Labour may not be able to exploit one of the Tories' biggest weaknesses - but that doesn't mean others won't
Peter Hoskin 2:41pm
Here at Coffee House Towers, we frequently point out the risks with the Tories' pledge to keep on increasing health spending in real terms. As I suggested last week, the two main problems are that it plays up the Brownite idea that spending is a good thing in itself, and it could force the Tories into a position from which they can't row back in government. Now, in a acerbic article in the Guardian - in which he describes Tory policy as "an incoherent mishmash of ideas designed by focus group" - Larry Elliot kicks off by highlighting the confusion the Tory line creates:
"On Tuesday night David Cameron warned that Labour's mismanagement of the public finances meant Britain might default on its debts. Yesterday he pledged that the Conservatives were now the party of the NHS because only they were prepared to deliver real increases in health spending in the next parliament."
Those two sentences show just how easy it is to attack the Tories' current position on health spending. It would, I admit, be embarrassing for them to completely ditch it at this stage in the game. But to avoid such attacks - and to account for the horrendous fiscal situation they may inherit after the next election - Cameron & Co. surely need to refine their message. I thought George Osborne may have done just that a few days ago, but Cameron's subsequent comments suggest that the shadow chancellor's "work hard to protect" formulation hasn't entered the official Tory lexicon.
So far as the Tories are concerned, the saving grace may be that Labour can't exploit this weakness. I seriously doubt the government would want to wade into a row where the Tories are committing to spend even more money than they are. If they did, it would undermine their other attacks on "Tory cuts" for "frontline services".
But that doesn't mean the Tories should keep peddling the same message on the NHS, safe in the knowledge that Brown won't say a thing. As Steve Richards points out in an excellent article for this week's New Statesman, the government and the Labour party won't be the only attack dogs looking to bite chunks out of the Tories during the next election campaign. There's an entire blogoshpere out there to pounce on any slip-up, false promise or rhetorical inconsistency. And many, like Larry Elliot, will be unforgiving.
Previous
GeoffH
August 21st, 2009 2:52pm Report this commentTo be attacked in The Guardian by Larry Elliott is a guarantee that your position is the correct one.
He's an reformed Marxists oaf.
TrevorsDen
August 21st, 2009 2:56pm Report this commentRichard's article was infantile.
There is nothing new in politics and elections.
The govts own spending plans for the NHS will be difficult enough. Stop asking for the Tories to promise less.
Hawkeye
August 21st, 2009 3:29pm Report this commentThey could still offer "real increases in health spending" by pegging it at inflation plus 0.1% - a cut from current levels but still an increase.
Never lose sight of the fact that objective number 1 is to get elected. Say little, reveal no strategies and let Labour stew its own juice.
The party conference season is just around the corner. No doubt Labour will want to treat us to another stage managed North Korean "adulation of the Leader and the peoples' Politburo" conference, but I keep hoping that some of the no-hopers will rock the boat and cause a split or schism. This close to an election, the electorate will be very unforgiving.
Philip Walker
August 21st, 2009 4:32pm Report this commentCan't they fudge up some statistics which purport to show that investing in health generates returns to the economy in terms of days off sick etc.? Not that politicians would ever use statistics for support rather than illumination, of course!
Occasional Ostrich
August 21st, 2009 4:57pm Report this commentClearly Larry Elliott doesn't understand the difference between a "Focus Group" and a "Brainstorming session". The former makes order and sense from the chaos of the 'incoherent mish-mash of ideas" produced by the latter
Andy
August 21st, 2009 5:33pm Report this commentCameron will go for a "zero percent rise" to match Labour's spending perhaps.
TGF UKIP
August 21st, 2009 5:45pm Report this comment"An incoherent mishmash of ideas designed by focus group." Isn't that the definitive description of Project Cameron?
Verity
August 21st, 2009 6:30pm Report this commentTGF UKIP - One hundred per cent on the money.
Senor Frizby
August 21st, 2009 6:54pm Report this commentI'd be happier if someone said that we are going to reduce the disgusting waste within the NHS and fire all the managers of the managers who are managing the other lot in charge the ones doing the work.
The NHS would then be awash with money.
Simon
August 21st, 2009 9:16pm Report this commentI would be interested to know if you see any risks in Dave promising to cut health spending? Until that happy day when the electorate is restricted to the coffee house boys and Simon Heffer most sane people could predict one or two!
John Page
August 22nd, 2009 8:35am Report this commentElliott & Richards have produced pretty meagre fare.
Sure, the Tory line on the NHS is brain dead. But Labour studiously has no line on anything like this at all. Elliott's piece is only worth while if the point 'what about Labour?' never occurs to you while you're reading it. Unlikely.
Richards rehashes a little at some length. During an election the broadcast media must studiously observe neutrality, so they can't reflect the rightist tilt of the blogs.
And outside the excitable world of political journalists and bloggers, how much of this will seep out to the average voter?
The top down controllers will still have far more influence than Richards' windy piece allows.
I suppose they both have space to fill. Quite why I've been encouraged to spend my time reading them, though, I'm not sure.
john miller
August 22nd, 2009 11:15am Report this commentI'm just about to order "The rise of political lying".
Politics in this country has crossed a line. Cameron & Co have seen how the exposure of lies told by Blair, Brown, Straw et al have no long - or medium - term effect.
The disclosures that Blair lied about the Ecclestone affair and Iraq have not stopped him earning millions on his odious tours nor dented his new mantle of the religious leader of the world.
Add that to the court ruling that anything you say in your manifesto can be a tissue of lies and you have a bit of a problem for the electorate.
The next election campaigns of all parties will be based on lies, deceptions and smears.
Anything that a politician says in the future will be no indication of what their actions may be.
Back to top