Cutting with credibility

June 8, 2010 — simonashall

The PM speaking at MK

The PM’s speech in Milton Keynes was among the most important of his political career so far. It defined his position more clearly than anything previously on the defining political question of the decade – how to get Britain back into business.

We can take from it several things – firstly that the PM will lay it on very thick about the economic crisis being Labour’s fault. I think that’s no bad thing – particularly because they are starting to come out with some pretty outrageous criticism of the coalition on a situation they helped, at least, to create. But I think he’s got to be careful and not get too free with this tactic. He needs to be the consensus man, the leader, the unifier and the solution, not the “new” problem.

Secondly, the PM is happy to tell us just how bad it is, unlike Labour. Not everyone will agree with him but it is obviously in his interest to make things seem as bad as possible. I don’t think a great deal of exaggeration is necessary – things are very, very bad – but the openness he is in a political position to afford could be something of an advantage. I think if played well, far from Mervyn King’s prediction being correct, the public could be sympathetic to the Coalition for some time to come. Honest actions go a long way in politics nowadays and the public recognise favourably politicians who are prepared to do the right, if not popular, thing.

Thirdly, Danny Alexander will be right next to him – all the way. There’s no way that the Liberal Democrats are getting off the hook with this one as full members of the Coalition and I don’t think they want to. NC has said that there will be a “cut with kindness” policy that will shield some of the most vulnerable from the worst of what needs to be done but that can only do so much – they can’t be protected from council cuts in many areas.

Nor do I think it’s a good idea for George Osborne to widely consult the public on where to save money. This is a very risky strategy that could puta very considerable rod in his back when Labour organises a Twitter campaign to get people to respond in a particular way. The results could then be FOIed and may not be where the final decision needs to be made. It could look like the public has been consulted and ignored – not great PR.

The simple answer here is that, a bit like Masterchef, this new economic future is going to “change our life”. There are opportunities for efficiency, yes, and looking at different ways of providing services. But the bottom line is that we need to get a £170bn deficit down and there’s a lot of money to hack off budgets. It must be done, it must be done quickly and there is a certainly amount of political risk that is going to come as the pay-off of winning the election (sort of).

I think the Coalition needs to remember that the public has a great deal more of a problem with dishonesty than ineffectiveness. If the government tries to mask the problem, if it breaks its promises over what it is going to cut, if there is a suspicion that certain groups are being unjustly protected or if there is any underhand treasury regulation as with the last government, the considerable goodwill that the public holds will drain quickly.

If the government is straight, calls a cut a cut and acts responsibly for the best interests of the nation, it might just find itself laying down a legacy of decency – if not prosperity – and a chance in 2015 to lead the country properly back into the new world economy with its head held high.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Economy, lib dems. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Reality a-tax

May 27, 2010 — simonashall

The Daily Mail is leading the charge for the right wing of the Conservative Party and David Davis suggesting that people with second homes, shares, jewellery and other assets should not face any increase in Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 40% in order to help people on lower incomes (below £10,000) stay out of income tax altogether. There is plenty of talk of “betrayal” and “revolt” among the 1922 hopefuls and a general feeling that a Conservative government doesn’t do this sort of thing.

Firstly, let’s remember that the reason we are in government at all is because we’ve been able to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems. Sure, a Conservative government with a outright majority would probably have steered clear of CGT altogether but we were 18 seats short of where we wanted to be and the result is compromise rather than full implementation of Conservative principles. It’s a little uncomfortable in places but the PM has said that stable government was necessary in this time of national strife and compromise is part of that.

Furthermore, David Davis says that he wants to protect the ”hard-working, responsible, self-reliant middle and working classes”. I’m not sure how many “ordinary” people he feels deal in more than £10,000 of capital gains each year but I suspect the answer is “not many”. You also won’t find in any of the major papers the fact that the current 18% rate was only set by Labour in 1998 and previously had been much higher under the Conservative government during the 80s and 90s.

The fact is that people who have these kinds of assets to make money on need to pay their fair share in helping reduce the deficit – that may be fair to those whose trading helped bring the problems about and unfair on prudent savers. That’s unfortunate, it’s not entirely comfortable and it’s certainly not Conservative; but it’s necessary and hopefully temporary.

What is important is that those who are being helped by this measure by being freed of tax burdens and encouraged to work at the lower end of the pay scale are given a very firm steer in that direction. There is no justice in asking some people to pay for a £10,000 income tax threshold if those benefitting from it are then not working or contributing to society. Just as we need the wealthiest to help the country out of trouble, so we need the bottom-up economy to get working too.

Having taken a centrist view of the CGT issue then, I’m happy to take a more centre-right view on Iain Duncan Smith’s promise to mend our benefits system, which is a national joke. Of course I believe that the poorest in society should have the help they need. But I also firmly believe that thousands and thousands of people routinely abuse our over-complex and under-thought benefits system for their own gain – at the expense of the entire nation and other taxpayers.

So I hope that left-leaning thinkers will see a connection here – between controlling the right-leaning tax tendencies of the Conservative Party but also changing the liberal attitudes to the Welfare State that have cost Britain money and not a little self-respect during the past 20 years.

Posted in Conservatives, Social Justice, Tax. Tags: , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Three times a leader

May 24, 2010 — simonashall

Cllr John Kingsbury

At the first council meeting of the municipal year, Cllr John Kingsbury was re-elected as leader of the executive, even if with no overall control he can’t quite claim to be leader of the council. John took over as leader of the executive in 2008, was re-elected last year and this is the third confirmation in his position, which makes it the longest tenure since Jim Armitage.

In him, Woking has both an experienced and gentle touch. I’ve known John for many years going back to my reporting days and no-one cares more deeply about doing the right things for the borough than him. A consensus politician in the best possible sense, John has friends across the chamber and it says much about him that in a situation where the necessity for cross-party working could not be starker, he is the person the council as a whole feels can best deliver that.

I believe that he is the best choice for Woking and that he has a strong executive team in people like David Bittleston, Beryl Hunwicks and Graham Cundy to support him.

No doubt there are those who would prefer a more robust approach and who believe that it is possible to force through more fundamentally Conservative policy. Perhaps if the elections had left us with different maths, there might be a case for that but at the moment the only way to keep things working at Woking Borough Council is compromise and negotiation – the electorate, after all, has spoken. The 80-odd votes in key areas that would have seen things emerge differently weren’t won and that is something that needs to be put aside now we are into the real business of the council.

In his speech to council, John was quite clear that those in local government at the present time face great challenges ahead over services and financial pressures. But he maintained that a focus on service improvement was the key guiding principle of the council and that he would look to deliver everything in the Conservative manifesto – low council tax, community investment, 60% recycling, green belt protection, youth facilities and community law and order – in co-operation with the other parties.

Both he and Lib Dem leader Ric Sharp referenced the national coalition, with Cllr Sharp finishing his speech by quoting the PM. It might not be the Grand Coalition but if John believes he can make it work for the residents of Woking, I’m more than happy to put my trust in his judgement.

PS I had a great deal of fun doing a live Twitter feed from the public gallery tonight, pity the council doesn’t have a better 3G signal or even WiFi.

Posted in Conservatives, Woking Borough Council, politics. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Medicine Cabinet takes shape

May 13, 2010 — simonashall

The Medicine Cabinet

As the PM named his cabinet today, there are one or two surprises but also a good deal of talent that I hope will mean that this cabinet is able to heal and address the multitude of problems that we face.

The Foreign Office has been preparing for William Hague’s arrival for five years and I’m very pleased that this pleasant, intelligent, articulate and skilful man with such a mastery of politics has finally achieved an office that will do him justice. His last government post was as Welsh Secretary and since leaving the leadership in 2001, he has become one of the most significant and gentle voices in Conservatism. Immensely popular with the grass roots, he has got a significant challenge to extracate us from Afghanistan and head off Iran.

