Labour may outflank the Tories on health and overseas aid spending - but will struggle to do so on reform

Nicholas

The main reason this will face difficulties is the most obvious one. The fact that after being in power for almost 13 years New Labour is suddenly pushing this approach within 10 months of a General Election and from a party political campaign perspective, e.g. to discomfort the Tories, rather than from good governance.

It is just a stunt, a cynical ploy, the usual New Labour scheming and conniving with how they are perceived not what they do. And I hope the media treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Gawain

This is a smart move by Labour. Completely cynical as usual (it's easy to talk tough about cuts and even easier to fudge the actual implementation) but it puts the Conservatives on the spot. Time for Cameron to reshuffle, he needs a Shadow Chancellor who understands economics and business and a Shadow Health Secretary who is not in the Health establishment's pocket. The problem is he won't do anything, he's almost as ponderous as Brown at making hard decisions.

Pete Hoskin

Nicholas: just to be clear, I mention that - and other difficulties - in the post I've linked to in the third paragraph above.

Simon

Dream on,Brown will not go into an election promising cuts in health spending. You really ar grasping at straws now in your campaign to get Dave to commit political suicide by promising to sack doctors and nurses. When are you going to do a piece setting out why you are convinced that were Dave to promise reductions in health spending it would be a vote winner?

Hawkeye

Surely reducing the health budget just gives the tories a stick to beat Labour with? Recent "debate" shows that you cannot talk sensibly about reducing NHS spend.

Even if Cameron only gave a 0.01% real terms increase in spending on the NHS he would still be able to reach out to 1.4 million NHS staff and say "we will give you more money than Labour". That's a lot of votes.

Finally, don't forget the u-turn involved from "no cuts" to "cuts". Brown's reputation for dithering will grow still further whilst Darling's rebellion, having been effective, shows that Brown is not in control and the cabinet is split.

There is nothing good for Labour in this strategy.

Simon Stephenson

It's difficult for the two main parties to differentiate between themselves on public spending, because they're both out of the Big State mould that holds that the level of public spending should always be maintained at the maximum level it is feasible to be. They would go on to say that anything that can be done to change public attitudes so as to allow an increase in this feasible level would be guaranteed to be a good thing because it will allow expansion to an even bigger State sector than the one we have now.

So we look at them now, and we see two parties seeking to check public spending only out of fear that we are in danger of breaching the maximum feasible limit, and not through any sense that up-to-the-limit spending could actually be an inappropriate way to manage the country's finances. It's as though, as a country, we have lost any self-discipline we had in maintaining our spending at a level that is sustainable vis-a-vis our income. We have been reduced to scrabbling around overseas financiers for every short-term fix that, apparently, we can't do without. How long before all these reputable financiers say "no more", and we are left having to resort to the loan sharks?

And as for "reform", what a joke! How can either party seriously address the issue of reform without accepting that the activity generated by some public spending is as socially useless as some of the activity in the Financial Sector? If the State does everything better than individuals can do it, how can anything the State does be useless?

We're closing in on a new stage of political purpose, where there's no longer any significant difference between the various courses of action on offer; the only choice we have is between the people we put in power to carry them out.

God help us!

Pete-s

Maybe the general public might have become wise enough to understand that this gov has spent and always will spend far more than we can afford. The public are paying back creditcards and Morgages, prehaps the cons can play on the same feeling the gen public have at the moment. There may not be any holy cows that need to be saved?

Chris lancashire

Nice gift to the Conservatives.
Firstly, as Nicholas points out, it's a bit difficult for Labour to explain this reformist approach when they've already had 13 years.

Secondly, when Cameron and Osborne need to cut Health and Overseas Aid 12 months into their administration (as they should) it will be a bit difficult for Labour to attack the decision.

luke

Erm, opposition to polyclinics, an absurd moritorium on hospital closures, letting GPs set their own hours, and end to all targets with nothing to replace them?

Come off if - on the NHS cameron and lansley would take us back to the days of the 1970s.

Nicholas

Pete, thanks for the clarification. I must confess I could not see the point about the time in the linked posts. It still seems to me that New Labour are not being taken to task by the media for this as they deserve. Much of the coverage of their "plans" seems to accept them at face value and does not challenge robustly on the basis that they have had almost 13 years to do these things with powerful majorities - so why now?

The other aspect, which infuriates me, is the way they are allowed to get away with blatent party political campaigning when they are supposed to be governing the country. Their eye is on the perception of themselves as a political party and on re-election - always - not on what is good for the country. The media should be ripping them to shreds for that - not speculating on how potentially damaging it is for the opposition!

One of the reasons we still have this lot in power is because the media have held back from attacking them mercilessly and almost take their cynicism for granted, concentrating instead on the flaws in the opposition, real or imagined. It is a pity we do not have any 18th Century broadsheets, pamphleteers or cartoonists around to cut through the Westminster politeness bubble and stick it to New Labour with the vitriol they deserve.

They are beneath contempt and I think the coverage should be lampooning them, insulting them and laughing at their last minute desperate attempts to influence the polls and discomfort the Tories. The irritating politeness is not warranted by the danger they pose to each and every one of us. Why is it that the Balls are only in New Labour's Court?

Pete Hoskin

Nicholas: re. that post, I meant that I had implicitly made the same point in this sentence:

"And the very fact that it's [Brown's] spending, spending, spending which got us into this mess hardly inspires confidence about his willingness to cut back."

Although you spell it out better.

More generally, you're right: there's plenty to be sceptical about with this.

Dirty Euro

Save a foreign kiddies life vote labour, LOL.

