Thursday, 28th February 2008
1:59pm
Eight years ago, Tony Blair sat on Sir David Frost’s sofa and pledged that Labour would spend 8% of GDP on health. Brown called up afterwards in a fury, saying “you’ve spent my f**king budget”. One wonders what David Cameron said to Andrew Lansley after his Times interview where he says 11% of GDP should be spent on health. A number of responses spring to mind:-
1) Please explain to me why you considered it helpful to come up with this 11% figure. Please. I’m interested.
2) Did anyone authorise this 11% figure? Or was it in the faxed instructions the BMA send you each morning in large type?”
3) How am I supposed to handle the rest of the Shadow Cabinet who all want spending on their departments? Davis wanted extra cash to say he’d pay the policemen, a pittance. George denied him – and he shut up. That’s called “discipline”, and it wins things called “elections”. Heard of them?
4) Have you learnt nothing from the Labour failures of seeing spending as a virtue in itself? Is this how you’ll govern the NHS? Or sorry, I forgot, you’ll make them independent – so they’ll govern themselves; your role confined to writing the cheques.
After the Frost debacle, the Treasury described Blair’s NHS pledge as “an aspiration”. The Tories need the same get out clause – and one better than their line that Lansley is a very clever chap was talking in general terms about a 25-year horizon and the wicked Times newspaper distorted his words.
I have some advice for the Tories. They should get on the phone to that numbskull Lansley and tell him that he was talking about consumer spending trends – not state health spending. That his 11% figure was a total one, public and private, and that the rise he envisages over the next generation or so will come from people buying health care with the extra money they will have from the tax cuts of successive Conservative governments.
Lansley is very lucky Cameron has said he’ll stay in his job until the election. He’s a major risk factor. If he slips up like that during an election campaign, the Tories will be finish. Time to deploy him to the Outer Hebridean “get out the vote” campaign.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
11:01am
Lord Tebbit’s response to Michael Gove’s Spectator article last week is a remarkable spectacle: an argument between a past colossus of Tory Government and a future one. To the irritation of some of my fellow modernisers, I have a deep respect for Norman and thought it was especially crazy of that faction to try and expel him from the party in 2002. He is not, as some mods claim, the Scargill of the Right: this is a man who took on the unions and won, drove through many of the key Thatcherite reforms and was responsible for some of the party’s most remarkable electoral achievements. He is also a hero of the fight against the IRA, and has made huge personal sacrifices to care for his wife, horribly injured in the Brighton bomb. So a bit of respect please, gentlemen.
That said, I think his anxieties about Michael, expressed in a letter to the new issue of the magazine, are misplaced. Read Fraser’s account of the Gove education plan – much of it drawn from Sweden – and you will discover a model of liberalisation in education and consumer choice of precisely the sort that Norman has always called for. Then look at each of his individual anxieties about “Blair worship” in the shadow cabinet. It is true that the Cameroons admire Blair’s electoral success – that is only rational – and took his side in his battles with Brown over marketisation and choice in public service reform. It is also true that they accept that the Britain of 2008 is no more like the Britain of the Thatcher era than the Britain of 1979, which Tebbit and co inherited, was like the Britain of Macmillan. It may have been wrong of Cameron to coin the phrase “heir to Blair” but – short of turning back the clock – he is bound by the circumstances of history to try and follow him, identifying what was good and discarding the rest.
As a matter of fact, I don’t think the Cameroons have taken very much from the “poisonous tree” of Blairism. Norman’s shopping-list of Blair crimes is instructive because it is so easy to reassure him that the next Tory Government will not make the same mistakes:
1) The bungled war in Iraq: even key Atlanticists in the Shadow Cabinet like George Osborne say that the errors in planning and execution of the conflict must never be repeated. William Hague has called repeatedly for an independent inquiry into the war.
2) The dispatch of men and women to fight without the equipment they need: no parliamentarian has been more vocal on this matter than the Shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox.
3) The sensational increases in tax without measurable improvement in services: Lord Tebbit would not approve of Osborne’s commitment for the next three years to Labour’s spending plans. But he should be heartened by the promise that the whole issue will be reviewed in the third year (around the likely date of the next election) and by the existing plans to cut inheritance tax, stamp duty, and corporation tax, and to spend the money from green taxes on helping families.
4) The debauchment of the civil service: Cameron has spoken often of the need to roll back the “sofa government” of the Blair era and bring probity back to Whitehall.
5) The identity card fiasco: David Davis couldn’t have put it better himself. He wants to spend the money saved from scrapping the scheme n building prisons.
