The central task I have set myself and this party is to be as radical in social reform as Margaret Thatcher was in economic reform. That is how we plan to repair our broken society.

David Cameron

The Tory Conference was not policy-heavy.  It was never meant to be.  Its purpose was to make the Tories look strong on the economy, and Cameron look Prime Ministerial.  The blatant “no-smiles-please-we’re-Conservative” approach was shameless but effective, and the theme of the conference seems to be a lingering frustration with government lying 18 long months out of reach.  At their conference last year, the Tories were wetting themselves with the prospect of losing an Autumn election - this year they were blue in the face with anticipation of winning 2010’s offering.

I think we can learn a couple of things from the conference, though.  First, that the Tories are now ready to lead.  Visionaries like Michael Gove are seriously planning for office, with a detailed description of the sort of education system he intends to put into place in a couple of years’ time.  Others will follow.  There will be none of the first-term time-wasting Blair admitted he was guilty of.

Second, we know that the Tories think the Labour party is weakest when “alternatives” to Brown look weak.  The sneering was almost palpable - “come on then, who are you going to replace him with?” rang through the West Midlands.  The image of David Miliband holding a peculiarly flaccid banana was so inexplicably ridiculous that open mockery was thoroughly acceptable: cardboard cutouts of Miliband were distributing bananas until the tone of the conference went from “serious” to “as if you are being told of the tragic deaths of both your parents and their siblings”.  Cameron’s keynote speech singled Miliband out for a personal attack - strong words were used to describe the “arrogance” of his politics, dwelling on the picture of aloofness.  There was no Brown love-bombing, which surely would have been enjoyable to watch, but the Miliband-bashing was tantamount to nodding the prime minister towards another 18 months in power.

Third, as a post-script, a word on my thoughts of Cameron’s view of Brown.  It is patently obvious that there is a potent animosity between the prime minister and his presumed successor, but I think Cameron’s loathing is superseded by rank astonishment at Brown’s inability to govern.  I truly believe Cameron expected an Autumn election, and his fantastic line (I paraphrase) in PMQs following the climbdown should be taken at face value - “he is the only Prime Minister ever to have canceled an election because he thought  he would win it!”.  To put it another way, “you had us by the nuts there: why on earth didn’t you buy yourself a mandate when you had the chance?”.  It is my firm opinion that Cameron thinks Brown is a bad operator, and thinks he would perform better.  It’s not just a seeking of power - it’s a seeking to replace the Labour government he has grown to loathe.

And fourth, it should again be noted just how similar Cameron’s ascendancy is to Blair’s.

Scarily accurate:

(Hat-tip: Adam Ramsay’s facebook status.)

The news that the Tories are opposing a third runway brought about the response of “about time” from me. As Her Majesty’s Opposition it’s the sort of thing that they should have been up to a long time ago. It’s also a sound piece of populism: protests in opposition of Heathrow Expansion have been well attended and I met a pair of rank & file protestors returning from one recently who were strikingly articulate. They were also the sort of “Swing voter” that politics is largely fought around. Opposition in my area of London (West) is by no means difficult to find. The campaign is well organised and well supported, with propoganda peering from numerous windows and posters over various trees.

This intersection of local and national politics is inevitably going to benefit whichever party promotes the policy popular amongst locals: as they are the ones most affected they are the ones who have the matter as a priority. For the most part the expansion is an immensely minor issue for voters, if indeed it registers at all. It thus makes good sense for the Conservative’s to oppose this policy: it will lose them roughly no votes and gain them ones from those who do not wish the noise and disruption they fear from a Third Runway inflicted upon them.

The difficulty for Labour is considerable: they can either fall in line and seem to become a Party in reaction rather than in power, or continue to enrage a set of voters with a party to turn to. This is by no means the typical Triangulation (when the alientated have no alternative) that New Labour covets. It shall be enlightening to observe their reaction.

I note also that the Tories rejected a Third Runway at Heathrow, yesterday. Do they really expect the announcement to have any impact when their most prominent elected figure believes we need another airport entirely, and that one would fit rather nicely in the middle of the Thames Estuary? Replacing one runway with two doesn’t make for a sound environmental plan. Or sound mathematics, for that matter.

I didn’t watch Boris’ Conference speech yesterday. I’d spent the previous evening drunk and crying on a friend’s shoulder, so didn’t really feel up to the inescapable horror of a Tory Conference.

I did, though, read the papers this morning. They told me much what I’d expected; our Mayor made a speech heavy on witticism and low on content. What content there was didn’t impress. Quoth BoJo:

“I say to the Labour government – you will not make this country or its capital more competitive by driving away talent. You cannot regulate your way out of a recession. You can certainly regulate your way into one,”

“No matter how much you may dislike the Masters of the Universe, my friends, there are plenty of other parts of the universe that would welcome them.”

Note the obvious flaws in his statement. Individuals who permit their institutions to lend money to people who can’t afford to pay it back, buy up similar debts, borrow on the anticipation of receipt of those initial debts to pay off these debts and so drive those institutions to the wall when credit or repayment runs out can hardly be described as “talent.” Nor can their creation of jobs be much applauded when they take those jobs back with the same ease.

