Tories Conference Policy

I've been following the Tory Conference this week, after Cameron's speech it's time to write about this Conservative utopia they speak of. In a nutshell the Tories want to tackle welfare dependency, anti-social behaviour, boost business, improve the NHS and put a cap on some immigration, which are all traditionally Tory areas. Yet there are some interesting ideas scattered among what you would expect and some bizarre ones to.

All parties are looking at the public sector to save money, Lib Dems were the first followed by Labour announcing policy just before the Tories on freezing public sector pay, I wonder what effect that had on George Obsboure's policy, as his goes much further than Labour's. It would of course be good tactics for Labour to try to create a stand off between the Tories and the unions, not so good for everyone else though if it escalates.

Policy announced that did catch my eye is their tax break for firms created in the first two years of a Tory government. In principle it sounds a good idea, employees are companies biggest financial burden, thus take some of the burden away and make people easier to employ. Also tackling the state pension, this has to be addressed at some point, people are living longer combined with the cost of living having gone up. I would have preferred to have seen some policy that supports people in taking out a private pension though, as that's really the way out of this. Otherwise their could end up a bigger divide between those who could take out a pension and those that couldn't.

Their education policy i.e Troops to Teachers programme falls into the bizarre category, send the troops into schools? How sane, reasonable and not at all gimmicky. Though I'm not really taken with their education policy in general, not only does Michael Gove look like the Child Catcher but his policy is a little child hating to. Yet in fairness just getting politicians noses out of the curriculum would probably be enough to improve the standard of education.

Tory foreign policy looks like just Labours, only difference is the Tories might listen to people rather than just keep doing the same thing. As unlike Labour they've not committed themselves to a course of action. I am disappointed though with Hague on this point and concerned about his little EU fixation, by that I mean his deep, heartfelt hatred for the EU.

Cameron's speech itself was quite pointed in places, I felt he identified the problems with Labour well, perhaps however a little too well. Everything was so calculated and Thatcher like, I even thought at one point he was channelling her. Yet what Cameron does have working in his favour is continuity, unlike Blair he's not just telling one person one thing and another something completely different, while doing whatever he likes and smiling like a manic. Cameron does have a vision, I wouldn't describe it as utopian, yet I can think of far worst.



Update - You can read Cameron's full speech here.

Wise Spending Vs Savage Cuts

It seems the main parties are singing the same song of cuts now, just at slightly different notes and Lord Long Pretentious title is doing what he does best, spinning like a record. It's not cuts it's "wiser spending", the Tories are the cutters, "savage" cutters. Where as Labour will "prioritise and economise" the Tories will make "indiscriminate across-the-board spending cuts".

Yet Mandelson's media rounds were just to clear the way for Brown speech to TUC today, where after months and months of refusal to even mention the dirty word "cuts", Brown uttered it. In doing so he set up Labours new narrative. They will "protect and improve your front line services" and the Conservatives will "reduce public services at the very time they are needed most". Expect to hear that sound bite constantly for the next few months.

Labours narrative is simply put - to play the Thatcher card. It's a fairly good card to play since core Labour voters may be motivated by it and they may gain ground with those who hated her, and there are many, nothing divides a room quite like saying the name Thatcher.

Though by playing this card, it is a dressed up admission that they're trying to limit the damage of the election. As they need to woo back middle England in order to win it, they won't do that by playing the Thatcher card, she called middle England "her people". This could easily end up in Brown's clumsy hands, the finial nail in New Labour's ability to cross that divide that brought them to power.

The policies that Brown spoke of today in his speech to the union were certainly playing to the gallery, they had echoes of Old Labour. Which is the problem with Brown's speech, voters won't believe that New Labour will do it, they've become just, if not more tainted to people as Thatcher was. Which does pose the question - has this admission and narrative come to late for anyone to listen or even care?

They'll Have to Drag Brown Kicking

Brown has rejected calls to quit saying he wasn't "arrogant" or "unwilling to listen" but:

I think the cleaning up of the political system is best done by someone who has got a clear idea of what needs to be done - and I have.

Certainly a statement that proves his point, even if 69% of people would disagree. Yet what's his proposal to clean up the system, "major constitutional reform" to gain back public trust. That doesn't of course include what people actually want; honesty, transparency and having an election. The man is like an Imperial Leather sticker on a bar of soap, they'll have to drag him kicking and screaming from Downing Street.

Yet does hope lay in the Westminster whispers of mutiny within Labour? Is there really a leadership challenge gaining favour, in effect what happened to Thatcher. Labours main problem is that Thatcher was elected, Brown is already the non elected second switch, it could be prove a push too far switching again. They would have to call an election straight away to legitimise it, yet a new leader would need time to make a mark and repair some of the damage Brown has done, otherwise there's not much point.

Perhaps the Royal Mail debate and vote will prove temping for conspirators to hijack. More than 150 Labour MPs are rebelling against the plans, before taking into account election results and mutiny. The Tories are backing the bill though it would be a very close vote and if Brown lost, a motion of confidence could be called or a legitimate leadership challenge. Though Mandelson has already hinted the showdown could be delayed, it would have been a few days after the elections.

Even with all the headlines and debate surrounding this mutiny, I don't really see a Labour back or front bencher doing it. The current climate is what will protect Brown, voters need to know who will be standing in the election, they need to get parliament in order. Which is why Brown is now singing the tune of reform, and why no doubt he'll drag his feet, if it was just the economy he would not be safe. Labours best option is to trigger an election a little later this year, as that's the only thing they can do that will have a lot of public support. Going 12 months would be political suicide.

Britain is a More Unequal Since 60s

There's an article in the Guardian that shows under a Labour government, income inequality is higher than at any time during Margaret Thatcher's time in office. The poorest 10% of households have seen a drop in income, yet the top 10% have increased. Under a Labour government? How very lefty of them.

Thatcher 30 Years

3o years ago today Thatcher the Marmite of politicians was elected. Her name brings joy and warmth to the hearts of Tories, but outside of them opinions can divide people in an instant, friendships destroyed and born from a single word. On this 30 year mark, what does Thatcher mean to me?

I was born in 1981, so I fall into a generation that wasn't directly effected by Thatchers policy at the time. She falls into the backdrop of my life, if I think back to my childhood I see her as imposing figure in the TV set, as a Spitting Image puppet and remember snippets of conversations that I didn't understand until I got older. Perhaps that leaves me in a grey area, I don't have that deep hatred that comes from feeling wronged.

I can't say Thatcher influenced me with her politics, as I find a lot of her policies to polarised and life isn't that simple. That's not to say she's without effect on me. I do think having a female Prime Minster made me feel legitimatised has a girl growing up. Not in an iconic nor raging feminist way, more that there was something reassuring that a woman could get to that position.

That is the one thing I can take from Thatcher, politics aside, I do admire the fact she was a woman with backbone. I'm glad I have know that in a Prime Minster, given there is a generation that hasn't.