David on Ivan

David Cameron is quoted as saying about the diagnosis: "You are depressed for a while because you are grieving for the difference between your hopes and the reality".

He has also said: "There was a moment driving home from hospital and just thinking 'We are going to get through this. If we can't do a good job and look after him, then we have failed'."

On 22 May 2004, he wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Ivan's epilepsy is so powerful he can fit for an hour at a time, his small body contorted, often screaming in agony. And with the epilepsy come cerebral palsy so severe that Ivan cannot move, sit up or hold on to anything or anybody. He cannot crawl, walk, or talk, and never will. Ivan is two- and he is my son. The point of writing this is not to seek sympathy. My wife, Samantha, and I have had that in welcome abundance. It is to tell a story about something that seems to be going badly wrong in this country [referring to the difficulty is dealing with bureacracy]."

In 2006, Cameron said: "A merciful God? These things are illogical. If anything it made me more religious. Obviously I pray for him (Ivan). The truth is the first person who says "some good will come of this" you want to thump really quite hard, but actually some good does come of even terrible things like this."

In December 2006, Cameron said: "I can't help thinking what it will be like if and when he's 18. We do our best to give him a good life, you sort of feel he's getting something out of it all....but profoundly disabled children, they often don't make it, to be brutal about it. They get a lot of chest infections, in the winter they're in and out of hospital the whole time."

Cameron (12 December 2006): "I help care for a severely disabled child - my son. It's what I do at the start of each day. It's sharpened my focus on the world of care assessments, eligibility criteria, disability living allowance, respite breaks, OTs, SENCOs, and other sets of initials.But I would not dare to call myself a carer. The work that full-time carers or those with little extra help do is unbelievable."

Cameron (23 January 2007): "I’ve seen for myself the incredible expertise of NHS nurses. Having a disabled son, going in and out of hospitals all the time – the care and attention of nurses is inspiring. I’ll never forget the people at St Mary’s Paddington, at Great Ormond Street and at the John Radcliffe in Oxford. There is nothing I can say or do to express my gratitude to them, nor my admiration for their professionalism and their compassion."

Cameron (Conference speech, 3 October 2007): "The one thing that lots of families rely on more than anything else, my own included, is the NHS, and when I think of the NHS I think of the people in it. I think of the care worker who turns up at our home three nights a week to look after my son and cares for him as if he was her own son. I think of the community nurses who help you fight for all the things you need for your family life. They understand that it’s not just about the child it’s about the family too. I think about the neurologist who was just desperate to give us a better quality of life and he wouldn’t stop until he found the answer. He got us back into hospital day after day, week after week. It must have played havoc with his figures for through put and out put and patient episodes and all the rest of it but he just wanted to do the right thing. That’s the spirit of the NHS that I think motivates everyone in our country."

Interview by Charles Moore with Cameron (Telegraph, 27 September 2008): "Hesitantly, I ask Cameron if they worry constantly that Ivan might suddenly die. He is not offended by the question. 'You’re quite philosophical about it. You know that children like Ivan never make it to old age. You live by the day. But he doesn’t want to give up. This little person just wants to keep going."

Giles Andreae (University friend): "Since Ivan, he does have a personal empathy with people whose lives have not gone as they would have liked. If you listen to one week of what it takes looking after Ivan, it beggars belief. There are a million complications. It really is a staggering thing. They spent aeons and aeons waiting in hospitals. You can spin the Ivan thing if you want. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's unnatural for someone in Dave's position to be required to show that kind of patience, but they've given it, in spades. We don't know the half of it."

Ivan Cameron has died

Very sad news.

David Cameron’s severely disabled son, 6 year old Ivan, died earlier this morning after becoming ill last night at St Mary's Hospital. Ivan suffered from cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy. Ivan’s death was unexpected.

My sympathies go out to David and Samantha Cameron.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Cameron will now take a leave of absence and William Hague will fill in for him.

This will include deputising for him at PMQs today. Gordon Brown is likely to step aside and allow Harriet Harman to take his place also during PMQs. Nick Clegg is already away as he is on paternity leave.

Gordon Brown has also suffered the tragedy of losing a child. His first child, Jennifer Jane, died just 10 days after she was born. He now has two sons. His eldest, Fraser, has cystic fibrosis.

UPDATE: PMQs has been cancelled today. Instead, representatives from each party will make a short statement. This is probably the right decision as partisan politics as normal is inappropriate today.

Cameron sets out vision of economic cultural shift

David Cameron set out earlier this afternoon a bold and ambitious vision for an economic cultural shift for Britain.

Cameron called for a wealthier, happier country that has a balanced, greener economy, is less materialistic and one in which government and its citizens live within their means, saving for a rainy day. He said he wanted Britain to become a contributor, rather than consumer, economy where standards of living and well-being increased hand in hand in a free market economy.

