Government

The Tories prime their shake-up of the civil service

One of the quickest wins that the next government could achieve is to change the power and accountability arrangements of Whitehall.  At the moment, there’s a convoluted system in place where its difficult to apportion blame when a government department screws up.  Sure, a minister may take the media flak if, say, a department loses a data disk.  But the people in charge of the day-to-day running of a department tend to escape any substantive judgement on their performance.  As James Kirkup points out in the Telegraph today, “no permanent secretary has been formally dismissed for more than 70 years.”  That’s hardly a set-up to incite much more than complacency

An untrumpeted change

John Rentoul rightly flags up the story in this morning’s FT that about 100,000 NHS patients have gone private and had the state pick up the tab, the private hospitals have had to agree to do the work at the NHS price. For those of us who would like to see the NHS move towards a model where the state pays for healthcare but it is provided by a whole panoply of providers, this is an encouraging step. This kind of consumer-focused reform is hard to reverse. The story, as John notes, hasn’t got as much coverage as it should. John blames this on the press’s lack of interest in

The Neather clarification

Plenty of CoffeeHousers are mentioning the Andrew Neather revelations in various comment sections.  If you haven’t seen them yourself, the story is that Neather, a former government adviser, wrote a comment piece claiming that New Labour’s immigration policy was “intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”  Many reports since have taken this as confirmation that Labour’s policy was exclusively politically-motivated.    In which case, it’s worth highlighting Neather’s latest column for the Evening Standard, in which he claims his comments have been exaggerated and misinterpreted.  Here’s the key point it makes: “As a

Back pain, the unions and social-networking

So how do you explain the postal strike when it makes little-to-no business sense whatsoever?  That’s the question which Danny Finkelstein sets about tackling in his superb column today.  I won’t set out his full answer here – you should read the full article for that – but suffice to say that it involves back pain in East Germany and the latest research into social-networking.  Overall, it makes a very persuasive case, and one which has clear implications for policymakers.  As Danny concludes: “If the Royal Mail dispute were about individual postal workers and their economic interest, it would be easy enough to solve. It could be ended in a

Scotland the Brave

Everyone knows that Martin Luther King had a dream. It featured eloquent, high-minded ambitions about little white girls and little black girls playing together in harmony. Alex Salmond has dreams too. In an utterance that should have resulted in immediate committal, he compared Kenny MacAskill to Mahatma Gandhi, and then, with the rhetorical panache of a Scottish Judge Jeffries, told the SNP conference that he wanted to see “Westminster dangling from a Scottish rope”. As visions of the future go, capital punishment is not as appealing as Dr Luther King’s evocation of Christian brotherhood; but, in the event of a hung parliament, Salmond’s dream might be realised.     Salmond’s experience

The Cameron project is more intellectually interesting than we appreciate

David Brooks is the most influential American newspaper columnist and his column today is a paean of praise for George Osborne. He praises Osborne for offering not just pain but a “different economic vision — different from Labour and different from the Thatcherism that was designed to meet the problems of the 1980s.” He goes on to argue that Cameron and Osborne’s responsibility agenda is something that the Republicans should copy. This isn’t the first time that Brooks, who Tim Montgomerie identified as a guru for Cameron back in 2007, has applauded the Tories.  Back in the Spring, he said that Cameron’s attempt to position the Tories as the party

A goatherd by necessity

In his recent interview with Fraser, David Cameron said that he’s keen on bringing in outside talent to the government – the so-called “Goat” strategy, which has been a feature of Brown’s premiership.  In her ever-excellent column, Rachel Sylvester makes the point that this may be as much from necessity as by design: “According to Anthony Wells, of UKPollingReport, at least a third of the House of Commons are likely to be novices after the next general election — the highest proportion since 1945. A perceived house of whores, whose members would sell their souls for a bathplug, will soon be replaced by a virgin Parliament, untouched by the John

Brown told to repay £12,415.10 of expenses

Here’s the statement from the office of the PM, courtesy of Sky’s Cheryl Smith: Mr Brown received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg this afternoon. Sir Thomas Legg has issued his provisional conclusions to MPs, asking for further information where necessary before concluding in December. Mr Brown has always supported this process and will cooperate fully and make the necessary repayment. Mr Brown’s expenses have always been cleared by the House Authorities as entirely consistent with the rules. He has not claimed the maximum level of expenses. The Review says its findings “carry no implication about the conduct or motives of the MPs concerned”. To be absolutely sure, Mr Brown

That Wellington became Prime Minister is irrelevant to the Dannatt case

General Dannatt denies that he’s been in cahoots with the Tories. He gave a lecture last night and said: “[David Cameron] put it to me that he was concerned that his defence team – at a time when defence was really important, and Afghanistan was really critical – lacked expert understanding. “And would I be prepared to advise his team, and, if the Conservatives win the election, would I be prepared to take a peerage and maybe join his ministerial team… it was a recent decision and indicates that there was no long-term plot.” Only a bolus of ministers, who believed they could smear a General who was renowned for

Should Cameron have told us how he will do it?

