Cameron the ‘optimist’ never more out of touch

Depressing. That’s how I found David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Party faithful yesterday. An odd word to use you might think, considering this was a speech peppered with references to Britain’s ‘can do’ attitude, to its greatness, and in its ability to overcome adversity and deliver.  A speech which smothered up reality in a warm coat of positivity.

A speech which followed a pattern of recent Cameron conference speeches. Last year he divided society into optimists and pessimists. Indeed he’s made a political career out of this. The latter, in his view, are those that hold everyone back, resist change, oppose for the sake of it. What he referred to this year, lifted right out of Little Britain, as the ‘yes-but-no people.’ Whereas the former embrace a challenge, invite change, and want to work together in order to achieve it.

It's what The Guardian’s John Harris called at the time: "breezy optimism in the political bubble," versus "fear and loathing on Britain's streets," illustrating that "...the disconnect between politicians and the public has never been greater.”

And it’s a very clever, very shrewd tactic to employ. The sunny Cameron shines through, bulldozing his way through all the naysayers and doom-mongers. The PM’s advisers have evidently paid attention to all those American focus groups who say that the public like their leaders upbeat rather than dour and miserable.  

In fact, both Cameron’s and Boris Johnson’s speeches were very ‘American dream’ like. This is a nation where anything is possible, what Cameron called ‘the best country in the world.’ But, behind the endless positivity, and the view that good times are just around the corner, belies a PM wedded to divide and rule. The deservers and the undeservers. Those at the bottom stare down the barrel: 23 applicants for every job, the rise in part time, temporary work, hiding what the raw stats fail to show. The safety net, needed now more than ever, being ripped apart with every new cut.

The attack on housing benefits, on unfairness and injustice, gobbled up the welfare section, with a focus on families claiming tens of thousands of pounds to ‘live in homes that hard-working people could never afford themselves.’ Yet in London, a focus for tabloid ire, official figures show that just 139 families received over £50,000 in rent a year out of 800,000 benefit claimants. Or a microscopic 0.02% of the total. Only 4% received more than £20,000 a year.

If this is ‘the modern compassionate Conservative Party,’ take me back to the good old days.

Whilst we have those at the top of the tree sitting pretty, rewarded with tax cuts, with the backlash against doing down the financial industry in full swing. Bashing bankers? We hadn’t even got started, some could reasonably point out.

So what do we have in Cameron’s Britain? We have the ‘strivers’ and the aspirants. We are the ‘aspiration nation.’ Sounds like something straight out of a motivational handbook. Labour wants a One Nation Economy, the Conservatives an Aspiration Economy. Not the party of the better off, the Conservatives are the party of the ‘want to be better-off.’

The ‘Big Society,’ - the good in theory but out of step with current reality vision that just won’t go away - made another appearance.

One had to admire the chutzpah with which Cameron could claim his party were still the true guardians of the NHS and keep a straight face.

To all those staunchly opposed to the arms trade, such as myself, there was an unapologetic nod to the defence industry and the battle to win contracts. Grubby deals with shady regimes are us.

And what is the glue that keeps everything together? What gives this country its common purpose? Bringing down the deficit at all costs. Deficit reduction has become the new war on terror: loaded with fear and hyperbole:

“We haven’t forgotten who spent our golden legacy, who sold our gold …who busted our banks, who smothered our businesses … who wracked up our debts, who wrecked our economy …who ruined our reputation, who risked our future.”

We must therefore “sink or swim. Do or decline.” In this global race, in order to remain relevant, Britain must keep looking forward. There’s no room for the cynics. All must be swept away in a tide of boundless optimism.

For Labour, two traps have been set. The first concerns the economy. “The damage was worse than we thought, and it's taking longer than we hoped” claimed Cameron. It goes without saying that the state of the economy will still be the burning issue come 2015, but the Conservatives seem determined to peddle the lie that overspending, and not the global financial crash, got Britain into the mess the Tories are tidying up. And it’s a line that sticks, in particular with around a third of voters still happy to pin the blame on Labour’s so-called financial mismanagement.

Welfare reform is the second test. As Liam Byrne, a cabinet member in the previous administration, remarked at a fringe event last week, “Labour has to win on welfare.” Yesterday, Cameron told his party:

“For years people said benefits are out of control and there’s nothing you can do about it. Well, because of our welfare cap, no family will be getting more in benefits than the average family earns.”

Most of the country would have been nodding their heads in agreement.

Labour also has to decide if it is still in favour of academies, which it created, or against. David Cameron has stolen a march and spoke proudly as if it were the Conservatives who first came up with the idea, such has been Labour’s recent ambivalence to them, perceived or otherwise.

What we heard yesterday was a false optimism. An optimism that says that if you work hard enough, play by the rules, all will be fine. It’s simplicity divorced from reality. During a recession what people want is a government that will help them, protect them, but most of all, empathises. Where were the policy announcements to do just this? There weren’t any. There was nothing the average voter could take away from this speech that would make their lives easier. Yes, we live in tough economic times. But, if all there is is austerity, where’s the optimism?


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Friday 12th October 2012

End the speculation: Cameron won't sack Osborne

When the media, old and new, sink their teeth into a story, it’s hard to prize it away. All it takes is a scent, a glimmer of hope that they may be proved right, for momentum to take over. As is the scenario with Chancellor George Osborne. Speculation over his position has been rife since the Budget: the brilliant, shrewd, future leader in waiting, reduced to a laughing stock, in a matter of months. As long as the economy continues to tank, the questions will keep on coming, with the comment pieces piling up.

But, we can all calm down. Because, like the British economy, George Osborne ain’t budging. The ramifications for David Cameron would be enormous. The most important member of the Cabinet after the PM failing to last a full parliament. It just won’t happen. Ironically, on this occasion, Cameron’s judgement – were he to sideline his Chancellor - would probably be hailed rather than derided.

Whilst the country has everything to gain, Cameron has too much to lose. Osborne is a vital ally, a friend, and founding member of the Notting Hill set. Dumping him would provide the right wingers with a martyr. He would quickly become the go-to man for any grievances.  Why? For starters I can’t see him accepting another role in the Cabinet, bar possibly Foreign Secretary. Anything else would be a humiliating step down. Once you’ve been Chancellor, the only way is up, or out.

William Hague is spoken of as a possible successor, but would he really want the job and the microscopic scrutiny that goes with it? For someone of his experience, Foreign Secretary is as good as it gets. He seems to relish his current role. Why trade diplomacy, where many of the big decisions follow an expected path, for the suffocating spotlight that accompanies the top person at the Treasury?

Vince Cable’s name keeps cropping up, but can you imagine the barrage of abuse unleashed by the already gobby Tory backbench? A Lib Dem Chancellor would be enough to see them apoplectic with rage and foaming at the mouth. Vince would be a popular choice amongst the centre-left, his chance to redeem himself, re-unveil his progressive feathers, but he may also pose a threat to his own leader’s position. Cameron seems too close to Clegg to so publically challenge his authority.

All this reminds me of the endless speculation over whether Tony Blair would sack Gordon Brown – something his wife Cherie had urged, if Andrew Rawnsley’s political tome is to be believed - although for very different reasons.

Osborne is Cameron’s economic mouthpiece. They have jointly mapped out our decade of austerity. Ideological certainly binds them together. A permanent dwarfing of the state is their co-authored project.

The Independent’s Steve Richards believes that:

“Osborne [has become] trapped by a narrative that had been adopted for electorally partisan reasons.”

This was a strategy that pinpointed blame on Labour for the state of the economy. Clearing up its mess is going to take a lot longer than two and a half years. We’re in it for the long haul, so the cry goes.

As Richards correctly points out, Osborne is also protected by the coalition agreement. Neither party is prepared to back down now:

“From the beginning, the Liberal Democrats have described the main purpose of the Coalition as "rescuing the economy". As a result it is almost as hard for them to accept that the economic basis of their original partnership is causing more harm than good.

"We have reached the strangest point yet in the Coalition's bizarre life. Its political survival depends on a very big leap away from Plan A – yet its origins make it almost impossible for such a leap to be made.”