6) The criminal justice fiasco: see above. The “hug-a-hoodie” tone of early Cameronism has been replaced by a much tougher approach to crime and is at the heart of all Tory campaigning (witness the commitment to scrap the early release scheme and Boris’s mayoral strategy, which rightly focuses on safety on London’s streets and public transport.)
7) His [Blair's] surrender of British sovereignty to Brussels: the Tories are pressing for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and have promised that they will not “let the matter rest there” in power. The detail is being hammered out, but a Cameron Government would undoubtedly seek the repatriation of powers (it is already committed to leaving the social chapter).
8) Remorseless attacks on the conventional family: Cameron’s social liberalism is tempered by a strong, pragmatic attachment to the institution of marriage. He is already committed to financial help for married coupled.
9) Despoilation of education: after the disaster of the grammar schools row, Tory education policy is right back on track under Michael Gove, and is one of the most energising aspects of the offer the Tories will make at the next election. See above.
10) Use of the benefit system to deepen the poverty trap, lesser incentives to work or save, his fuelling of the culture of drugs, alcohol, yobbery and violent crime: Norman’s successor as MP for Chingford, Iain Duncan Smith, has addressed these very issues in his pioneering work on the Broken Society. Wisconsin-style welfare reform would be at the heart of a Cameron Government’s policy agenda.
So – apart from that – what have the Cameroons ever done for us? Not so much Blair worship, as the Norman Conquest. Thoughts please, Coffee Housers.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (8)
8:40am
Andrew Lansley lobs a firecracker into the tortoise-hare debate this morning; announcing that the Tories would increase health spending by an extra £28 billion a year. The pledge actually goes beyond any made by the Government, and will see health expenditure rise by 2 percent of GDP.
It sends a strong message out to the voting public. Something like: “We care about the NHS because we're pumping more money into the NHS”. Sadly, though, it's the wrong message. If ten years of Blair and Brown have taught us anything, it's that increased inputs don't necessarily equate to improved outputs. Today's National Audit Office report only serves to underline this.
If Cameron and Osborne really want to move to a low tax economy then they should attack the “more spending = good” ideology head-on*. Instead, they're keeping the debate on comfortable ground for Brown. When it comes to spending taxpayers' cash, the Prime Minister's hard to beat.
*Lansley's pledge will be met by countervailing cuts in other areas: “It’s tough. It means there are places where public expenditure will decline as a proportion of GDP or in some cases in absolute terms.” Such below-the-headline (and begrudging?) admissions don't attack anything head-on.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (16)
Wednesday, 27th February 2008
7:30pm
Ian Davidson, the Labour MP who has been leading the charge for a referendum, has managed to get down an amendment on whether or not Britain should remain in the European Union; the Lib Dem’s failure to get the Deputy Speaker to accept their amendment on this yesterday led to them storming out of the Commons. Davidson has succeeded where Nick Clegg failed by proposing a two question referendum which would ask:
“Should the United Kingdom retain its membership of the European Union?”
“If it remains a member of the European Union, should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?”
The amendment will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow and will come to a vote next Wednesday. (
Update: The Lib Dems have been on the phone to point out that it is not certain that their will be a vote on Wednesday and therefore Davidson hasn't achieved more than Clegg. But it still appears that the Davidson amendment has a good chance of coming to a vote)
This amendment has a real chance of passing if the Lib Dems and the Conservatives support it considering how many Labour rebels there are. Nick Clegg wrote earlier this week that it is time for the “debate politicians have been too cowardly to hold for 30 years - time for a referendum on the big question…This generation deserves its chance to say where we stand on Europe - in or out.” Surely a secondary question on Lisbon is a small price to pay for such a vote?
Yet, if Clegg assents to this amendment he would expose just how deeply his party is split on the Lisbon treaty and he might face a rebellion from the Europhile party grandees in the Lords who pushed Ming Campbell into going back on the Lib Dem’s manifesto commitment to a referendum.
Tory support for a two-question referendum can not be taken for granted. Some close to the leadership worry that supporting an in or out referendum could both re-open old Tory wounds on Europe—7 Tory MPs are supporters of The Better Off Out campaign and a referendum would likely see several more come out of the closet, there is also the Maggie factor to consider—and allow Labour to portray them as extremists bent on withdrawal. But conspiring to deny the public a vote on the Lisbon treaty would spur the mother of all grassroots revolts and be the wrong thing to do.