He offered a vision of the future in which the country would embark on a huge, ambitious, cultural shift by moving the economy from one built on debt to one built on savings. Cameron said he wanted to change the UK's economic culture from "spend, spend spend" to "save, save save."

To put meat on the bones of his new economic vision, the Tory Leader outlined two tax cuts worth £4.2 billion for savers. The first tax cut is a pledge to abolish the basic rate of tax on savings (costing £2.6 billion) and the second is to raise pensioners' personal allowance by £2,000 (costing £1.5 billion). Cameron said that the tax cuts would be paid for by restricting public spending increases in 2009-2010 to 1 percent in real terms which represents a £5 billion cut in public spending from what Labour has budgeted for.

Cameron is clearly returning to his favoured theme of “responsibility” and using the tax system to reward people for behaving responsibly. This builds on comments George Osborne made in an interview with the Sunday Times on the 28 December when the Shadow Chancellor said that he wanted to help people "who did the right thing in the age of irresponsibility."

In an interview yesterday with Andrew Marr, the Prime Minister seemed to be aware of his own vulnerability on the issue of dramatically reduced returns for savers as he said that ministers are looking at doing "more to help savers" in the run-up to the Budget. Savers really are the "innocent victims of Labour's recession." Interest rates have been slashed to help banks lend money and stimulate the economy but this has had the downside of penalising the very people who have behaved responsibly during the Brown boom and are not responsible for the financial crisis and recession. Savers are now having to pay for other people's profligacy, none more so than Brown's spendthrift ways over the past decade.

Cameron’s speech, the first of 2009, shows a clear political dividing line between Brown/Labour and Cameron/Conservatives. Labour is committed to state intervention to stimulate the economy while the Conservatives are calling for a smaller state and tax cuts. The new tax cuts announced today for savers is a substantial policy which helps counteract Brown’s charge that the Tories are the do nothing party. What is more, his tax cut will help those hurt by “Brown’s recession.”

Labour will no doubt attack the Conservatives claiming that the spending cuts would hurt front line public services [YAWN]. It is the standard response that Labour deploys every time the Conservatives pledge spending cuts and/or tax cuts. However, this time Labour will find it harder to win the argument. In 2005, the Tories pledged £35 billion of spending cuts to fund tax cuts. Labour denounced the policy. Fast forward to the 2008 PBR and Labour pledge to cut public spending by – you guessed it - £35 billion. Of course, when Labour reduce public spending it is cutting out waste but when the Tories do it, it is the loss of nurses, doctors and police. Come off it! Labour can no longer credibly argue that this is the case any more. This will not stop them trying, however, with their scaremongering aided and abetted by the “pro-big state” BBC.

But this time Cameron is helped by a factor that was not in play when his successors attempted this before – we are now in recession. This means that Cameron’s “responsibility” theme, living within one’s means, ought to resonate with voters. If voters have to tighten their belts, it is right and fair that a “culture of thrift” ought too to be at the “heart of government.”

This is supported by the polling evidence. Anthony Wells over at UK Polling Report has shown that borrowing continues to be a weakness of the government’s approach. In the most recent YouGov poll (14 December) 27 percent agreed with the statement that “it is right for the government to increase borrowing sharply at a time like this, in order to support the economy and stop the recession becoming too deep,” but 48 percent agreed instead with the statement “it is wrong for the government to increase borrowing so sharply: any short-term benefits will be less than the longer term costs to the economy and to taxpayers.”

My only concern is that Cameron could be setting himself up for a fall. The British have embraced materialism and have grown used to the credit culture where we buy now, pay later, constantly living beyond our means. There is nothing wrong with aspiring better things for a better quality of life for ourselves and our families but for too long now, encouraged by cheap, easily available credit, with have grown unaccustomed to earning the money to pay for it. Will the British want to undergo such a cultural shift? Cameron seemed to realise that his vision for the future was hugely ambitious when he said that it was not going to happen overnight and repeated his phrase from his Conference speech that he was “a man with a plan, not a miracle worker.”

But Cameron is right to claim that now is the time to be prudent and he is also right to call for a cultural shift in how the government and its citizens behave with money. Britain has the highest household debt in the history of the G7 and this surely has to change. No longer should we have unsustainable and irresponsible booms in which we all pay for the consequences in the subsequent bust. Even if the British are unwilling to change, the recession could once again work in Cameron’s favour. If ever there is a time to make such a shift it is in a downturn. During a boom, voters will be unwilling to do anything that threatens the good times, however worthy. However, during a recession, voters are faced with the consequences of a bust and therefore are more likely to be willing to adopt a much more pragmatic, responsible approach.