And this is why we’re lumbered with him. To give Cameron some credit, he’s been extremely loyal to his team. Enough to make LabourList editor, Mark Ferguson, speak of his ‘begrudging admiration,’ for him. A settled group of ministers is usually preferable to:

“The hyperactive reshuffle fever that used to come over Labour periodically during our time in government.”

“Whether it’s loyalty or weakness, on balance it’s a positive thing. Stable, knowledgeable government is always preferable to that of a government that is desperate to show that it is doing “something” (anything).”

The first government reshuffle, expected in the autumn, may be the most anticipated in years, but to turn the conservative maxim on its head, it’ll probably be a case of: ‘if it’s broke, don’t fix it.’


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 31st July 2012

Latest mega Tory poll: Cameron still their best asset

When Lord Ashcroft speaks, the political right listens. The last few years have seen the release of three meaty publications. In 2010 he gave us his Minority Verdict, a look into the reasons why the Conservatives had failed to secure an outright majority. In it, he gives his blessing to the coalition and argues that the party had put the country first in agreeing to govern with the Lib Dems. At the time, the country needed stability. He also asked Tories to consider the context:

“The elections of 2005, 2001 and 1997 produced, in descending order, the Conservative Party’s three worst ever results. The Conservatives had never before managed to return to government from a position as weak as the one they faced in 2010.”

The gist was that rather than just seeking to discredit Labour’s record, failing to make immigration and crime key electoral issues, the Tories lost (or failed to win outright) because the public never truly grasped what they were about. They wanted change, but were confused as to what type of change the Tories were offering.

In Project Blueprint: Winning a Conservative majority in 2015, out last May, he gave his now infamous warning that:

“...while the Conservatives struggle to piece together two fifths of the electorate, Labour’s core support plus left-leaning former Lib Dems could theoretically give Ed Miliband close to 40 per cent of the vote without needing to get out of bed.”

With Labour now regularly polling above 40% this is becoming more of a distinct possibility. The verdict of the 10,000 people he sought provided some worrying news for the Conservatives.  Whilst nine of ten of those who voted Tory in 2010 were largely satisfied with how things were going, believing the right decisions being made, recognising the need for compromise in a coalition, it was the first time Tory voters who were most likely to grumble. Almost half said their view of the party had changed for the worse, with a large number not too keen to see a Conservative majority at the next election, with only a small majority pledging the party their support in 2015.

Last week saw Project Blueprint Phase 3: The quest for a Conservative majority. As with his previous publications, its findings will provide food for thought for the strategists at Tory HQ. The size of the samples, 8,000 on this occasion, mean these reports need to be taken seriously.

Lord Ashcroft identifies those whom he calls the ‘Conservative Universe’ (terrifying thought, I know): the Loyalists (the over 65s disproportionately fall into this category), Joiners (most voted Lib Dems in 2010, but have been impressed by Cameron and Osborne’s handling of the economy, many would vote Tory at the next election), Defectors and Considerers (more likely to vote Lib Dem, favour a coalition over a Tory majority). Winning the support of all four groups may well win David Cameron his much prized overall majority. In theory at least.

It’s the ‘Defectors’ who should be giving the Tories most concern:

“One third of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would not do so again tomorrow. Two fifths of these say they do not know how they would vote in an election tomorrow, and most of this group feel the Conservative Party is not on the side of people like them. Around three in ten say they would vote UKIP. “

The one thing that unites all four groups is their view that Cameron/Obsorne are better trusted to run the economy than Miliband/Balls. Most support the austerity programme but are sceptical as to what it has achieved in practice.

The government’s propensity for u-turning has been greeted with some suspicion:

“For a government to change its mind was not a bad thing in principle, and could be a sign that it was listening. However, the number of reversals suggested to people that policies were not being thought through properly”

As he has been since he took over, David Cameron is still the reason Tories and Tory considerers have stuck by the party. Despite George Osborne’s reputation taking a nosedive in recent months, Cameron is the glue that binds the loyalists and waverers together.

