degrees of pain. What Sir Humphrey is not pre-disposed to offer are any of his own sacred cows. £30 billion – it’s less than 10% of department expenditure. The challenge of the cuts is how close to that target we could get without affecting outcomes.
(That hotel bill – my FOI request revealed the amount. My second FOI request – receive a copy of the hotel invoice, is still outstanding)
Wily Trout
June 15th, 2009 1:48pm Report this commentDo we assume that the bond market will improve and the UK's credit rating improve if the rest of the world sees there is a prospect of the Tories getting into power? Lord only knows what will happen if this rabble manage to cling on. I can't see any major economy wanting to lend to us.
Ken
June 15th, 2009 1:58pm Report this commentYes and while expenses, elections and farcical coups have filled the news agenda, the financial crisis just got worse.
A 1930 repeat is still possible. (see FT today, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/04e578a6-58fa-11de-80b3-00144feabdc0.html)
Separately on "R"'s point above of defining the debate, if WATO today is any indication, Beeb interviewers are increasingly challenging the Brown/Balls Premise, moving the debate well ahead of the teenage point- scorers in government.
Kudos for this to Mr Nelson and his Spectator colleagues.
Jonathan Hal
June 15th, 2009 2:19pm Report this commentHonesty will only work for the Tories if they can show that Labour is lying.
On this point, Cameron has to be pro-active. If he thinks that the media will do this job for him, then he is mistaken. For the mainstream media will soon tire of correcting Brown's falsehoods. Unlike the PM- who will go on repeating his 'investment vs. Tory cuts' line indefinately.
So Cameron needs to play hardball. He needs to devote this week's PMQ's to Labour's cuts... i.e. ask the PM whether the planned cash increases in Public spending will offset a. inflation b. higher debt repayments and higher welfare bills.
Cameron should be specific - use the GVN's own projections against Brown
THX1138
June 15th, 2009 4:47pm Report this commentWilly Trout (cool name BTW) unlike Speccie Posters & Commentors the markets don't give a toss about the Tories getting into power.
Considering that team Cameron/Osborne even with a bit of downward tinkering with public spending will still have to raise circa 150 billion GBP per year from the debt markets. I doubt that a shiny new face in 10 Downing St is going to make a blind bit of difference to an analyst pouring over a spread sheet in an Asian bank and deciding how much to invest in a new bond auction.
Went to see Terminator Salvation yesterday which is rubbish but it reminded me of this great quote from the original film which sums up the magnificent unsentimental cold ruthless beauty of financial markets.
"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever"
Fraser thanks for the hat-tip
"THX1138 asked an important question yesterday"- Not the normal response I get on this blog, and you were great on Simon Mayo too and well done for taking the lead on this important story.
TGF UKIP
June 15th, 2009 10:04pm Report this commentHo, ho, ho, Ho! "We like Labour politicians have fought shy of using the "c" word - cuts. WE'VE ALL BEEN TIP-TOEING AROUND ONE OF THOSE DISCREDITED GORDON BROWN DIVIDING LINES FOR TOO LONG."
Now to see just how absolutely pathetic that and most of the rest of this "milestone" stuff truly is, let's just do a re-write stripping away the spin and self-serving gloss.
"Being absolutely terrified of actually having to mix it with Gordon on economics, Dave and myself have resolutely confined ourselves to waffling away about climate change and such like and generally going along with whatever Gordon told us the British people wanted. The Mekon's master plan for the GE being for Dave to win over the female vote en bloc and then count on Labour and Gordon's deep unpopularity with enough of the blokes.
And all was going spiffingly well, wasn't it, until that stupid prick Lansley opened his silly gob once too often on Today last week. Now, unfortunately, having observed how Hammond and Gove were laughed at for all their squirming and dodging on the media over the weekend, we have to look as though we seriously want to address the problems in the economy.
However, please don't get your hopes up Mr Fraser, we most certainly shan't be going into any detail or getting down to actual figures, oh no!
Instead, we shall be confining our campaign to concepts like "context character and credibility." Nice vague waffly words that will enable Dave and his smile to play to their strengths and charm the ladies.
As for myself, as you have so lamentably failed to improve my accetability to the voting public, Mr Nelson, a probably impossible task I grant you given my actual character, I will be continuing to stay well away from the broadcast media, especially TV, and be continuing to rely on Hammond who actually does look like the joyless, humourless dessicated calculating machine the focus groups tell us the public actually want.
And, oh by the way, Lansley's going to need the services of all his mates in his precious NHS by the time we've finished with him."
Back to top