Even so, advocating a move from a consumer to contributor economy with “save, save, save” as its motto is very courageous and somewhat of a risk. Brown could promise the electorate that they can have the boom times back if they stick with him, especially if he can continue to convince voters (how, I don’t know!) that the recession is global in origin and nothing to do with him. Consequently, the future with Brown offers the bright attractive neon lights of “spend, spend, spend” rather than the boring fuddy duddy future Cameron is offering of “save, save, save.”

Cameron needs to convince people that spending more than you earn is not as good as it sounds. The problem he faces is that people like bright neon lights. People continue to flock to the casinos of Las Vegas despite the fact that gambling with a policy of “spend, spend, spend” – whether as an individual, family or as a government – is the road to ruin. Just ask the gambler... or the poor sods who lose their jobs as a result of Brown's "boom and bust" and the rest of us who have to pay for all the debt accumulated by Gambler Brown!!!

Cameron ends pledge to match Labour's spending plans

David Cameron has made the hugely significant announcement that the Conservatives will no longer adhere to Labour's spending plans from the financial year 2010-2011. This is a massive step and shows the Conservatives are no longer afraid to take the fight to Brown on his favourite "Tory cuts vs Labour investment" attack line which needs to be shown as the lie it is. The Tories argue that with the changed economic circumstances, Labour cannot keep borrowing and spending without cost. By freeing themselves from their self-imposed public spending strait-jacket it also means that Cameron and Osborne have given themselves the room for manoeuvre to offer tax cuts funded by public spending reductions (though not cuts - see below).

Linking to his 'fiscal responsibility' economic policy position, Cameron said the Conservatives would seek to build a low tax, low debt, low interest rate economy. He said Labour's spending plans were based on widely optimistic growth assumptions and therefore the country was faced with two choices:

1) The Conservative Choice - Revise government spending plans by reducing the growth of public spending below that of the growth in the economy (but not cutting public spending - an important difference that Labour will no doubt ignore). The Tories would reduce the growth of public spending so that the country lived within its means and didn't burden the country with future increased taxes to pay for reckless public spending which would impede Britain just when the economy was trying to recover from a recession.

OR

2) The Labour Choice - Raising taxes. Cameron said that with Darling and Brown likely to announce unfunded tax cuts and increased public spending to the tune of £30 billion paid for by higher borrowing and with many government ministers including the Chancellor, Tony McNulty and Lord Mandelson hinting that tax rises will have to come in after the next general election to pay for the borrowing induced increases in the structural deficit, Labour has made its choice.

It was interesting to hear Osborne's take of the announcement. When asked how would the Conservatives deal with Labour attacks that the Tories would cut spending on public services, Osborne effectively said he relished the debate which he framed as Conservative restraint vs. Labour tax bombshell. He said he was very interested to see how Labour would respond. If the government attacked the Conservatives, Osborne said it would be clear to all that Labour would be planning on increasing taxes after the next general election because it was unwilling to bring public spending under control. If they went quiet then it would be clear that the Conservatives were making the running on the economy and that Labour agreed its own spending and borrowing had got out of control.

The Conservatives have adopted a very clever position. But, I wouldn't expect Labour to take this quietly, George...

UPDATE: Robert Winnett makes an interesting point over at the Telegraph's Three Line Whip. He says the Tories are betting everything on a 2010 election. He writes: "They are cleverly preparing for a post-recession world in which the big political debate will be how the Government extricates itself from the meltdown in public finances. Tax rises or spending cuts?... However, with big quick tax and interest rate cuts on the way, 2009 will be looking increasingly attractive for Brown. He won't be able to pull the same trick next year and the eye of the recession may be the best time for Labour to go to the polls. By 2010 they may be long forgotten and any recovery will be in the very early stages... The Conservatives will be hoping that Brown doesn't have the nerve to go early."

PMQs - The Fallout

Ruth Kelly: "My stomach turned listening to the debate. This is a very serious tragedy... I thought the tone adopted by the Conservative leader was inappropriate."

Chair of the Children Schools and Families Select Committee Barry Sheerman on Cameron: "It was purely party political; it was the leader of a party who says 'how can we get the most attention in the headlines today'."

I don’t understand the criticism from Labour MPs. They have criticised Cameron’s tone and said he was being party political. But his tone was fine until he was accused by Brown of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue. His tone then changed understandably. As for the charge that he was being party political, Cameron said nothing about Haringey council being run by council. Cameron’s very reasonable substantive point, which he repeated several times, was simply that Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department, should not be allowed to investigate the failings of her own department because clearly she is not independent. The fact that the Prime Minister could not agree just goes to show that Brown is always a factional, partisan leader who constantly makes political calculations. He could not bring himself to criticise a Labour council. But this is bigger than which party runs which council. I repeat what I said in my last post, if Tony Blair was PM this would not have happened. Once Brown is forced to depart from his script the empathy runs out and then we see his ugly political side come out.