When asked whom they thought would make the best Prime Minister, all four groups plumped for Cameron by some distance. It’s hardly surprising to read 97% of ‘Loyalists’ and 91% of ‘Joiners,’ saying this, but the 69% figure from both ‘Considerers’ and ‘Defectors’ should trouble Ed Miliband. Only 21% of ‘Defectors’ and 12% of ‘Considerers’ – the kind of people Labour should be targeting – opted for Ed.

If David Cameron is still seen as an asset to his party, according to Lord Ashcroft’s poll, the same can’t be said for Ed Miliband. When asked whether they were more favourable towards David Cameron or the Conservative Party, and to either Ed Miliband or the Labour Party, the results are quite stark. Amongst all responders (i.e. excluding the ‘Conservative Universe’), the results are close: 19% are more favourable towards the PM than his party, 21% the other way round. Damningly, only 9% are more favourable towards Ed than the Labour Party, but this rises to 41% when the question is reversed.

For ‘Considerers’ the figures read: 39% versus 23%, and 15% versus 47% for the ‘Defectors.’ When applied to Ed and Labour, only 5% of ‘Considerers’ prefer him to his party, with 47% the reverse. For ‘Defectors,’ 8% and 29%, respectively. As previous polls have shown, and continue to show, the Labour Party remains far more popular than its leader.

Even though this study aims to look at the viability of a Conservative majority in three years time, there is plenty for Labour to ponder. The knocks the Tories have taken in recent months haven’t done too much damage to David Cameron’s standing. Whilst he seems to be on the attack from the right on issues such as Europe and House of Lords reform, he can take comfort from the fact that on the Tory frontbench only William Hague, who maintains he wouldn’t want to be party leader again, comes close to matching his popularity. Overall, Boris Johnson remains, head and shoulders, the most popular Tory. For now, he is safely ensconced in London. For now.  


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Monday 23rd July 2012

Cameron and Clegg need each more than ever

All together now: “Paaaaarliament’s out. For. Summer.” Who will be the most relieved? Probably both of them. It’s been several months to forget for the coalition. Cue a summer of recriminations, backstabbing, briefings, and counter-briefings.

The Tories, in particular the school of 2010, pin the blame on those pesky Lib Dems, getting in the way of them being able to force through proper Conservative policies. Funnily enough, many of them accuse David Cameron of much the same. The saner wing of the Tories are easier to please, recognising that being in coalition demands compromise, and much of the government’s agenda is still being pursued anyway.

The Lib Dems are on the verge of blowing a fuse. Any opportunity they get to show the electorate that there is in fact more than one party in government, that the authentic voice of the Liberals is on its way, seems to fall by the wayside. Constitutional reform, no matter how important (very, if you care about having a genuinely democratic and representative system) just doesn’t cut it with the public, and gets drowned out by the usual “we should be focusing on the economy and jobs,” criticism.

The media now has a good couple of months to speculate about the coalition’s future, which should keep them amused. Dead before the next election, according to Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, a body of backbench Tory MPs, very much on the right of the party:

"I think it would be logical and sensible for both parties to be able to present their separate vision to the public in time for the public to form a clear view before the election.”

Some have taken to threats on Twitter, with Tory MP Stewart Jackson promising the Lib Dems political annihilation if they hold the government hostage on Lords reform:

“Memo to bolshy Lib Dems: Break deal on boundary changes and you'll be out of government the next day and maybe for ever. That vote has consequences too."

Senior Lib Dems, such as Sir Menzies Campbell, fret that not getting through at least one of their constitutional pet projects would further damage the party in the eyes of its supporters. Others gaze forlornly into the future and wonder if it’ll be possible to count on two hands the number of Liberal MPs left after permanent coalition scarring.

It’s no surprise then that as the coalition heads towards half-time, Clegg and Cameron seem to increasingly find comfort in each other. Their latest public display of affection comes in the form of a £9 billion rail investment package for the north of England. The Lib Dem leader can probably take a little more solace in the fact that Cleggites seem to be a lot more loyal (in public at least) to their man than the wavering Cameroons. Much of the venom directed at the former has come from the public and Labour.

