Conservative party

Here lies the General Well-being agenda

From our UK edition

Remember David Cameron's General Well-being agenda? You may not. It was pretty nebulous stuff, which he deployed during the decontamination overdrive early in his leadership. We haven't heard much about it since - probably as Cameron & Co. realised it could fuel the worst Notting Hill caricatures of them, at a time when the economy was going south and thousands of people are losing their jobs. Which is why it was striking to see "General Well-being" exumed for this Manchester conference. Yes, the press centre cafe is called the GWB cafe (picture below). Kinda tells you all you need to know about that particular Cameroonian non-starter. P.S.

Contrasting Cameron and Osborne

From our UK edition

Judging by the Independent's preview, as well as the quotes that ConHome have managed to get their hands on, Cameron is going to do Hope 'n' Change in his speech today.  Yes, he talks about a "steep climb ahead," but he adds that "the view from the summit will be worth it." This sounds like the growth and recovery element which many thought was lacking from the Osborne speech.  As it happens, there was actually a growth section in a near-to-final draft of the Shadow Chancellor's address, but it was taken out over concerns about timing. I suspect the double act - Osborne selling pain, with Cameron selling hope - will work out quite nicely for the Tories, and will become their template in the run-up to the election.

Osborne is the key to Cameron’s success

From our UK edition

Initially, I thought George Osborne’s conference speech was unremarkable. Osborne, the second coming of Stafford Cripps, painted the grimmest picture since The Scream. He was relentless, remorseless. in fact, the argument that the Tories ‘relish cuts’ and are out of touch almost seemed plausible, as Osborne, the heir to an Anglo-Irish baronetcy with a flair for interior design, told the nation that “we’re all in this together”.  But in the wider tactical context of securing a Conservative victory, it was a brilliant speech. Writing in the Independent, Matthew Norman concludes: ‘Adorable he will never be, and as an orator he makes the Speaking Clock sound like Cicero, but undeniably he is extremely clever.

Defensive moves

From our UK edition

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 have had the decency showed him by his predecessor, Mike Jackson.

Activists for Dave

From our UK edition

I don’t know this lady’s name, but she is a genuine example of an enthused Tory grassroots activist. She was queuing behind me in security and I noticed her bag. “It’s my own kinda Blue Peter job,” she said. What inspired her to make the design? “Because my party was going nowhere for eight years, then David came along and changed that. When your party recovers, and you know your country will, then that’s something to be pleased about.” So pleased she made this handbag. Surely Smythsons should buy the design?

The demise of the speed camera

From our UK edition

One of the more interesting influences on the Conservatives is behavioural economics. The book ‘Nudge’ informs quite a lot of their thinking and one of its author Richard Thaler is now an official advisor to the party; his co-author is heading up regulatory policy for Obama. One of the major British evangelists for behavioural economics and its insight is The Spectator’s own Wiki Man, Rory Sutherland. He drew this magazine’s attention to Thaler and Nudge long before people in the Westminster Village had cottoned onto it.

Pre-Freudian slip

From our UK edition

Theresa May is chairing a discussion with a set of Conservative PPCs on 'job clubs', as part of this afternoon's focus on welfare reform.  She kicks off asking one of the Tory PPCs on the panel, Maggie Throup, to talk about job clubs in her area: "So, Maggie, tell us about...". Problem is, May addresses her remarks at the wrong PPC, Suzy Davis. Mistake realised, she wheels round and puts the same question to the actual Maggie Throup.  Not a good start. It's picked up since. The welfare adviser David Freud, who jumped ship from Labour to the Tories, is now on stage. And he gets a cheer when he says "I've always been a Conservative.". This is a significant time for Freud.

Rolling in it

From our UK edition

Well, the Tories will be pleased.  According to Channel 4's Gary Gibbon, they've made a tidy £1.5 million profit from their party conference.  When you consider how much must have been spent in Manchester - it's a very slick operation with banners, screens and corporate hospitalities everywhere - this news is yet another sign (were one needed) of the Tories' momentum.