TrevorsDen

PS - the health budget is already suffering and will continue to suffer from the reduction in spending growth that is already pencilled in. This is because the health service has had new money but not reform.

More cuts to the NHS will be painful and produce horror stories.

And ... Gawain, Cameron has no need of a reshuffle. Osborne is the right man. Labour are scared stiff of him.

Hawkeye

Another point about NHS spending - it is still below other European countries so by international standard it is not that high. For Cameron to "peg" it at current levels is not an outrageous concept.

Of course - it could still be better spent....

Carly

Once again I cannot understand the Tories commitment to increase International Aid, most of it is wasted anyway. They will be vulnerable on that issue.

Moraymint

We need to go down the Canadian route, and fast. Anything else - currently being mooted by both the Labour and Conservative Parties - will be nothing more than dancing around the handbag.

With each passing day I get more anxious about the looming financial and, hence, socio-economic catastrophe that will be the (dis)United Kingdom over the next few years.

If ever we needed some brave and serious political leadership, the time is now. Sadly, no sign forthcoming. One could despair.

Moraymint

Whenever I see a piece like this latest one from Pete, I'm reminded of this analysis of what our politicians today are really all about:

http://tinyurl.com/nfvohp

logdon

After all the money sent to Tsunami victims gratitude could be expected.

Instead it was business as usual from the hardliners who turned our charitous example of benevolent one worldism into a tirade against the insidious western infiltration via the money weapon.

Similarly, following the Pakistan earthquake they took the money, tents and other humanitarian assistance yet refused western aid workers access to the areas affected.

In other words our money is merely regarded as jizya, an entitlement due to Muslims from us dhimmis.

If aid's spin off is a more tolerant attitude towards the West, forget it. Think of the billions squandered by the EU, UNRWA and UN in Gaza and then look to any, any progress in that benighted hellhole.

I would hope to see a more rigorous attitude from the Tories rather than the flaccid attitudes of Benn and co who blandly observe the swirling never ending torrents dissapearing down a corrupt plug hole as of no consequense.

This is taxpayers money yet what say do we have as to where it ends up?

The ineptness of Labour is only matched by the lies then used to cover the idiocy up.

Verity

David Cameron wants to suck vast sums of money out of our impoverished little little island and send them to the vast,unimaginably wealthy continent of Africa, which is rich not only in agriculture, but in every known mineral on the planet. Africa is by far the wealthiest section of the world in natural resources. That they can't manage their wealth is their problem, not ours. That corruption is endemic is their problem, not ours. If they need more wells, they should go and dig them themselves. Remember David Cameron in Rwanda or wherever? Helping to dig wells? It was enough to make a cat laugh. In fact, my cat had to lean against the wall so as not to fall over from laughing.

David Cameron is dangerous. He's an authoritarian One Worlder. I wonder if he's a member of Common Purpose.

logdon

Here's what Ezra Levant, publisher of the Motoons in Canada and subsequently hounded through the courts by British Coumbia Human Rights Commission and in particular, the Sohawardy mentioned here has to say.....

http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/how-syed-soharwardy-fights.html

“Some of Soharwardy's most vile words came after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami that killed more than 280,000 people.

While Christians from around the world were emptying their wallets to help the victims of this natural disaster, Muslim leaders were blaming the disaster on immoral Christian tourists in their countries.

Soharwardy seemingly got swept up in the wave of anti-Christian rhetoric and sent out a news release accusing Christians of kidnapping Muslim orphans in Indonesia. Again, he denied his own written words.

:::

But here's what his Jan. 23, 2005, news release actually said: "ISCC . . . strongly condemns the exploitation of tsunami victims by the Christian missionaries. There have been several reports that the Christian missionaries are kidnapping Muslim children in Indonesia. . . . It is now proven that the Christian missionaries do not help people on humanitarian grounds. They help people in order to exploit their needs and convert them to Christianity."

:::

Charles

Nicholas -

"It is a pity we do not have any 18th Century broadsheets, pamphleteers or cartoonists around to cut through the Westminster politeness bubble and stick it to New Labour with the vitriol they deserve"

What do you think a blog is then?

Nicholas

Charles - my comment was about the content and style more than the media but poorly worded for that. Yes, we have blogs but, despite the aspirations of the bloggers themselves, they do not carry the public narrative like the mainstream media and neither seem capable of truly vitriolic and scathing attacks in the 18th Century style. Those activists would be scornful of the modern "power" of the press where no risks are taken lest someone is offended or takes legal action. Our freedom of expression has been irrevocably nobbled by imposed censorship, self-censorship and political correctness. Where is the cartoon which combines lampooning Brown's nose-picking habits with his politics? The famous You Tube video just catalogues the display with a vaguely amusing soundtrack and visual effects. It does not use the revolting habit as a vehicle to attack Brown's politics. Where is the cartoon savaging Phillips and his Equalities junta? There are so many opportunities but a complete lack of determination and guts in those who profess to oppose this government and all its works.

Another aspect is the transient nature of the blogging medium. There are so many with so much to say that the deeply wounding arrows are lost in the overall blather and quickly forgotten.

TGF UKIP

Nicholas, it's even worse, much worse. Take this blog as an example, supposedly of the Right, but so tightly policed "on grounds of taste" that no Coffee Houser may even hint at or couple the words "Gordon and "gay."

We do have Guido, thank God, but as for a magazine that really gets stuck in, dream on.

It could and should, of course, be the Speccie but instead we have the flaccid, anodyne, ultra posh Home Counties coffee table mag that Dear Mary would never hesitate to recommend to any social climber.

Richard Steele and co must be spinning in their graves.