It is Cameron’s rapid fall from grace that should most trouble Conservatives. It was, after all, his rebranding of the party that got them into government (that, and of course other factors, notably Gordon Brown). It was no longer shameful to vote Tory (it’s all relative of course). As I’ve argued on these pages before, the Tories give the impression of a party who were told they only had a few weeks to prepare for government, and not the five years they actually had.

Cameron seems to have no answer to Britain’s economic woes and rising unemployment. All he offers the country is a recipe of cuts and more cuts. Not much of a sell on the doorstep.

Many Conservatives question his Conservatism, calling for a return to bread and butter issues. Ex-Cabinet minister, David Mellor, speaking for many of the party’s grass-roots, decries the current state of the party:

“I think they’re desperate for David Cameron to show fundamental Conservative credentials.

“The worry is for a lot of Tories is that David Cameron is not enough of a Tory...why vote for this pale sad shadow of what the Tory party used to be.

“I think the Tory party is rather ripping itself apart now because of the sense that David Cameron is a prisoner of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems.”

But, it seems that David Cameron understands the electoral arithmetic more than most, with the latest projections showing that under current boundaries, a huge swing of 10.5% would be needed just to deliver his party an overall majority. This falls to 7.6% under the proposed new boundaries. Is it any wonder the Conservatives are so keen to see this piece of legislation go through? Cameron needs to calculate whether this is more or less likely in coalition. Considering the Tories trail Labour by anything from eight to ten points, his interest lies in keeping the coalition together, and hoping for a significant upturn in the economy.

For Nick Clegg, it’s a question of enjoying it (or not) whilst it lasts. If polls are to be believed, armageddon awaits. Convincing a sceptical electorate that the Lib Dems have tempered the worse Tory instincts will be a priority in the lead up to 2015. No easy task. A change in leader would certainly help.

Both men face enormous challenges, both within and outside their parties. It is within their interests to keep things going. Calls by some for a snapshot election, possibly in the autumn or next spring, will surely be resisted by both leaders. Reality dawns.

London mayor Boris Johnson summed things up perfectly when he said that the coalition was ‘doomed to succeed.’ That’s pretty much how I feel too.

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Monday 16th July 2012

Cameron's Patronising Optimism

I'm getting pretty fed up with hearing David Cameron droning on about the need for optimism, even in such troubling economic times.

He seems to delight in peppering his party conference speeches with endless empty rhetoric about the importance of staying upbeat and not letting the pessimists get you down. He also can't resist telling us much he loves this country, and just wants to make it even better.

It's the usual platitudes that we've come to expect from Britain's number one salesman. He's obviously been paying attention to all the focus groups that tell us that we don't like our politicians dour or miserable, but want to be filled with messages of hope for a better future.

The Prime Minister has always been very keen to divide society into optimists and pessimists. Indeed, he’s made a political career out of it. The latter, in his view, are those that hold everyone back, resist change, oppose for the sake of it. The former embrace a challenge, invite change, and want to work together in order to achieve it.

The nonsense he spouted yesterday is so divorced from reality, it just furthers the views of those who believe that politicians don't have the faintest idea what life is like for so many; people struggling to pay their bills, some having to hold down several jobs at once, some without work, competing with hundreds of others for any low paid job they can get their hands on.

It's what John Harris in The Guardian calls: "breezy optimism in the political bubble," versus "fear and loathing on Britain's streets," arguing that "...the disconnect between politicians and the public has never been greater."

When David Cameron tells us that we should "reject the pessimism...[in favour of the] can-do optimism," Harris says this amounts to "the grim spectacle of a silver-spooned millionaire telling the rest of us to awaken an optimism completely contradicted by events."

Indeed, it might be easier to be optimistic and perky if the government wasn't cutting (our already stretched) public services into oblivion and people weren't losing their jobs. David Cameron wasn't being optimistic on Wednesday, he was delivering the very type of 'false optimism' that he himself said people didn't want.

The positive guff sounds like phoney, vacuous, management-speak, designed to deflect attention away from what life is like outside the confines of the claustrophobic Westminster village.