I’m delighted too that Michael Gove is Education Secretary and will get the opportunity to enact his reforms to improve standards and give more autonomy to teachers. He is a generous and thoughtful man who understands the value of education and its ability to transform lives. Iain Duncan Smith makes a very welcome return to the front line after working on policy at his Centre for Social Justice. His work on how to build a better society and his personal convictions on this subject will be an invaluable contribution.

We all thought that Ken Clarke was a successful chancellor but actually he has been a QC since 1980 and the post of Justice Secretary will allow him to take a step back from the economy for the time being. The appointments of Jeremy Hunt - who visited Woking two weeks ago and is a really nice guy as well as a great MP - and Sayeeda Warsi, who helped give Nick Griffin such a pasting on Question Time, are also reasons to be happy. I hope both will be successful and grow into even more prestigious offices in the future – but for the Lib Dem presence, undoubtedly both would have featured more prominently.

The Lib Dem presence is a positive thing. It is always difficult for the Conservatives to be representative of Scotland given we only have one MP there and Danny Alexander is rightly given the brief of Scottish Secretary. He is a skilled communicator and problem-solver who is well-placed to deal with the SNP on equal terms. David Laws, on the right of the Lib Dems, is someone who shares an economic realism that he will need as Chief Secretary - Vince Cable did well to side-step that role, which will be high-profile during the spending reviews ahead.

Chris Huhne is a principled and cerebral man who I met several years ago when he was an MEP. He will be able to argue strongly for a more sustainable future – whether he’ll be comfortable when it comes to energy policy remains to be seen. Vince Cable’s popularity will be tested as Business Secretary but his abilities are not in doubt and he has a wealth of business experience to draw on. 

I’m not happy about everything – George Osborne is still a barrier to support for many people and I believe should have been dropped as chancellor in favour of Philip Hammond. I’m not sure why Theresa May is Home Secretary and would have preferred the responsbility for women and equality to have fallen separately – perhaps to Baroness Warsi. I was never sure why Liam Fox was moved from health or why Andrew Lansley was moved into it and Caroline Spelman seems a strange choice for the environment. I regret the passing over of Nick Herbert and excellent housing spokesman Grant Shapps.

But what we have now is much better than the fag-ends of the Labour government and the pernicious influence of Mandelson and Campbell has been expunged from power. Now the work of the cabinet, which I believe is united behind its reform programme, must begin.

Update 13/5: Rightly, both Nick Herbert and Grants Shapps are now ministers according to The Times:

2.45pm The keys to the safe

Damian Green – once notoriously arrested (but not charged) on suspicion of receiving leaks from the home office – is confirmed as immigration minister. No longer any need for leaks then: he’ll be working in the home office.

And Nick Herbert will also be at the home office as the minister with responsibility for police.

Two facts about him: his middle name is Le Quesne. And he’s one of the few openly gay senior Tories.

Posted in Conservatives, lib dems, news. Tags: , . No Comments »

At long last

May 11, 2010 — simonashall

What we've all waited 13 years to see

The day after my 19th birthday, Tony Blair swept into Number 10 with a silly grin on his face and the nation hypnotised by the promise of hope, panache and plenty. I didn’t think he’d deliver any of these as no Labour PM had ever done so before and six months later, I joined the Conservative Party. I made it my aim as a student activist to try and get rid of Labour but I found a Tory Party unwilling to learn lessons or change and so followed a different path - but the events of May 1, 1997 politicised me in a moment that everyone active in politics experiences.

Today, Labour has finally gone. But unlike 1997, there is no sense of positivity and little hope for short-term prosperity. In 13 years of borrowing from the future, Labour has brought the country to its knees financially and failed to address any of the social issues that people believed it would. Yes, there have been some difficult circumstances not all of its own making but Labour has ruled recklessly – and, worse, in its own self-interest. It has expanded the public sector to bring more people into state pay, opened our borders to bring in voters likely to boost its standing and declined to address benefits dependancy and a lack of social mobility to keep whole sections of society locked into a sense of victimhood.