Labour and Gordon Brown should be ashamed of themselves. Despite what Kelly and Sheerman et al say, Cameron can hold his head up high. Can they?

PMQs - Callous PM & Labour Party

PMQs was an extraordinary and riveting affair today. Most would have expected the economy to dominate today as David Cameron had the news that unemployment is forecast to hit 2 million by Christmas and the Bank of England has predicted the economy will contract by 2 percent, to go on. Brown and Labour no doubt were also looking forward to the economy being brought up after the Governor of the Bank of England today gave tentative support to a fiscal stimulus package proposed by the government.

However, that is not what happened. Cameron intended to go on the economy but first wanted to raise the horrific case of poor Baby P, a 17 month old baby boy, who had been repeatedly tortured and then murdered by his mother and two men (one of which was the mother's boyfriend). Baby P had head injuries, a broken back, nine fractured ribs, fingernails and a toenail missing, a severe mouth injury, a ripped ear and extensive bruising on his body. He was found dead in his blood spattered cot. The three despicable people have now been convicted (though not sentenced yet). Prosecuting QC Sally O’Neill told how a family friend revealed the depth of the abuse as the child was used like a punchbag. She said the stepdad would “pick him up by his throat, punch him and spin him around on the computer chair until he fell off.” What is truly shocking is that on Baby P's final day alive, August 2, police told his mother that they would take no further action over suspicions she had assaulted him.

Cameron understandably wanted to know why Sharon Shoesmith, the Children's Services director of Haringey's Children's Services department was being allowed to investigate her own department. Let us also remember this is the same Haringey Children's Services department which had failed to protect Victoria Climbié 8 years ago.

The PM responded with his usual prevarication, giving a dry response focusing on process and procedure. He even talked about executive summaries! But unsurprisingly, Brown did not answer the question.

Cameron asked again. And again no answer from Brown.

Cameron had meant to go on to his set of economic questions by this point but he was incensed by Brown's response. He said he had asked a straightforward question and had received no answer. The Labour MPs were loudly barracking the Tory leader at this point and the Speaker was forced to intervene and tell them to be quiet on what was a very serious matter. Cameron became angry and quite emotional and laid into the Labour Party. He detailed the horrific nature of the case and the abject failure of the social services. He asked his question for a third time but said he did not expect an answer from Brown.

The PM went back to his pre-prepared point about the Laming report and the national inquiry being conducted by Lord Laming. But then Brown made a grotesque error. Always the factional, partisan politician, he accused David Cameron of trying to make the death of Baby P into a party political issue!

The Conservative benches went mad but not as mad as Cameron who went apoplectic with rage and rightly so. Brown had made an outrageous suggestion. Cameron said the PM had made a cheap point after he had asked some very reasonable questions. He asked Brown to withdraw the attack.

Brown withdraw any remark? You must be kidding! To do that he would have to admit to making a mistake and an error of judgement which Brown with his huge chip on his shoulder and character flaw just simply cannot do. So with no sense of the trouble he was in, Brown just said there was common ground and again pointed to the steps he was going to take.

Cameron was not going to let this lie. He said Brown had accused him of party politics. Cameron said he had intentionally not mentioned that Labour ran Haringey Council and nor had he done so at the time of the Victoria Climbié inquiry. He asked again for the PM to please withdraw the comment.

The PM had lost the plot and just said that the whole House would want to be united. It was a bit late for that Gordon after your shameful antics!

Cameron, in his last intervention, said in a resigned, and disappointed tone that Brown won't withdraw the remark. He said he had only been trying to raise the point made by Brown's own Children's minister that people should not investigate their own conduct.

The PM merely said there would be an independent investigation and immediate action.

PMQs today has shown Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in damning light. Their behaviour was shameful and extremely callous given what was being discussed was the tragic, and avoidable death, of a 17 month old baby boy.

Brown looked evasive, shaky and cold hearted. He looked like he was trying to score points. The PM is politically tone deaf. He comes across as inhuman because he completely lacks empathy.

In contrast, Cameron was genuinely passionate and humane. This was not synthetic rage. He had said at the very beginning of his exchange with Brown that he had intended to go on the economy afterwards but he was so taken aback by Brown's response that he could not let it drop.

At this point it is worth mentioning Nick Robinson who, along with Brown and Labour, did not cover himself in glory. The BBC's political editor was on the Daily Politics show and he took the very cynical view that Cameron's decision to use all 6 questions was a combination of genuine disgust at the PM and political calculation that he couldn't believe his luck as it meant he did not have to go on the economy. He also tried to defend the Labour benches saying they were fired up to attack Cameron on the economy. I would say that such comments are not very becoming of Robinson and quite frankly indefensible. Even Jon Cruddas (Labour) and Charles Kennedy (Lib Dem) - both in the studio - did not make such crass comments. In fact they gave dignified responses which reflected well on both of them.

