The Scribo team (or, rather, I on behalf of the Scribo team) apologise for the lack of posting recently.  Doug and James headed to University on Saturday, and I went up on Sunday.  Freshers’ week and general business have pushed blogging slightly off the agenda, but not off the radar.  Once the lectures and work begin, diversions will doubtless become highly desirable and blogging will return.  Until such a time, allow me to spend a brief moment considering the quandary George Osborne finds himself in.

George Osborne is a conservative and he believes in small government and low spending and economic freedom.  But he is a politician and he wants to win an election in just over a year’s time.  To attempt to seek a public mandate on the back of tax cuts is always a brave move, especially when the electorate is as skeptical as we are today, but to attempt to cut tax while the economy is tanking is folly.

Like it or not, when the economy begins to crumble the electorate wants to see leadership and good government.  This, in the eyes of skeptical voters, is not adequately achieved by tax cuts and slashes to regulation of any and every sort.  Like it or not, the Tories have been forced into a corner of accepting an escape-route to the crisis that fully contradicts their fundamental beliefs.  But there is nothing else for it.  Should they oppose the government line, they would be vilified by every other party in the Commons.  And they would also be contradicting the public perception of leadership in a crisis, looking instead like they would allow the economic situation to deteriorate.  Osborne may be a conservative, but he wants to win an election.  This aim trumps all else in such a fractured time.  He is on uncomfortable ground but his position is fully understandable.

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.

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 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.

Snigger. Cameron may want to do for social politics what Thatcher did for economics; but really, he needs to be more careful…

Don’t push it.

David Miliband’s article in the Guardian yesterday was a reasonable attempt to get the Labour party off the back foot. Since October last year, the narrative has been all Tory ascendancy and Labour distress. Miliband is of the gang of ministers ready to take New Labour - a ’90s philosophy - into the second decade of the 21st century. He honestly believes in what he proposes, and honestly disapproves of Conservative policy.

One senses a mild feeling of frustration from Miliband. Here he is, cometh the hour, etc, and Brown is sending Labour’s last chance for electoral success down the drain. Gordon Brown cannot talk about the future. He can tell us how he is “getting on with the job”, and is the “right man to get us through these difficult times”. He portrays himself as the man of the hour, forgetting, perhaps, that he created the circumstances he now believes he should get us out of. Miliband, on the other hand, has been largely untainted by back-room squabbles under both Blair’s leadership and Brown’s. Indeed, the mere fact that commentators are asking whether the Foreign Secretary has enough experience for the Premiership is evidence enough that he gets his head down and gets on with the job. Who was David Cameron before 2005? Miliband is no lightweight.

What interests me most, though, is that Miliband has tried to critique the Tories. He is confident that, in a genuine battle of ideas, Labour would win. For denying the opportunity to have such a battle, Gordon Brown is to blame. David Miliband is careful to spell out Labour’s future, but is right to contrast it with that of the Conservatives. Just read from his much-discussed but little-read article yesterday:

The Tories overclaim for what they are against because they don’t know what they are for. I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher, but at least it was clear what she stood for. She sat uncomfortably within the Tory party because she was a radical, not a conservative. She wanted change and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to achieve it.

The problem with David Cameron is the reverse. His problem is he is a conservative, not a radical. He doesn’t share a restlessness for change. He may be likable and sometimes hard to disagree with, but he is empty. He is a politician of the status quo — even a status quo he consistently voted against — not change.

Find me a floating voter who does not agree with that. Miliband took some stick for writing an article about Labour’s future, but somebody had to start discussing it before it is too late. If the Labour party wants to salvage itself, policy strategists like Miliband should be ready to discuss policy strategy! Brown is as childish as he is selfish. If he will not resign, he should be deposed.

So, I ask, should the Tories be afraid of Miliband? If he were to become leader this autumn, and call a General Election within the month, he would send shockwaves through Westminster. But in the intense media storm of a snap election and new leader, he could push his policy and methods of government strongly. The Tories would be caught off-guard, and their flimsy policy would be open to as stringent study as is possible. Miliband would lose, certainly, but by small enough a margin to keep his role of leader for the coming Parliament, in which he would be a strong opponant to the limited Tory majority government. The Tory dream of a comfortable decade in power would be gone: they would be struggling five years down the line. The Tories should be very scared of this scenario. All that stands in its way is the fickleness of Gordon Brown’s unstable character.

Some mainstream media blogs are usually worth reading.  I like the Telegraph’s blog network - the content is thick and fast, but posts are always refreshingly short.  A good balance.  Until this kind of rubbish finds its way onto their webspace.

I am sure Melissa Kite is a journalist of merit (although I can’t say I have every been overwhelmed by one of her articles), but her comment on David Cameron’s suggestions of alcohol leave a lot to be desired.  In an informal atmosphere, Cameron was hypothesising on the role of alcohol in the home - namely that if people drink sensibly in the home, they tend not to drink stupidly outdoors.  The continental model.  It is a common line of thought, and deserves consideration.  To rubbish it as a principle because some deliberately silly hypothetical central government project to promote drinking at home would clearly not work is shoddy journalism.  It is no way to make an argument, even if it is via a blog.

The longer the media take the attitude “I wouldn’t write this for the print media, but it’s fine for the blog”, the longer it will take for them to catch up with the wider blogosphere.

For what it’s worth, I think the cultural attitude to alcohol goes much deeper than whether or not people drink small quantities at home from a reasonably young age, but this is a reasonable approach to take with one’s own kids.  One things I can agree with Melissa Kite on, despite her chronic approach to argument, is that any state attempt to encourage this sensible behaviour would be impossible and equally undesirable.

A shrewd move from Cameron. I concurr with Daniel Finkelstein’s view that an opposition party, purely by merit of having weaker resources, can rarely do little further than sketch out an agenda in terms of their proposed policy.

So this is a wise political move, but one which leaves Cameron as inscrutable as ever. This is, in fact, something of a non-story: politician refuses to declare his intentions. It’s hardly up there with “Sun fails to rise”. Exactly what Cameron stands for has still not been made entirely clear: it is obvious what he wants to move the Conservative Party away from {above all else: abject electoral failure} but this form of negative definition leaves a vague and nebulous body which still struggles to find meaning.

As I’ve mentioned Finkelstein here already I suppose that it is worth linking to my previous attack upon his attempt to define the new direction taken by the Tories. Unfortuantely for the Tories this flawed outline is still the best which they have enjoyed. As we approach six months since Finkelstein’s effort we should note that the Tories have still failed to establish a unified agenda. If this continues to be the case advancement even against such a crippled foe as the Labour Party could prove problematic.

Today, Tory MEPs confirmed their party’s civil libertarian credentials - by voting not to condemn the finger-printing of Roma children in Italy. All but one of the party’s MEPs has voted against a resolution condemning ethnic profiling by Berlusconi’s government. One said:

“Fingerprinting is the only way to ensure the children are sent to school” - Charles Tannock MEP

So, to summarise - the Conservative MEPs have refused to condemn a racist and authoritarian measure which effectively dscriminates against a vulnerable minority. That hardly fits in with their current narrative of the party of civil liberties, valiantly struggling against a tide of CCTV cameras and police forms.

Unless, of course, Cameron sends an internal memo condemning the MEPs as fascist fellow-travellers. Which seems unlikely. Perhaps David Davis should resign his membership in the hope of raising public attention…

(Hat-tip: Question That)