What has happened since 1997 has been an undermining of our nation far exceeding anything that happened under Margaret Thatcher. Almost every aspect of our daily lives has been made worse by Labour – and that is quite an achievement. From our economy to our overseas interests – our health service to education, Labour has failed to stem decline in all of these areas through a woeful addiction to political dogma and a determination that the country should serve it rather than the other way round.

The Conservative Party needs to accept its share of the blame for the 1997-2005 years. It was a shambles of an opposition during that time, fighting among itself and moving decisively to the right in the wake of John Major’s defeat. William Hague is a fine politician but if Ken Clarke had been appointed leader in 1997, it is quite possible that Labour’s spree of destruction would have ceased in 2005. DC is the person who has turned that situation around – but it is only the beginning.

I long imagined that the sight of DC entering Number 10 would fill me with joy but it gives me no pleasure that a Conservative Prime Minister should be in power once more faced with the bleakest, leanest and most difficult times since the Second World War. But at least at last, at long last, the shadow that the wretched and devisive New Labour project cast over this nation of ours has been lifted and the process of finding our place in the world once more can begin.

But I envy neither the new PM nor our coalition colleagues the Liberal Democrats for the work that has to be done.

Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Roll on 2010. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »

Vote amber, go red

April 20, 2010 — simonashall

Any Conservative voters who really believe that a vote for Nick Clegg will get them a sort of Labour-lite – avoiding the upheaval of a change of government, keeping the half-decent things that Labour has done while not having to put up with the “old party” of Gordon Brown or even Gordon Brown himself – should read this post at ConservativeHome.

We are choosing a government and people need to look at what the Lib Dems will actually deliver if elected. They want to give all pension tax relief at the basic rate – so if you earn more that £37,400 your contributions above that limit will get relief of 20%, not 40%. They also want to tax capital gains at the same rate as income – a 2% increase on the basic rate and 22% on anything above £37,400. They want to scrap the Child Trust Fund, scale back the HomeBuy programme that helps people onto the property ladder, cancel the next tranche of Eurofighter aircraft and cancel Trident. Then there’s the local income tax, the stopping of people going to prison for fewer than six months (effectively ending the power of magistrates to send people to prison) and the threats to reform our voting system so that they will remain in coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour in perpetuity.

In addition, the Lib Dems will push for further European integration and there will certainly be no support for withdrawal from the EU, they will open our borders for unlimited immigration, are proposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants and will continue to be staunch supporters of handing continuing amounts of sovereignty over law and order, foreign policy and taxation to Brussels. Quite a price to pay for a fresh face on the telly.

All of this policy may not be Conservative or Labour and it may not come directly from the mouths of those associated with past ills, although let’s not forget Michael Brown and the fact that Lib Dems too were invovled in expenses and other scandals, but that doesn’t stop it being regressive and contrary to the national interest.

The equation that we face is shockingly simple. The Conservative manifesto sets out a positive future for Britain under David Cameron that builds on opportunity, self-empowerment for individuals and communities and a focus on a high-technology economy to pay off our crushing debts. If you don’t agree with the Conservatives and you’re not convinced that we can deliver, the only other option open to you at this stage is a Labour/Liberal coalition with Gordon Brown as PM. I can’t think of a worse place for Britain to be on May 7 – an outright majority for either of those parties would be better.

We must leave The  X-Factor to Simon Cowell and the pop music industry and keep our sense of proportion in politics. It is time for change and not chance, confidence and not compromise and a future that shows to the world Britain has a plan for recovery.