Had Cameron faced Tony Blair at the dispatch box today, PMQs would have been an entirely different affair. Blair always had a knack of being able to judge the political mood and he would have shown the requisite empathy that the situation deserved rather than badly miscalculating and turning an issue that ought to have unified the House into a bad tempered political affair.

I'd also say that the Speaker, Michael Martin, who has had his detractors of late - me included - performed excellently today, as he has of late. He had to intervene several times during the Brown/Cameron exchange and it was clear to me that he judged the public mood much better than Brown and reprimanded the Labour MPs for their barracking on the sensitive issue. Credit is given when it's due. Well done Mr Martin!

PMQs Ratings

The only one that matters:

Brown - 0/10 - The Prime Minister and the Labour Party were an absolute disgrace today!!!

The tax cut battleground

Cameron has outlined a national insurance tax break for companies as an incentive to take on staff. It would be funded from unemployment benefit savings. In other words, companies would receive a proportion of the benefit payment in the form of a tax break. Cameron said it costs the taxpayer over £8,000 every time someone takes unemployment benefit and his proposal would see approximately £2,500 of that sum used to fund a cut in the amount of NI paid by businesses. The Conservatives say their plan would create 350,000 jobs and cut the tax burden on companies by £2.6 billion.

Cameron described his announcement this morning as a "budget submission," rather than a future policy pledge for an incoming Tory government, to help alleviate unemployment which he hoped Brown would accept and Darling would implement next week in the Pre-Budget Report.

Brown has already disappointed Cameron though by rejecting it as a "one-off initiative," said the figures "simply do not add up" and said "serious policy" was needed for "serious times." The government line continues to be that the Conservatives have an incoherent economic strategy.

Moreover, as Guido has pointed out, it is more of a tax credit than a tax cut. He said that although it was more welcome help for small businesses, the problem with it was that the £2,500 tax credit was only for new created jobs and did not apply to companies that were thinking of laying off workers to cut costs. In other words, it might help small businesses, if implemented, who want to grow and recruit staff - thus cutting unemployment; but will do nothing for those who want to retain staff but cannot afford to do so - thus doing nothing to prevent unemployment.

One must conclude that this is another welcome proposal but nothing revolutionary and once again small in scope. It thus can be added to other initiatives announced by the Tories on council tax, NI and VAT.

It will undoubtedly disappoint those who wanted to see something more substantial.

If Cameron is moving towards acknowledging that monetary policy alone is going to be insufficient to get us out of recession, "fiscal stimulus," as the PM puts it, will be necessary. So again we are back to two choices. Increased public spending or cut taxes. A Keynesian spending splurge will not work; it is far too slow. So we are left with tax cuts as even Brown seems to have come to admit.

Three more questions arise:

1) What taxes to cut? 2) By how much? and 3) How to pay?

1) WHAT TAXES TO CUT? The Conservatives have thus far focused most of their attention on measures to help small businesses (council tax pledge being the exception). They reason that it is SMEs that are the driving force of the economy so that by keeping them going, the economy will be stronger.

The Lib Dems (and possibly Labour - we'll see possibly next week) have argued that income tax should be cut to help stimulate demand. The Lib Dems, for example, have said they would cut the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 16% thus helping low and middle income earners.

Ordinarily I would be all for a cut in income tax but there is a problem with it. For it to have the desired effect, the government would need to ensure that people spent the extra money they were being allowed to keep. However, given the constant flow of bad economic news, it is quite probable that a majority of people would try and pocket the tax cut, saving the money in anticipation of worse times ahead. I can't see how the government can compel people to spend the money from the tax cut given the fear being whipped up by the media.

Nevertheless, in an ideal world a combination of the Conservative and Lib Dem approach - measures to help business and a cut in income tax would probably be the best option to help alleviate the effects of the recession and help stimulate demand.

But that leads us on to 2) BY HOW MUCH? How large should the tax cut be? The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said that a tax cut would need to be in the region of £15 billion to have any effect.

The Conservatives are wedded to their 'fiscal responsibility' approach, which Rachel Sylvester in the Times today has called the 'housewife strategy' (households are having to tighten their belts and make sacrifices, so should government - it is no time to get another unaffordable credit card). He can't claim that the cupboard is bare to then suddenly magic up £15 billion worth of tax cuts. So if we really are entering the ‘tax cut war’ between the parties, the Conservatives will lose in the battle of who can promise to cut tax the most. Cameron will be trumped by both the Lib Dems and Labour which is a surprising position for a Tory leader to be in. Yet, ‘sound money’ is also a strong Conservative principle. Cameron is taking a punt that the British people will reward him for his pledge not to saddle future generations with large debts and high taxes. He is essentially saying that Gordon might have left Prudence at the alter, but she's dating Dave now. In contrast, Brown is saying to hell with Prudence, in 'unique' times like these, he needs Miss Profligate Spendthrift on his arm.