Expect more “fine print” on spending soon

From our UK edition

Sifting through this morning's papers, you'd say that it's mission accomplished for George Osborne's speech yesterday. The realigned Sun demonstrates how much it has got behind the Tories, by giving the Shadow Chancellor an absolutely glowing report ("the Shadow Chancellor came of age"). He also receives good-to-medium notices in the Times, the FT and the Independent, while the Guardian is more mixed, but hardly damning. In the Mail, Quentin Letts writes that "Yesterday the Boy became Boss George". And so on and so on. You can see where they're all coming from.  As I wrote yesterday, there's much that was impressive in Osborne's speech. But there were also some weaknesses on the policy side of things.

Cameron needs to tackle the expenses scandal head on

From our UK edition

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.

Aside from saving Gordon Brown, twice, what’s Peter Mandelson ever done for us?

From our UK edition

For such a Big Beast, Ken Clarke’s speech this afternoon was very pedestrian. Admittedly, the subject matter, cutting red tape for small businesses, was unlikely to inspire a carnival of Churchillian wit and verve. However, Clarke did provide activists with a whiff of red of meat: he trashed Mandelson’s come back. "Yes, I agree with him - responsibly and in the national interest - agree with him on the future of Royal Mail.  We agreed with him when he took his Bill through the House of Lords.  And what happened?  That weak and dithering Prime Minister – Gordon Brown - has stopped him bringing his Bill into the House of Commons.

Gotcha!

From our UK edition

When David Cameron turned up to The Spectator’s party last night, I thought it only decent to ply him with a glass of fizz. After all, a magazine whose motto is “champagne for the brain” can hardly begrudge champagne for the guests. And what’s the harm, I thought – there were no photographers at the party. Right? Wrong. The picture is now on the front page of the Evening Standard – with yours truly beside Cameron having just plonked it in his hand a few seconds earlier. I promise, it wasn’t a set-up: we thought we’d cleared the place of photographers.

How are the Tories responding to Labour’s pay freeze?

From our UK edition

So what do the Tories make of Alistair Darling's limelight-grabbing decision to freeze public sector pay? The ones I've spoken to seem perfectly relaxed with it. A little bit annoyed perhaps: wouldn't you be, if your opponents appeared to cynically delay an announcement that they could have made during their own party conference last week?  But they're confident that the public will see through the stunt, and that it will actually reflect badly on Brown & Co.  On top of that, the Tories are sure that Labour will make little headway in a news agenda that will be dominated by Tory announcements for the next few days. It's hard to disagree with them.

Will the civil service block Tory Euroscepticism?

From our UK edition

Of all the countless leaflets, pamphlets and circulars being handed out in Manchester, one of the most interesting is a glossy collection of essays entitled Cameron's Britain.  It has been put together by the folk at Portland PR - who recently hosted that "war game" which James reported back on - and has entries on everything from the NHS to tackling global poverty. As it doesn't seem to be online, I figured it's worth quoting from one of the most insightful essays of the bunch: that by Steve Morris, a former Downing St adviser, on the Whitehall machinery that the next government will have to get to grips with.  Norris makes some important points - e.g.

Further, stronger, faster

From our UK edition

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.

Lansley keeps the spending taps on

From our UK edition

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 this basic position. There were, of course, the familiar reminders that the Tories would increase health spending year-on-year.

Tory welfare plan is welcome but does not go far enough

From our UK edition

The Tories new welfare plan is, it seems, their old welfare plan – with a more ambitious timeline. It’s to be welcomed, but this is not the step change that you’d expect. In Jan08 Chris Grayling broke new ground when he proposed diagnosing all 2.7m on incapacity benefit for what work they could do (as opposed to the ‘ill’ or ‘sick’ binary distinction). Today, they express an ambition to get this done in three years. Set aside questions as to whetehr you can find enough doctors to do 2,500 “capabilty asssessments” every day – all this means is going a little faster on the original Freud proposal. There is a welcome move towards benefit simplification, but I have to agree with the conclusions of James Purnell on Open Left.

We have a tax cut

From our UK edition

George Osborne has just announced a tax cut. Any new business started in the first two years of a Tory government will pay no employers’ national insurance contributions on the first ten people it hires. This means these first ten employees will cost new businesses 12 percent less. This is a move that makes sense in both economic and political terms. Economically reducing the tax on jobs is a good move, getting more people into work will eventually result in more money coming into the Exchequer. Politically it is smart as it gives the Tories something they can point to on the doorstep to show they really are serious about boosting job creation.