Posted in Conservatives, Lib Dem lies, elections. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Lesson from JK Rowling

April 14, 2010 — simonashall

JK Rowling with a book containing more truth than the Labour manifesto

I’m not a fan of JK Rowling – I think her books are terrible and the fact she gives money to the Labour Party is borne of an similar level of fantasy. Today she writes in The Times about DC and the party’s manifesto for single mothers and although the Times subs have done their best with it, it’s still a couple of commas short of iambic pentameter.

But depressingly, I find myself agreeing with some of what she says and I think she’s done the party a favour by spelling it out, albeit after the manifesto is published. I’ve written on it before and I’ll say it again – the Conservative Party policy to reward married couples with a (very token) tax break is a step backwards in bringing its attitudes in line with a modern Britain that isn’t interested in recapturing 1950s social norms.

Firstly, the fact is that society will no longer be told by government what it should find acceptable and unacceptable – the role of government in this area is now defunct and no amount of bleating by the right of the party will bring it back. Yes, the family unit is still the single most important building block of society but the family unit can no longer be described as one man married to one woman and their resulting offspring. A government that tries to impose this doctrine through the tax system will not succeed and the party it is formed from will ultimately lose credibility.

Secondly, JK Rowling points out that “it’s not the money, it’s the message” is a deeply misguided view of what single parents go through. For those who have decent independent incomes and families to fall back on when they part, it may just be about the message – although not a very welcome one, I should imagine. But for others who don’t have partners at any time in their parenthood or families able to support them financially following separation, it is very much about the money. And if anything, we should be spending the money otherwise used in this tax break supporting those who need it ie the single-parent families, not married couples.

I believe that DC takes social responsibility and justice seriously but this policy doesn’t back that up. Having said that, much else in the manifesto does. I joined the Conservative Party because I want to see a society where people can get opportunity, work and make a prosperous future for themselves and their families. But if they manage that, they don’t need state subsidy as well. In an ideal world, no-one would.

But this isn’t an ideal world and until it becomes so, that help from the state which exists needs to be focussed on those who need it; married, divorced, single or otherwise.

Posted in Conservatives, Social Justice, Tax. Tags: , , , , , , . No Comments »

From state action to social action

April 13, 2010 — simonashall

Labour’s manifesto yesterday gave a pretty clear message – we are tired and incompetent but we’ve got a few bottom-of-the-barrel ideas left to promise you that we haven’t got around to during our 13 years in government; and more to the point, aren’t you worried about what the Tories will do?

I don’t feel it’s worthy of serious analysis - from the 1930s Soviet-era cover design to the misguided drafting in of @BevaniteEllie to introduce the whole shower, the journalists in the room gave it a cool response. After three terms, a government should either be ready to head off in a clear new direction building on past successes or it should be booted out. In all honesty, that’s what should have happened in 1992 to us.

So today was the Conservatives’ chance to deliver the killer formula for government. My only only real bone of contention with the manifesto is that succinct it ain’t – at 131 pages, it’s going to test the staying power of all but the most political of animals. What Labour did better than us yesterday was to make clear pledges – I still search in vain for the simplified version for use on the doorstep. I refute the idea that there is anything patronising about that and I don’t understand why we’ve dressed the content – which I think is great – up in such a florid and frankly inaccessible way.

Once you get past the presentational difficulties, I’m really excited about what we are promising to do. I like the idea that “Britain needs a new economic model” and that “we need to boost enterprise and creat a low-carbon, hi-tech economy” – we have to adapt to global economic changes and accept the world is never going to be how it was before the recession. The Benchmarks for Britain are a brilliant idea and spell out very strongly our economic priorities, cutting the deficit quicker through a freeze on public sector pay and an end to tax credits for those who don’t need them. The advantage of the detail is that no-one can say we haven’t spelt out our economic policies – not, that is, if they’ve read the manifesto.

I love the idea of the UK being the “number one hi-tech exporter in Europe” and I believe that we can do it. This passage, more than almost anything else, convinces me that I’m fighting for a party concerned about 20 years into the future and not just the election in 2014/5. It won’t be picked up in the media, but I think it is worthy of great credit and re-modelling the economy could sow the seeds for prosperity in the next 20 years.