The left’s criticism of Cameron’s speech is that it contained no new policies and that begs the question: how will Cameron set the people free? Steve Richards has an essential article on the subject in today’s Independent. Here are the key paragraphs: ‘Against quite a few paragraphs in Cameron’s speech I wrote a single word: “How?” I used to do the same with Blair’s early speeches only to discover in 1997 that he had no answers to the question in several key policy areas. Most fundamentally it is still not at all clear how Cameron plans to reduce what he calls Labour’s debt crisis. He framed the argument as a progressive one:

The people will make it happen

Cameron’s speech might have lacked flair, but it was a brilliant rhetorical exercise. He cast himself into the distant future and reflected on his premiership. He saw a society that had paid its way back from the brink of collapse by rationing excess and embracing austerity. He saw a society that was flourishing, where the poorest attended the best schools, where people were empowered to work hard and were rewarded for doing so. Returning to the sombre present he said: “It will be a steep climb. But the view from the summit will be worth it.” But this rhetorical tour de force was inspired by a substantial philosophical argument. Cameron’s

Lloyd Evans

Dave will slay the Goliath-esque government

Clever in its lack of cleverness. Cameron’s performance today was shrewd and unexciting, a speech of nursery-school simplicity. Large bland ideas, plain language. No detail. This was certainly no masterpiece. It didn’t have to be. Cameron’s in a holding pattern. Keep circling and he’ll land safely. Before he arrived, William Hague frustrated the eager delegates with two corporate videos of more than ordinary dullness. The BBC, flouting its own policy of censoring political broadcasts, aired both of them on BBC Parliament (albeit with the sound turned down.) First, a surpise. No less a figure than Bono, the UN’s top Guilt Ambassador, spoke to the Tories about debt relief. His message

Defensive moves

So, General Dannatt is to be a Tory Peer. This worries me greatly. On balance, General Dannatt did a good job as Army chief. Not a great job, but a good one. His interventions boosted the morale of frontline troops and his concern for the care of soldiers, especially the wounded, was important. Conversely, many defense analysts thought he was too cautious on military reform, blocking the Army’s transformation into an effective counter-insurgency force and opposing stop gap procurement in case it compromised future acquisition projects. But the real concerns over General Dannatt’s ennoblement are different. General Dannatt should have given his sucecssor a clear run at the job. He should

Cameron needs to tackle the expenses scandal head on

The current consensus issue in British politics is not to discuss the expenses scandal. The so-called ‘New politics’ was a brief footnote in both Brown’s and Clegg’s conference speeches, but public anger remains palpable. Daniel Finkelstein points out that the Tories stand to lose the most from sidelining the issue: continuity undoes their claim that they stand for wholesale change. That is unquestionably true. Whilst the leadership prepare us for the age of austerity, visions of duck houses, moats and servants’ wings pervade the public consciousness, even though those responsible have been disciplined. David Cameron has been at the forefront of the ‘clean-up politics’ debate: Alan Duncan’s sacking, the proposed

Further, stronger, faster

Later today, George Osborne will elaborate on the Conservatives’ plan to raise the state pension age to 66. The rise will be enacted by 2016 at the earliest and will save an estimated £13bn per year. The Tories will review how they can accelerate the original planned pension age rise, dated for 2026, that would link the state pension with earnings. There’s much to elaborate upon, notably how the rise will affect female retirement age and exactly how much money would be saved overall. But essentially, this move should be welcomed. It is realistic and proves that there’s substance to the Conservatives’ cuts agenda beyond ‘trimming bureaucracy’ and burning quangos. George Osborne describes the proposal “one of those

Lansley keeps the spending taps on

Struggles with the conference internet connection prevented me from posting on it at the time, but it’s still worth flagging up Andrew Lansley’s big speech on the NHS today. Why so? Well, because it exemplifies how the Tory message on health undermines their general rhetoric on public spending. At the heart of the speech was a pledge that I’m sure many CoffeeHousers would cheer: to slash the money spent on NHS bureacrats by a third, from £4.5 billion to £3 billion. Good stuff, you might think. That’s what governments should be doing in there difficult times. And you’d be right. But the rest of Lansley’s speech was at odds with

Who won’t make it into Cameron’s Cabinet?

There are 29 members of the Commons and the Lords speaking from the podium at conference. Four shadow cabinet members are not — Lord Strathcylde, Lady Anelay, Patrick McLoughlin and Mark Francois. We shouldn’t read too much into who is not speaking. The Leader of the Lords and the Chief Whips in the Lords and the Commons are not regular conference turns and there is an obvious reason why the Tories don’t walk to talk about Europe. What might be more significant is that one person who is on the front bench but not in the Shadow Cabinet has got a slot, Maria Miller — suggesting that the party hierarchy

A glimpse of Home Secretary Grayling?

Chris Grayling’s reputation as a one-dimensional attack-dog was accentuated by his ill-judged comparison of Britain with Baltimore. The argument laid against Grayling is that he shouts about the government but provides no more than a whisper about policy. However, Grayling shows deep and nuanced consideration of policy when interviewed by Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle. Grayling’s subject is extremism and failing multi-culturalism. I apologise for its length, but here is the key section: ‘“I think the government has to make it absolutely clear that anyone in our country who espouses violence is not going to be able to do business with the government of the day and in many

How to form a government

The change from being in opposition to being in government is almost impossible to gauge. How does a new prime Minister assume control of government? Peter Riddell gives David Cameron 10 tips that would ease the process. To emphasise the scale of Cameron’s impending problem, the only tip he can enact now is to ensure a smooth transfer from Shadow Cabinet to Cabinet. Riddell writes: ‘Do nothing that would make governing harder. When appointing Shadow spokesmen, think whether you want them to do the same job in office. In 1979 and 1997, two fifths of the new Cabinets had not held the same posts in opposition. The most successful ministers

Mandelson: I would work with the Tories

The Conservative party’s seizure of the progressive agenda and the rhetoric of liberal democracy suggests that Cameron intends to build a broad coalition. But how large would the Tories’ tent be? Peter Mandelson reveals that he would have no trouble “serving his country” under a Conservative government. ‘In an interview with The Sunday Times magazine, the business secretary said he would be willing to put his “experience at the disposal of the country”, if Labour lost power. “As I grow older, I can imagine more ways of serving my country than simply being a party politician,” he said. Asked whether he might use his experience in business and world trade under