The assault on regulation, meanwhile, lacks impact. Doesn’t he consider that it’s possible to institute some, limited regulation and so solve a problem without regulating businesses into the ground? Regulation occurs by degree, not by monolithic bloc. You can provide some regulation to protect both customers and institutions from certain irresponsible employees (to prevent the sheer amount of fiscal incestuousness inherent in this degree of entanglement, for example) without regulating everything. And that’s what is necessary.

Not, of course, that Boris provides any working alternative or hint of what he feels might be necessary. The policy he did provide proved predictable:

“I am pleased to announce that for the first time since the GLA was created, for the first time since London has had a mayor. I will not be coming back to the people and asking them for more money in tax. There will be no increase in our share of the council tax next year,” he said.

Well done, Boris. You cut taxes, and phrased it in the language of concern for individuals. You also failed to mention that this cut in tax would be funded by comes alongside a sizable rise in public transport fares; 11% in fact. A move which shifts the burden of payment from those who can afford it - that is, those with higher bills vaguely detirmined by your wealth - to those who can’t.

Odd that you can apply the logic that the credit crunch will make life difficult to some Londoners, but not others. Many who use public transport use it because they can’t afford a car; and so they need it, and they need it to remain affordable. The same cannot usually be said of those who pay higher rates of council tax, and who’ll benefit now.

Johnson claimed the content of his speech illustrated just what a Conservative would do in government. I worry intensely for 2010; that speech equated to a declaration of pride in the belief that the rich should pay less and the poor more, and that government just shouldn’t try to redress that balance. Just like Thatcher, then.

EDIT: I mistook which money came from which pot. See comments.

Excellent news:

Trust Britain’s youth to be characteristically ungrateful. The Government goes to all the effort of making a website for 16 to 25- year-olds to express their views on identity cards, and all they get in return is a solid mixture of scorn, sneering and scepticism smattered across their fancy new forums.

In a bid to get the country’s youngsters on board the controversial scheme, the Home Office has launched MyLifeMyId.org, where 16 to 25 year olds “can have their say about identity issues in the UK.”

But anyone browsing the discussions on the site would be hard pushed to find a single positive comment, with contributors branding the controversial scheme as “creepy,” “dirty” and “illegal” and the website itself as an “online propaganda machine”.

There’s little public support for ID Cards - and the government can’t create it. Their plan to introduce the scheme by stealth rather falls to pieces when one of those degments initially targetted refuses to cooperate.

(Hat-tip: Back Towards the Locus)

A Catholic school in Bury has banned pupils from receiving the Cervical Cancer vaccination. It claims it isn’t in the position to do so; governors worry that side-effects can include dizziness. Some pupils must worry that the side-effects of cervical cancer can include death.

The decision just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t on the overt fundamentalist grounds other groups tried to stop the vaccinations; the Vatican came out for the vaccine. Their complaint seems centred solely on the grounds that pupils might faint; despite reassurances from doctors and the unavoidable fact that the vaccine can prevent a deadly disease. Do they have no sense of proportionality?

The plot for ID Cards trudges on:

The first identity cards from the government’s controversial national scheme have been unveiled.

The biometric card will be issued from November, initially to non-EU students and marriage visa holders.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the cards would allow people to “easily and securely prove their identity”.

So? Smith claims that these cards will make it easier for those here legally to prove that fact yet, if they’re here legally, they shouldn’t have to do so. It requires a lot of work and patience to enter this country legally from outside the EU. They have to prove their identity to do so - and once they have done, shouldn’t have to again. It’s incumbent on the government to enforce its laws without assaulting innocent individual’s liberty, and yet it clearly does so here.

But, there’s more:

“We all want to see our borders more secure, and human trafficking, organised immigration crime, illegal working and benefit fraud tackled. ID cards for foreign nationals, in locking people to one identity, will deliver in all these areas,” she added.

Don’t papers alreeady exist to help there? If the government feels they aren’t detailed enough, perhaps it should simply look into fixing that. It should be enough to add a fingerprint to immigration papers. They cannot be copied, and the need for a centralised database of details is negated by the useful fact that individuals carry their fingers with them and so can produce a fingerprint on demand.

And that possibility rather negates the argument that this is to the benefit of immigrants rather than the government. They don’t need to issue ID Cards, but will do so anyway. Presumably, they have a reason to do so, then; perhaps to accustom the population to the idea that they must justify their legal business at any time by forcing a group which can hardly protest to do so.

It fits with the next segment targetted; students and the young. People this age are, of course, used to proving their identity on a regular basis, softened by years of showing ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Like immigrants, the group has no strong political voice, and doesn’t vote in large numbers. So it’s another social division the government can foist ID Cards on with little trouble. The wider population becomes gradually used to the idea that they must carry ID Cards; so when they’re rolled out on a voluntary basis, more take them. And that suits this government.

Smith and the Home Office know there’s little active desire or support for a mass system of ID Cards. They can create that desire - or rather, weaken inbuilt suspicion - by fixing the idea that we should have to prove ourselves to the government. They can do that with less of a fuss by forcing vulnerable groups such as immigrants to do so first. And thus the idea becomes seen as normal; which it most definitely is not.

This made me giggle:

From: Minister of the Treasury Paulson

Subject: REQUEST FOR URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson