Right on the money

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

The technical problems on my blog have prevented a more in-depth following of the Conservative conference but here’s how I see it up to today. Firstly, I thought that Rachel Sylvester did a great piece in The Times yesterday on the mixed messages of the first couple of days of the conference. I can’t complain that there weren’t any policy ideas – in fact, there have been so many that the government has been forced to rush out some of its own - but the problem with policies is that they often contradict each other (“Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”, anyone?) Spread out, no-one notices but releasing them all so close together draws a more prominent relief of any inconsistency.

Having said that, what I’ve heard has been pretty sensible given the financial circumstances. In 1997, it was easy for New Labour to come up with big ideas and schemes; this time, with the country in economic dire straits it’s a lot more difficult. I support the idea of benefits being cut to fund education and training – it’s the difference between economic opportunity and economic slavery. I support a long-term view of working conditions that preserves pensions but needs us to work longer for them. I also support the measures that have been put in place to support small enterprises, which create wealth, jobs and investment in this country.

I’m delighted beyond all measure that the message that I have been telling everyone who will listen should be put out is finally being delivered – that after 12 years of Labour spin, spite, incompetence and centralisation spattered by the odd moment of common sense, the Conservative Party is the party who will be honest with voters, tell them about the pain ahead and take them through what is going to be an agonising Parliament. George Osborne isn’t my favourite member of the front bench – I’ve got far more time for Runnymede and Weybridge MP Phillip Hammond, who is a real asset and should be chancellor – but his speech yesterday was dead on the money.

And it was vitally, vitally important that he delivered a well-judged message in an appropriate way. There’s still a fair hint of arrogance about his speaking method but the content was absolutely right and I suspect the voters would rather vote for an arrogant man with good ideas than a humble man with no clue.

As Nick Robinson (who else?) points out, it’s a significant political gamble to announce cuts and tough times ahead but I think people are resigned to it and it will give the Tories acredibility lacking in the current government (and Vince Cable, who just wants to tax your mansion). This country, once again, needs to be rescued from Labour overspending by a Conservative austerity regime. Am I looking forward to it? No. It is fair that public sector workers will have to cope on frozen pay? No – but then I’ve not had a pay rise this year, either. Is it fair that they should lose their jobs? No – but this is Labour’s mess and they should remember that when they cast their vote.

Labour created tens of thousands of silly jobs in the public sector that were unsustainable to fund in the long-term. Now the party is over, those stuck in them are going to have to pay Labour’s debt. It’s a shocking betrayal – but I bet Labour (in opposition) won’t see it that way.

It is also interesting to note that despite the policies coming forward, we’ve had comparitively scant negative reaction in the mainstream media – let’s leave the Grauniad and Mirror aside. Instead, the BBC has contented itself with Chris Grayling’s mishearing of questions, the appointment of Gen Sir Richard Dannat and the When Boris Met Dave silliness on Channel 4 (although calling them mainstream is a little generous) tonight.

This reflects various things, I suspect. A quiet conference day in the build up to DC’s speech tomorrow – although this usually gives space for some criticism. There is also the realisation that the next government is almost certainly going to be a Conservative and journalists getting used to buttering up the other side. But also I think there’s an unspoken feeling at conference from the websites, papers and Twitter, that Britain has been buffeted, bungled and betrayed by Labour and that Conservative support might, as Rachel Sylvester suggests, be fragile – but they do actually have some half-decent ideas to try and restore our national self-esteem.

Purpose and clarity – there is still work to be done. But I think DC knows what needs doing tomorrow.

Keep facing out

Flagging appetite for the EU

Following on from my earlier deleted post about the Irish referendum, it now looks very likely that despite Czech efforts the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified before May 2010. I don’t think many Conservatives will be happy about that and I include myself among them - but one of the most important areas of judgement in politics is knowing when a battle is lost.

The public gets very annoyed with politicians who try to prolong battles – look at Gerry Malone in Winchester in 1997 - and knowing when to move on for the sake of the country, rather than continue the fight for their own personal reasons, is something that Conservative activists must understand.

There is a real danger that the Conservative Conference, aided by some elements of the media determined to make it every bit as disastrous as the Lib Dem and Labour conferences, will become dominated by in-fighting over Europe at a time when it ought to be looking outward towards the country. I think the opposition front bench understand this – but people like Boris and Andrew Rossindell need to take time to think about it too.

Europe put the nail in the coffin of the last Conservative government – it mustn’t be allowed to put the nail in the chances of a future one.