On employment, “a hand up, not a band out” is the middle ground and where we need to be and improving the skills of the workforce is key. There’s pledges for small businesses and a section on immigration that I know will please the right of the party but that I can live with as well; based, as it is, on getting people who already live here into employment and reducing the state welfare bill.

We are pledging to ensure that the whole of the UK shares in the proceeds of economic prosperity and that is a really important message. Under previous Conservative governments, the south east and London have disproportionally benefitted and while there will inevitably be some inequally favouring the capital in particular, the gap has been too large. “Better and more reliable infrastructure” will help this.

The Big Society is the cornerstone of the social agenda, with funding for those groups “that strengthen communities in deprived areas”  and using the state to “remake” society. “Our ambition is for every adult in the country to be an active member of a neighbourhood group”, says the manifesto – it’s big stuff, strong stuff and “new ways to increase philanthropy” is another thing that really speaks to me. When I joined the Conservative Party in 1997, we were all about Europe, saving the pound and carrying on hunting. I couldn’t see how we would ever get back to the centre ground and so I left in 2001 to concentrate on journalism and give the party the time it needed.

It is so good now to see that we have finally learned we must harness the economic liberalism that we believe in to achieve self-empowerment, opportunity and the fulfillment of aspiration for all of society. I didn’t join the Conservative Party to preserve the privileges of the super-wealthy or protect the interests of any one section of society. I joined because I want to see – and I want it to deliver – a Britain that doesn’t choose between excellence or equality as it has in the past.

I am delighted to see “we have a reform plan to deliver the changes the NHS needs” and that “improving our schools system is the most important thing we can do to make opportunity more equal” (excuse the dodgy grammar there). These are the issues that the 2010 Conservative Party holds dear and when I think about 1997, I cannot help but feel as if DC’s reform of the party is a process that will define politics in this century. A Conservative Party that understands the link between economy and society – who’d have thought it?

The Changing Politics section is interesting – 100,000 signatures on a petition will secure it a debate in Parliament and there is a promise, unsurprisingly, to redress the bias to Labour in the parliamentary boundaries. That’s only equitable, as I’m sure they’d agree; A Future Fair For All political parties. In making politics more local, there is some great reform of the planning system to get more money into infrastructure and some delegation of powers to the local level  that were blindingly obvious when I was a journo.

All in all, it’s a platform to be proud of. My only regret is that there is nothing more manageable for people to digest in their own time. Very occasionally, you will get people on the doorstep saying that they haven’t made up their mind who they will vote for until they have read all the manifestos. Usually, that’s a polite way of saying that they won’t vote for you, or of sounding as if they are discerning voters when they can’t think of anything else to say, or of getting rid of you if they are busy.

For any that do try, they’ll be a while with ours – but, mercifully, it more than rewards the investment.

Posted in Conservatives, Roll on 2010, elections. Tags: , , . No Comments »

Glad not to be Grayling

April 4, 2010 — simonashall

Close your mouth, Chris. No, close it. Before you say anything else.

Personally, I blame David Davis. When he went off on his strange flight of fancy over the 42 days detention extension, he prompted a flurry of activity to try and fill his place as Shadow Home Secretary. Davis is on the opposite side of the party to me but he’s an able, likeable man and possesses support from sections of the party that DC could do with right now. But his visible rejection of DC’s leadership and the shocking manner in which he chose to express it was a selfish act that debarred him from high office for the forseeable future.

While the shadow ministers in the treasury are a strong team and William Hague great in foreign affairs, we’ve struggled through Dominic Grieve and Chris Grayling to find someone of Davis’s stature to fill the role at the home office/justice department. My feeling is that Grayling has always been on the edge of his envelope as Shadow Home Secretary and his ill-judged and utterly stupid comments about the rights of Bed and Breakfast owners to turn away gay couples are indicative of this. It’s not the first time he’s opened his mouth without thinking and caused problems for the leadership.

