Analysis: Cameron's second wind
Cameron takes the nuclear option
Tuesday, 18, Nov 2008 06:03
He had to do something. It's been months now that the Conservatives have slipped in the polls, unable to find a voice with the necessary resonance to describe the current economic climate.
Suddenly David Cameron's young and absurdly talented shadow chancellor George Osborne looks weak and tenuous. The news over the weekend was that he has visited speech therapists to make himself sound less posh. Tory supporters in the City are said to hold their heads in their hands in despair at the tepid nature of the Tory response to the crisis.
Cameron's many pronouncements on the matter have been forgotten within moments. Gordon Brown plays the part of international statesman/messiah, travelling the globe and glibly making reference to all the nations which have adopted his recapitalisation plans. Something had to be done, and quickly.
Cameron's response – belated but not necessarily too late – has been to break a central pillar of his leadership. The decision to relieve the Conservatives of their commitment to matching Labour spending is almost analogous to Brown and chancellor Alistair Darling's decision to drop their infamous fiscal rules.
On a technical level, the decision is entirely justified. If the Tories don't accept current predictions of future growth, and if they fundamentally disagree with government spending and borrowing plans, they are entirely justified in divorcing themselves from them.
But politically, the decision is less clear-cut.
On the plus side, the Tories will be able to enter the next election with explicit space between them and Labour on an issue the party is profoundly comfortable with: tax. Rather than promising tax cuts, as the party has attempted in the past, they will be promising not to inundate the electorate with future tax hikes as a result of Labour borrowing.
It will sound sensible, it will sound prudent, it will have the words 'less tax' in it. There's no way of knowing how severe Britain's economic situation will be when the next election takes place sometime in 2010, but this could be an effective strategy.
On the other hand, today's announcement relies on a substantial degree of confidence on Mr Cameron's part. The original promise to match Labour spending was made in order to convince the public the Tories could be trusted with public services. It was designed to rid forever the perception that the party would do to schools and hospitals what they did in the 80s and early 90s. Today's speech means the Tories obviously feel that message has been received, loud and clear, by the public. They could be wrong. It could be too early. Pictures of Cameron and Osborne in their posh boys' clubs still circulate. The shadow front bench is still comprised of a surprisingly large number of millionaires. The public may not be convinced of Conservative commitment yet. If not, the decision to break away from the Labour model could be fraught with danger.
Furthermore, the Conservative response to the economic situation – outside of the breakaway announcement – remains weak and overly specific. Despite today's efforts to specify a philosophy at the heart of the Conservative response, the party's financial strategy is still comprised of many micro policies – such as Osborne's decision to give tax cuts to businesses which employ people on unemployment benefits. It's not that the Tories don't have a philosophy. They believe passionately in the free market. The problem is they can't voice it, because free market philosophy stresses the necessity of things like repossession, unemployment and short-selling, all in order to correct the market. Nothing today changed that. Labour noises on the crisis will always appear more pleasant than Conservative ones, regardless of what most people suspect will come later.
But for all their still-present problems, Cameron's announcement today was sensible. Something had to be done. It's that simple. No party leader can sit back and simply watch his chances drop week-on-week. He needed something radical and he needed it quickly. He'd tried professing cooperation with the government. That didn't work. He'd tried outright partisanship during prime minister's questions. That didn't work. Today was a logical next step. It's intellectually and economically justified. It frees up Conservative rhetoric from the albatross of matching spending, and it marks a clear distinction between the parties on the most central issue currently facing the country.
Will it work? That depends on two things. Firstly, the external events of the next year and half, and the effect they have on the country. Secondly - and most interestingly - the peculiar sympathies and judgments of the British people.
Ian Dunt