This leads us to the last question: 3) HOW TO PAY? This is the clear dividing line between Brown and Cameron. Brown is willing to borrow to cut taxes while Cameron is behaving like the Brown of old saying there should be no unfunded tax cuts. Brown is hoping that the British people will let him borrow and spend and ignore the fact that for decades he has been accusing the Tories of offering unfunded tax cuts but is now proposing to do just that himself. Cameron is hoping that the British people, and the media in particular, will not let Brown get away with it and instead will reward, prudent Cameron, the responsible steward of the economy. Cameron is setting himself out as responsible and therefore Brown as irresponsible.

There is of course more scope for Cameron to offer ‘funded’ tax cuts but he seems unwilling to go down that route, to the dismay of many Conservatives. He could pledge to cut public spending but Cameron would probably argue that cutting spending at such a time would not be ‘responsible’ as it would cut demand in a recession. However, many on the right disagree, including Nick Clegg, and say that public spending has increased by vast amounts over the last eight years or so, a significant proportion of which is wasted and spent inefficiently. But Cameron will know from his experience of the 2005 general election working for Michael Howard that a policy of tax cuts funded by pledges to cut government waste has not proved successful. Cameron might also be fearful of opening up another unnecessary front in which he is open to attacks from Brown that he is cutting vital frontline services – whether true or not. We all know that Brown doesn’t let truth and honesty get in his way. But nonetheless, if Cameron wanted to be bolder, there clearly is scope to offer funded tax cuts – though it is true that cutting waste is often easier said than done.

This is a ‘game’ of high stakes. Whoever wins the battle of borrow and spend vs. fiscal responsibility could very well have the keys for Number 10 in 2010. Cameron's approach is sensible, though not flashy, will help minimise the effects during the recession and will significantly reduce the hurt after the recession and place Britain in good shape globally ahead of the upturn. Brown's approach is likely to prove bold and brash, may very well have a greater effect during the recession (though this is not guaranteed as it could hurt the value of pound sterling, for example), but its recklessness will prove damaging after the recession as the costs of his borrow and spend policy are borne by us all through higher taxes and/or significant cuts in public spending. This could leave Britain behind the curve internationally in trying to benefit from any economic upturn.

What seems clear, however, is that Brown looks like throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at this recession in the hope that it wins him another term in office after 2010. Brown is obviously in power so we will get what he wants and Cameron can only warn, criticise and set-out what he would do differently. Unfortunately for us, that means we will ultimately suffer the consequences and if Cameron does win the next general elections he will be left picking up the pieces of an economic wreckage caused by a reckless driver by the name of Gordon Brown.

UPDATE: Adam Boulton makes a good point I meant to include. He's written: "The challenge for the Tories will be whether they hold their nerve and oppose hand backs which are likely to appeal to hard-pressed voters and businesses." Will shall see...

UPDATE 2: Been thinking... If Brown does indeed offer unfunded tax cuts Cameron needs to hit home the message hard that we will all pay for it through higher taxes. Labour may offer short-term gain, but it will end in long-term pain!

Obama to win but Republicans back in 2012

I've been sent news and a helpful report about a CentreForum event that took place at the Bloomberg's London office entitled: “America Votes: Implications for the US and the World.” The two speakers were Dr Stefan Halper, University of Cambridge, and Sir Robert Worcester, founder of MORI.

Both men said, unsurprisingly, they expected Senator Obama to become the next President of the United States.

They said it is too late for Senator McCain to change strategy and shift tact. There are no more debates left. However, they said if McCain is to have any hope of winning he will need to convince the one in five floating voters who are either white, young educated women or older white people to vote for him. He has no chance of winning round Black or Hispanic voters. However, his current attacks on Obama’s character are turning off the women voters he needs to attract.

They said if he fails to win round the floating voters the only hope for McCain would be a terrorist attack (unlikely, though not impossible) or a major Obama gaffe (again unlikely, given Obama’s cool, cautious character).

Some have suggested the so-called ‘Bradley Effect’ could come into play. They said they thought the Bradley effect would be unlikely to determine the outcome of this election. They said if it were to be prevalent it would be in the ‘red’ states (i.e. Republican states) and only affect the polling results by 2 percent nationwide at most. However, if the election was very close then it could of course have an impact if it did indeed materialise this election.