I’m not going to argue about the moral rights and wrongs of the B&B issue because they are not the point. We have laws in place that mark the boundaries society has laid down. Occasionally they change and occasionally people get left behind but we all have to obey them. Chris Grayling knows this and suggesting that B&B owners ought to be able to turn anyone away is almost giving them carte blanche to break the law, which says quite rightly that businesses must offer services without prejudice to anyone.

I don’t believe faith groups - or anyone else - ought to be able to “opt out” of the law on grounds of “conviction”. The “I don’t need anyone to tell me what to think, I’ll do what I want” attitude is one of the root causes of so many problems in society – from the young people who won’t respect authority to the uber-wealthy who think that money will exempt them from accountability. Conservatives don’t support the anarchists at G10 meetings who want to opt out the legal framework capitalism lays down because of what they believe - nor should we support individuals who want to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights because of their beliefs. The ECHR has a lot of nonsense in it – but not in this area.

Grayling was attempting to curry favour with the Daily Mail view that Christianity is being persecuted in Britain and offer succour to those people of faith who feel that they are being led along into a secular society that no longer recognises their values or gives them leaway to put their faith first. I have some sympathy with that view – but not where it impedes on the rights of others acting within the law. That Grayling doesn’t see a distinction here makes me believe that his intervention was ad hoc and not properly thought out.

To sack him now would be an over-reaction and would be interpreted by the right of the party as an attack by the leadership on free speech. But I sincerely hope that if we have a majority on May 7, DC will look elsewhere for his Home Secretary. I believe Iain Duncan Smith would be superb choice for the role if he feels able to. If not, Nick Herbert has impressed me greatly as Defra shadow and such a promotion would be entirely appropriate in my view.

Either way, gaffe-prone Grayling has got to go.

Posted in Conservatives, Justice, news. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

The penny’s dropped…

April 1, 2010 — simonashall

No bodge job - David Cameron at B&Q today

I think, just think, that they might have got it. After a good amount of faffing about, it looks like the Conservative leadership have grasped the fact that this election will be about five things.

Those five things are the five seconds between when people put down their polling card at the booth and pick up the pencil on a string and when they mark the X in the box on the card. During those five seconds, a lot rushes through people’s minds. They will be considering the campaign to date and which party has “won” the campaign. The images in their minds will be the leaders of the two main parties and possibly one or two other figures like PM or George Osborne.

They’ll consider the parties locally, whether there’s a sitting MP or new candidate that’s impressed them and who runs the local council and whether it’s successful. They’ll also be thinking about how they’ll feel in 10 minutes’ time, having cast their vote, a once-in-five-years opportunity, about the decision they are making now.

But most of all, they’ll have their own killer question, the thing that will swing it for them and in 2010, that question – allowing for variation – will be this:

“Who is going to get things back to how they used to be in 1999 as quickly as possible?”

It’s a lot to go through your mind in five seconds. But the Conservative Party has got to own those five seconds and not make pondering over Gordon a feature of them. That means firm and credible talk about the economy – and after what has come before, I’m ever so heartened to see how the NI debate has gone today - it is the first day in ages that we have had PM and the PM on the rocks.

Yesterday, I was a bit impatient about the Big Society idea because the economy is what will win or lose the election. But having read Ben Brogan’s analysis of this, I reacted too much in haste. The important thing though is that DC feeds other policy areas into this overarching idea so that voters can see how the bigger picture (DC would make a good PM) fits in with the smaller picture (why DC wants to be PM).

Together with the genius of an April Fool in the Grauniad of all places - hats off to everyone behind that – it’s been a good day for the Conservatives. But we need at least another 30 of them – and Labour will be anything but a pushover.

Posted in Conservatives, Economy, elections. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »
« Older posts «
»