The Lisbon Treaty is in all likelihood here to stay. Conservatives should accept a defeat shamefully ceded by Labour and allow DC and William Hague an opportunity to step back and think carefully about how to deal with Europe in the future. Renegotiation may be an option – to take back those powers that we want – but this will not be achieved overnight, nor in opposition.

So let Europe rest for now while our UK problems are addressed first and don’t help the BBC and its friends ruin what needs to be the best conference yet.

Talking to themselves

On his feet

I’ve listened to the speech, heard the reactions – from the breathless enthusiasm of the younger activists to the not-even-faint praise of Barry Sheerman on 5Live earlier, having trashed Gordon yesterday too.

The most telling reaction was that of @BBCLauraK, who tweeted that she wasn’t sure what the big message of the speech would be. The main message is this - I am Gordon, your leader and I have shown in the past what will happen to people within the party who stand up to my authority. I will take your ideas and pass them off as mine, I’ll demote you and brief against you as necessary. I am here to lead you into the next election whatever you may think and the political career of anyone who dares challenge me will be over.

It’s not a message to the country, it’s a message to his party. What the country will see, I think, is a leader whose party has been in power 12 years and who should have done many of the things he is now talking about – addressing anti-social behaviour, finishing Lords reform, looking after the poor and ensuring proper childcare provision – although what low-income households will do with ten free hours a week is a puzzler. The public will give little credit for catching up with them on ID cards and the recalling of MPs is a silly Conservative idea that will lead to abuses. Everything in his speech was tired, rehashed, borrowed – it came from anywhere but him as he lamely looks around for something resembling a “vision”.

The BBC seems to have been keener on the speech than most but that’s not surprising. There were good things in it – a National Care Service isn’t a bad idea on the surface. But where is the money coming from? Brown has already spent and lent the country to breaking point and we cannot even service the debt on borrowing at the moment. Spending cuts and tax rises are inevitable – so how on earth does he expect people to take him seriously with these uncosted ideas?

More likely, they are things that an incoming Conservative government will have to “cancel” – even though they are not started – and opportunities for the Labour opposition to capitalise on. It’s politics, but it’s hardly statesmanship from the Statesman of the Year. Once again, Gordon has delivered a speech for his party rather than his country and as the Labour Party becomes ever more inward-looking, those looking outward – such as Peter Meddlesome – will seem ever more lone voices.

I would prefer a PM who can look beyond themselves and foster real reform. But the only way to do that is to take on the Civil Service (which is letting Brown “cancel” ID cards because they know he won’t be around much longer). The New Labour project looked at one point like it had the better of the Whitehall blockers. But the battle has now been lost and Gordon showed today that he simply doesn’t have the substance to fight on, even if the heart is willing.

I want to hear DC tell everyone what the plan is. Let’s hope he’s got one.

Luvvies, Labour’s Lost

Flawed but not floored - can he turn it around

It’s a bit early to define a narrative from the Labour Conference in Brighton just yet but so far the most interesting thing coming out of the proceedings there is the attitude of the BBC.

First, we have a surprisingly combative interview from the normally obliging Andrew Marr, who went so far as to raise with the PM the issue of his alleged medication. Predictably, Brown dodged the question and instead went for the sympathy vote over his eyesight, something that David Blunkett – a far more robust and substantial man – would never have done. Whatever the answer, it caught me (and quite a few of the Tory Twitterati that I follow) out – one wonders whether this is the last Marr/Brown interview.

It obviously irked Marr to ask the question as much as it did Brown to have to answer it. The BBC man’s pleading that it was a “fair” question was followed up by some serious feigned interest in Brown’s sob story. Obviously I’m sorry he has a sight impairment – but it was noticeable how much detail he was prepared to give up on this in contrast with the actual question about prescription drugs.

Then we had this from Laura Kuenssberg (@BBCLauraK) – she really is a gem on top of a compost heap. Not only was she prepared to tell viewers the actual mood of the conference on Brown’s arrival (ie pretty dreadful) but also to lob some real questions at him about his law-breaking ministers and then reflect that the party activists (the BBC usual calls them crowds as if to ignore their handpicked pedigree) were making so much noise that he couldn’t hear her. And she hinted, quite correctly, that this was probably deliberate.

But look at the story headline – “Labour ‘should expose the Tories’”. Clearly the online staff have gone seriously off message – or on message with PM. It doesn’t reflect the downbeat message from LauraK and about Labour – or indeed much about Labour at all. It’s just a pop at the Conservatives.