The choice of Sarah Palin by McCain as his running mate was strongly criticised as a strategic and tactical mistake. He had only met her once before and due to the lack of time left for him to choose his running mate, scrutiny of her suitability was minimal. She fitted the profile the Republicans were looking for: woman with kids, pro-life, pro-guns, and folksy charm to appeal to the Western states. However, she was all this for the first two weeks but then her credibility began to unravel in the television studios. In addition, she comes from Alaska which does not have many Electoral College votes and the state always votes Republican anyway. McCain would have been better choosing someone from a swing state. Furthermore, McCain was badly advised if he thought that pro-life Palin would be able to win over the disaffected but pro-choice Hilary Clinton female Democrats. McCain’s choice of Palin has damaged his credibility in terms of judgement.

Even though they thought Obama would become President, the panel said Obama is likely to disappoint the rest of the world, particularly Europeans. He will not be the radical departure from the Bush years they think he will be and the enormous expectations people have for Obama can only lead to disappointment. If he does have a single radical idea in his head, and the panel was hugely sceptical that he does, he ought to try and implement it immediately before Congress and the rest of the world ends his honeymoon period. For Obama’s part, he is likely to become very frustrated with the rest of the world, especially the Europeans. He has made Afghanistan (and Pakistan) key to his foreign policy but he is unlikely to find any joy in persuading European governments to put more troops on the ground and in conflict situations.

Predictions

Sir Robert Worcester – Obama will win; Gordon Brown will be the best friend of the new President, whoever he is; 2012 – expect a Republican recovery, expectations are far too high for Obama; and the Republican candidate for 2012 will be General Petraeus.

Dr Stefan Halper – Obama to win; and with a Democratic Congress very likely, Obama will find it really difficult to win a second term in office. Americans do not like one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.

British Politics

The panel also briefly touched on UK politics. Sir Robert said Cameron had grown enormously in stature these past three years. However, he said Cameron’s biggest mistake has been ignoring the fact that all leaders should have a kitchen cabinet within their organisation which fully utilises all a party’s experience. He said people like John Gummer and Ken Clarke should be brought into Cameron’s inner circle and expected they would be closer to an election.

Time for tax cuts

Nick Robinson has a good post today arguing that David Cameron has a problem with the economy; that is, he does not have much to say. Robinson argues:

• He can’t say that he predicted the banking crisis because he didn’t;
• He can’t say he has a better answer because he has backed the government’s recapitalisation;
• He seems to have ruled out tax cuts saying that the “cupboard is bare” and as a “fiscal conservative” he won’t borrow money to fund a tax cut; and
• He won’t spend his way out of trouble arguing that it is not a cost free answer.

What Cameron has been able to offer has been measures to give small businesses help such as a 6-month VAT holiday and a short-term 1% National Insurance cut. These may be worthy and all will help, but they are hardly sufficient in themselves to pull us out of a recession.

Cameron has said that Government has made two key errors – 1) profligate borrowing and spending during the good years and 2) removing the regulatory powers of the Bank of England. However, Cameron’s previous pledge to match Labour’s spending levels (it seemed clever at the time as it negated Brown’s ‘Tory tax cuts’ attacks) undermines his argument that Labour spent and borrowed too much as does the lack of serious and sustained warnings from him about government debt levels.

Before the financial crisis and economic downturn, Cameron’s economic policy was “Spending the proceeds of growth” – a mixture of tax cuts and government spending/investment – which is clearly no good anymore given there is no growth. Cameron has yet to offer an alternative economic policy.

Cameron’s argument that the Conservatives wouldn’t have got us into this problem is not enough on its own. The media do not seem interested in his “we wouldn’t start from here” argument as they seem far more interested in what remedies he has for the future – as do voters.

Labour have made it clear that they will head off to the Left with their Keynesian stimulus package – i.e. they are going to try and borrow and spend their way out of trouble like all Labour governments do. The Lib Dems have shifted to the Right unexpectedly with pledges to cut taxes. And what are the Tories doing? They are tinkering at the edges with small initiatives while essentially saying the economic realities they face precludes them from offering a strong lead in any direction. This is what Cameron is doing by trying to link his lack of options to Labour’s decade of economic mismanagement. But this is not what the other parties are saying and doing.

Cameron seems determined to cling to the centre, matching Labour’s current spending plans while avoiding any specific pledges to cut taxes. This just won’t do anymore. The situation has changed and that means new ideas are needed. He cannot continue playing safe indefinitely. Fiscal levers need to be pulled and Cameron needs to make up his mind and pull one of them properly. His choices are more and more spending or tax cuts.

This is back to the future territory. The Conservatives need to re-fight and win the arguments of the 1980s all over again. How has it come to this that the Tories have let Labour turn ever higher public spending and ever higher public debt (the highest in the world) into a positive? How have the Tories let Gordon Brown spin public spending as ‘investment’? How have the Tories let Labour smear tax cuts? The answer unfortunately has to be successive weak and misguided leadership.

