Austerity

From the latest issue of the Spectator:

If this is what bespoke PR produces, save your money. The Standard alleges that Number 10 has hired 26 ‘civil servants’. These latter-day Sir Humphreys include: a photographer, a stylist, a PR consultant to run the PM’s personal website, a diary keeper for Sam Cam and another addition to the Behavioural Insight Team at the Cabinet Office. Now, I like a bit of behavioural insight as much as the next man. But most, if not all, of these recruits have worked together in CCHQ for years: how much more insight can they glean in their new surroundings? Open up the field, many say, which poses another problem because it may

David Cameron’s first battle with the EU opens on Thursday. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy hope to introduce a treaty that will deliver tough sanctions on eurozone members that break budget guidelines. Their success rests on David Cameron’s support. Europe is built on quid pro quos, so Cameron will ensure that the new treaty does not prejudice Britain whilst also seeking to repatriate competences. He will avoid the more avant garde suggestions of outspoken eurosceptics – he knows that a UK Sovereignty Bill and exemption from pan-European customs arrangements are unfeasible unless Britain rescinds its membership – and, in the delicate context of coalition, seek practical assurances instead. The regulation

Courtesy of John Rentoul, Tim Bale, professor of politics at the University of Sussex, offers this appraisal of the 2010 election: ‘For all the talk in opposition of decontaminating the Tory brand, of making the party more tolerant and inclusive and less ‘nasty’, the key task facing Cameron when he took over in late 2005 was reassuring voters that the Conservatives could be trusted on welfare and public services.  All the market research suggested that this was the sine qua non — a necessary if not a sufficient condition — of a return to office. When the global financial crisis hit and Britain’s budget deficit ballooned, however, this task remained

Politics Home has published an important poll, showing the staggering level of support for Vince Cable’s conference speech. The government will be pleased that its political attack on the financial services industry’s continued excess at time of austerity is cutting through; on the other hand, this could be seen as support for Cable’s emotive rhetoric. Worse still, the poll suggests that traditional Tory voters are the only group for whom Nick Clegg is more impressive than Cable. The business secretary has to be kept in government – the coalition can’t afford to have a charismatic wreaking havoc from the backbenches. Support for Vince Cable conference speech Who are the impressive

In these grim dark days of austerity and cuts, the coalition urgently needs to find a compelling political narrative of hope and optimism. David Cameron’s Big Society rhetoric occasionally threatens to contain some philosophical depth, but suffers from the same problem as most new fangled analyses of the world. Namely, it is so fluffy that it becomes bewildering.   To the government’s credit, they have managed to prepare the public for the upcoming belt tightening. This achievement is all the more remarkable given the woeful refusal of either coalition party to admit the scale of the fiscal problem facing Britain during the general election campaign.   But softening up public

If you read only one thing today, then make a cup of tea, sit in a comfy armchair, and make sure it’s Tim Montgomerie’s 7,000-word review of the Conservative election campaign.  Tim has opened up his address book and spoken with many of the main players in the Tory operation – and the result isn’t all that flattering.  Here’s a summary passage which gives a sense of it all: “For a period, the ‘Big Society’ was put at the heart of the campaign. Amazingly, the Big Society was never tested in focus groups and it failed on the doorstep. One leading adviser to the campaign complained of a ‘cavalier’ approach

The Tory press conference this morning, launching their plan for National Citizen Service, shows how they hope to run a two track campaign. On the one hand, they want to be hammering Labour over their plans to increase National Insurance — Cameron called it a ‘a recovery killer, an economy killer, a job killer’ and said that Labour wanted people to pay ‘taxes for government waste’. On the other, they want to be presenting hopeful, optimistic ideas like a National Citizen Service. This fusion campaigning enables the Tories both to be attacking Labour and presenting themselves as the party that is offering a positive alternative. National Citizen Service is very

I wouldn’t be surprised if this Gordon Brown snippet gets deployed ad nauseam between now and the next election: “[Brown] described Labour as the party of ‘prosperity not austerity'” If so, it’s worth noting that it’s a phrase that Ed Miliband used in several speeches last year (e.g. here, here and here).  But, whoever its author, it’s hard to imagine it working for a governing party which has presided over one of the most spectacular busts in our history.

The Daily Mail sets about David Cameron in its editorial today. It accuses him of “insulting voters’ intelligence”, tells him to “avoid the PR men, spivs and trashy celebrities with whom he has taken to mixing” and advises him to “spend less time with his spin-doctors, worrying about his image and trying to be all things to all men.”   The Mail matters. Privately Tory strategists admit that its savaging of Cameron’s shift in European policy played a considerable part in depressing the certainty of Tory supporters to vote, one of the reasons for the party’s lead narrowing in the polls. If the Mail was fully on board with Project

Ok, so the Age of Austerity means that promises made in sunnier times will need to be forestalled – or even cancelled altogether.  But it’s still revealing that Labour are thinking about reversing their plan to raise the threshold at which inheritance tax is levied. After all, this is what Brown regards as The Great Dividing Line: the Tories implementing a tax cut for their “rich friends,” on the one side, and Labour implementing policies “for the many,” on the other.  Darling’s decision to raise the IHT threshold to £350,000 for single people and £700,000 for married couples undermined that crude message.  Reversing the policy may, in Labour strategists’ eyes,