Previous to this, of course, was this beauty – again courtesy of online staff – suggesting that Brown and Barack Obama are, after all, the closest of chums and that Obama doesn’t see Brown as a washed-up political liability or “depressing to be around“, as one of his staff leaked to the press. According to the BBC, this official line “quelled rumours” of an Obama snub. No it didn’t – and who are they to report that as fact? Any moderately sensible person watching the polls will realise that the last thing Obama needs with his problems at home is to become embroiled in some tawdry scheme by a foreign political party to prop up their ailing government with lent popularity.

Obama isn’t my cup of tea but he’s certainly not a fool. And only a fool would consider anything other than refusing any more public airtime with Gordon than was absolutely necessary. Any suggestion to the contrary is completely counter-inituitive and total propaganda, which the Beeb is only too happy to repeat.

Going back to the polls, not even Obama could have found a way to spin a poll that suggests you are heading out of office positively. I can’t now find the link on the BBC website – maybe they’ve seen sense and pulled it – but this poll, which states 41% of people think Brown is almost certainly going to lose is bad, bad news. Instead, the BBC concentrated on the 48% of people who though Labour still had a “slim chance” of winning in 2010, along with the 11% who think he will win.

It’s a silly question – you can’t ever rule out that a party has a “slim chance” of winning. I’m not surprised so many people ticked that box rather than commit themselves but it doesn’t reflect reality. The BBC is supposed to be here to present facts not spin to us that 59% of people think Gordon is still in with a chance next year – of course he is, he’s taking part in the election. They are more aware than ever that politics is self-fulfilling and by buying into this silly poll (I though they didn’t report routine polls anyway) they are just playing PM and the PM’s game for them. At our expense.

I don’t expect the BBC to give DC a free ride. I don’t expect them to push through government PR work. But there is a bipolarity within the corporation at the moment between the political pragmatists that realise the New Labour years are 95% drawing to a close and the politically-motivated staff who desperately want to play a hand in upsetting the odds with sly journalism. It’s got no place in the BBC and they have no place on the public payroll.

The BBC is a service, not a political tool. I’m afraid quite a number of its staff work there for the wrong reasons – they should stand for election instead.

Economical with the truth

It’s a mixed day for the economic forecasts at the moment. Gordon Brown, for obvious reasons, is keen to claim credit for a few signs that the recession misery is easing. More likely, the dire straits of the first few months of 2009 are calming and the economy is being stimulated by production starting up again and the billions of extra pounds that the Bank of England has been forced to print.

Elsewhere, economists aren’t as optimistic as Gordon. Ann Pettifor thinks the worst is yet to come and the FT reports that even after a recovery is in full swing, there will be parts of the economy that have been permanently damaged and that will not return to pre-recession levels.

On a political level, Gordon’s front-page splash in the FT (complete with exclusive picture of Blairite hand gestures) is designed to keep City relations on an admittedly delicate even keel by trying to convince bankers that controlling their bonuses is vital to re-establishing the City’s reputation abroad.

He also knows that the FT is the newspaper that journalists read and that a front page there will get picked up everywhere else (notably the BBC, although they are obviously annoyed the story was fed to the FT as they only run it in the business news) for more populist purposes.

The point is this – that Gordon and his gang are going to try and claim that far from wrecking the UK’s once vibrant financial services and manufacturing economy with ruinous debts, strangling regulation and non-existent oversight, the government has actually saved it from destruction and navigated the financial storm. Really?

DC writes today in the Times about the Lockerbie decision and that’s fair enough because clearly some pretty underhand stuff has gone on there. But he needs to be ready to maintain pressure on Gordon over his economy-wrecking and head off Labour attempts to create a competence myth around the embryonic recovery.

Labour governments always end up out of office with the country bankrupt and 2010 will be no exception. DC needs to bring his communications skills to bear on this fact if Labour are not to slip out of the electoral noose.

I guess you had to be there. The Sixties, I mean. To understand what it is about the Kennedy clan that was so important that it propelled them to global icons and the political embodiment of the age.

It certainly wasn’t achievement. JFK only had two years to do anything – and only succeeded in invading Cuba and holding off the Soviets. His brother Robert had a little longer but also found himself frustrated by the establishment. The fact that they were both assassinated has swelled their significance, importance and ideology further than it ever went in their lives.

Ted Kennedy’s death is sad – deaths always are. And a brain tumour is a nasty way to go – for the Kennedy family and liberal America, today is a day for mourning and that is to be understood and appreciated. Ted Kennedy wasn’t without his accomplishments, as one would expect for a man who had sat in the Senate since 1962.