David Cameron and William Hague should take this opportunity to set out their position on Europe, for membership but against Lisbon. This is a sensible, reasoned view that polls suggest most of the public share. The Tories must stop being scared of their own shadows on Europe. If they need their courage boosting, they should think of what a blow it would be to Gordon Brown’s authority for him to lose a referendum on Lisbon.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (19)
7:12pm
Few journalists can claim to have been as influential as Bill Buckley was. George Will, the conservative columnist, introduced Buckley thus on the 50th anniversary of National Review, the conservative magazine that Buckley founded: This might be a bit of an exaggeration but there can be no doubting Buckley’s influence, few people were more influential in the creation of the American conservative movement than he. In his 55 books and more than 5,000 beautifully written newspaper columns, Buckley remade the intellectual landscape of America.
“Let me invite you to take credit for winning the Cold War. The argument goes like this: Without Bill Buckley, no National Review. Without National Review, no Goldwater nomination. Without the Goldwater nomination, no conservative takeover of the Republican Party. Without that, no Reagan. Without Reagan, no victory in the Cold War. Therefore, Bill Buckley won the Cold War.”
Enjoy this hour of him reflecting on his life’s work.
Full tributes can be found at National Review, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Weekly Standard
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
7:05pm
Here - for your viewing pleasure - is The Daily Politics' footage of Ed Davey getting "cross" in the Commons yesterday:
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
6:02pm
If Mike Smithson over at Political Betting is right (and he usually is), then there was a spot of Team Livingstone skulduggery behind yesterday's tit-for-tat poll exchange.
That "new" MORI poll which gives the Mayor a 2 per cent lead over Boris Johnson? Well, it turns out that it's not new at all. MORI actually conducted their research some three weeks ago. Crucially, that's before Lee Jasper was suspended.
By contrast, the YouGov poll which gave Johnson a 5 percent lead was conducted last week; after Jasper's suspension.
Smithson indicates that Livingstone purposely held back on the MORI results:
"My understanding is that Labour and Ken knew about the MORI poll almost as soon as it had been completed but it was deemed to be a deadly secret because of the closeness of the finding."
If so, it's a totemic sign of just how desperate the incumbent Mayor's become.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (2)
5:22pm
During today’s protest against a third runway at Heathrow the protestsers draped a banner down from the roof over the side of the Palace of Westminster. Someone from the inside, though, leaned out and cut the banner in two. Over at the Mirror, Kevin Maguire has rounded up the usual suspects and thinks that he might have identified the culprit.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comment
3:34pm
Here - for the benefit of CoffeeHousers - is the full text of a letter from Lord Tebbit that will run in tomorrow's Spectator:
"Sir: Michael Gove gives a eulogy to Tony Blair, 'I admired Tony Blair. I knew Tony Blair'.
I had hoped that David Cameron's claim to be 'the heir to Blair' was just a silly mistake springing from inexperience. It is more worrying to find that Blair worship is now the doctrine of modern compassionate Conservatism. No wonder 40 per cent of electors are unwilling to vote; nor that, when asked which party could best meet any challenge facing Britain, those saying 'neither' regularly exceed those naming either party.
Blair's admirers in the shadow Cabinet might reflect on his record: the bungled war on Iraq, the dispatch of men and women to fight without the equipment they need, the sensational increases in tax without measurable improvement in services, the debauchment of the civil service, the identity card fiasco, the criminal justice fiasco, his surrender of British sovereignty to Brussels, his remorseless attacks on the conventional family, despoliation of education, use of the benefit system to deepen the poverty trap, lesser incentives to work or save, his fuelling of the culture of drugs, alcohol, yobbery and violent crime which has left the Home Secretary fearful of walking the streets of London at night.
It was Blair who introduced uncontrolled, unmeasured immigration of people determined not to integrate, but to establish, first ghettoes, and now demands for separate legal jurisdiction. In biblical terms, Blairism is the poisonous tree which can give forth only poisonous fruit and must be rooted out. In 2005 Blair had the votes of only 21.6 per cent of the electorate. With the poisonous tree of Blairism planted in the shadow Cabinet, where can the other 78.4 per cent turn?
Lord Tebbit"
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (14)
3:01pm
Over at The Three Line Whip, Andrew Porter notes how Gordon Brown distanced himself at PMQs from Harriet Harman’s disgraceful praise for the former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Porter reports that her comments about Castro are not the only thing that Harman has said recently that have irritated Number 10. Indeed, if she was not effectively un-sackable one would begin to wonder about her position.
I have a pet theory that many of Brown’s problems can be traced back to Harman’s election as deputy leader. If Alan Johnson had got the job, there would have been someone in the Cabinet who would have had license to stand up to Brown and to throw cold water on Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander as they got over excited about the prospect of an early election.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (2)
Previous