But at least Kennedy got 40 years longer than Mary Jo Kopechne to enjoy sitting in the Senate. His questionable motives for being in a car with her as well as the circumstances surrounding her death didn’t mark him out as an exemplary human being, whatever his political impact.

And I’m sorry, there’s also the small matter of his support for the IRA. He may have changing his tune as the winds of peace swept through Northern Ireland in the 1990s but his cosying up to the Republican movement and support of Irish nationalism do him no favours in the eyes of the civilised. Yes, there are questions of sovereignty and civil rights to be addressed in Ireland but Ted Kennedy’s initial stance was not one of engagement and reconciliation.

Interestingly, the BBC opinion boards show a great deal of tributes from Irish posters and somewhat less enthusiasm from UK ones. But that’s the BBC – funded by the British to provide for the rest of the world.

One wonders whether those who have similarly been involved in partially-explained deaths and supported terrorism will be given across-the-wall-TV coverage when they pass on? It is the ability of the Kennedy clan to capture attention that I have never understood.

They are an average, if wealthy, family at best.

Laura and Order

It’s a pleasure to be able to report some good journalism at the BBC because it doesn’t happen very often these day. Laura Kuenssberg may lack Nick Robinson’s trademark glasses and gleaming pate but it hasn’t stopped her vastly outplaying him while he’s sunning himself abroad.

For a blog that is usually highly timid about criticising the government in any meaningful way, her story about the total shambles that is the MoD procurement report - and government attempts to not publish it – have been clear, candid and questioning in a way that the insider Robinson is not.

The details of the story itself are shocking but we should not be shocked. This kind of flaccid, complacent and obscene disregard for value is rife across all government departments (go and read Private Eye), where government appears to be run for the benefit of private sector contractors rather than the British taxpayer.

Ironically, few of the private contractors would survive with fiscal control as disastrous as the government’s. In this way, money from the UK government either goes to foreign contractors (notably within the EU) and leaves the country or to British contractors, only to be taken back through taxation.

As a nation, we need to break this cycle and start considering how we can bring in more money into the country than we hand out. We are a long, long way from that situation at the moment because we have not much to give the world.

But using what we have more effectively will help – hopefully Laura’s exposure of this dreadful, sickening wastefulness will help bring about an adequately rigorous approach to spending our scant resources.

Rocky Horror Show

Isn’t it nice to own shares? Well, it was for those owned shares in the successful and profitable building society that was Northern Rock until the socialist spite tendency of Labour decided to confiscate all shareholders’ holdings and take over ownership (not quite the same as nationalisation, where the controlling stake is bought back).

Unsurpringly, this has resulted in the bank making a £725million loss in the first six months of 2009. As if that wasn’t enough, the government then strongarmed one of the only sensible banks Lloyds TSB into buying up their Scottish – and politically important – basketcase HBOS, rendering it every bit as shaky as the Rock.

So every bank that the government has touched has so far starting to crumble, although Robert Peston (son of a Labour peer) is keen to spin the line that things are improving.

It all makes the offers from Virgin and JC Flowers in November 2007 look rather tempting. The reason that neither went ahead with the takeover was that the Treasury demanded payback of all taxpayer loans by 2010 – ahead, of course, of the election. This was so that Labour could claim that they had succeeding in dealing with the bank’s problems at profit to the taxpayer.

This now won’t happen – at least not the latter part. Let us hope that the government doesn’t desperately thrash around for a buyer just to get the thing disposed before May 2010 merely to prevent the Conservatives taking the credit. That would be quite blantantly governing for narrow political purposes rather than for the benefit of the country.

Perish the thought.

Repeat offenders

Releasing “news” time and time again is not something that is unheard of with the Labour government and it seems that even the BBC is not trying to hide it for them anymore.

We heard today (well, actually it was leaked to the NoW yesterday) from the Home Office that a brilliant “new” scheme of gaining citizenship was going to be pioneered, with points awarded for good behaviour until pop – the passport’s in the post.

But we’ve also heard it before, as a quick glance in the See Also column on the right hand side of the story shows. First in June 2007 for goodness’ sake and then again in January this year as Brown’s desperation mounted.

This is not new – instead of peddling the press release to the public once again, the BBC ought to be pressing on why something mooted two years ago is no further to delivery. Especially if they can’t bothered to spare the government’s re-spinning blushes anyway.