The Conservatives need to have the intellectual confidence to win this ideological battle.

Cameron should be bold and courageous and offer tax cuts. The political climate has changed. Nick Robinson says this is a trap Brown is laying so that he can once again use his favourite ‘Labour investment versus Tory cuts’ attack. So be it. Cameron should take him on and make the case for tax cuts.

For too long Tory leaders have been silent. It is not as if he would be sticking his neck out anyway as the Lib Dems have led the way and this should make it easier for him. Also the Tory supporting newspapers of the 1980s and early 1990s will return to the fold. The Murdoch papers and Daily Mail in particular would relish the battles of the 80s again.

To fund his tax cut Cameron should either cut public spending (unlikely in a recession and will play into Brown’s hands) or borrow money. He should do the latter. Labour and Gordon Brown no longer have a foot to stand on. They cannot claim Cameron is offering unfunded tax cuts Cameron when its own spending commitments are unfunded paid for by more and more borrowing. Cameron should also inject some economic realism into the debate. He should tell the voters some hard truths and link them relentlessly to Brown’s handling of the economy. He should also attack Brown’s spending, destroying the spin of ‘investment’, and hammer home the message of a wasteful, bloated state. Brown should not be allowed to just create unproductive public sector jobs. In a time of a recession, Britain does not need more bureaucrats! Finally, Cameron needs to stop Brown’s argument that a big state is the solution from taking hold. We have had Brown’s big state for 11 years and all his spending, regulation, tax increases and red tape have not stopped us from entering recession but have helped lead us here!

And if Cameron does not offer tax cuts and continues with his cautious strategy? He could still win at the next general election. He still holds a 8-9 point lead in the opinion polls and the “time for a change” sentiment among the electorate remains strong. Furthermore, the Item Club says we’re now in recession and won’t come out until 2010. Consequently, the economic recovery is unlikely to be in time to save Gordon from the wrath of voters upset with becoming unemployed, having their houses repossessed and their living standards fall. But there is still a small chance Brown could win, especially if Cameron lets him frame the terms of the debate around more public spending and a bigger state. Finally, remember 1992 – John Major won despite being in a recession.

Cameron should be bold, not cautious. He should take the fight to Brown!!!

Hallelujah! Cameron takes the gloves off!

Slavish support for the government is over! Praise the Lord!

Cameron told the City of London today that Brown's handling of the British economy had been a "complete and utter failure." He said he would "never pull my punches in explaining how this government has brought Britain down."

Cameron has finally taken the gloves off. He said the economy was broken and that Labour couldn't fix it "not least because they cannot own up to any mistakes." He said Brown had made "irresponsible" decisions that had led to a period of "irresponsible capitalism." Brown had "spent and borrowed without restraint," which Cameron called "intentional" negligence, and boasted that he "could abolish boom and bust and that the good times would last forever." Returning to a theme of his conference speech, Cameron said: "Over the past decade, we have seen a total breakdown of economic responsibility."

It was an excellent speech! Just what was required. The Conservatives have been worried that political point scoring would not be looked upon kindly by the electorate during the current economic difficulties. But as Nick Robinson has pointed out, the Conservatives have had enough of allowing Brown his time in the limelight, seizing the initiative playing 'superman'.

The loathsome Yvette Cooper, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has accused Cameron of adopting bipartisanship as a "short term gimmick" and criticised him for playing "juvenille political games."

Of course it's in Labour's interest that it has a benign opposition that slavishly supports the government. But it is not in Britain's interest!

Oppositions have a duty to support the government during a crisis. This they have done - possibly for too long. It must also be remembered that Cameron, as Leader of the Opposition, also has a duty to tell the public about the abject failure of this tax 'n' spend Labour government!

Cameron has to change the PM's narrative that the economic downturn is purely down to global factors. Luckily for him, Brown's tenure in office has given him ample ammunition to use against our Dear Leader!

As a final point, let us not forget how Labour and Gordon Brown behaved at the time of Black Wednesday - the previous financial crisis. Labour had supported joining the ERM yet that did not stop Brown making opportunistic political capital out of an economic policy he in fact supported!!!

If Cooper wants to talk about political games, fine - Labour doesn't have a leg to stand on!!!

PMQs - Bipartisan boredom

A expected, PMQs was a dull, bipartisan affair.

Both Cameron and Clegg slavishly supported Brown meaning he received no serious questioning about the government's financial rescue package. The key question that should have been asked, but wasn't, was how is the government funding its multi-billion pound bail-out. The answer is probably yet more government borrowing but the two opposition parties did not hold the government to account on this vital issue just because they wanted to keep up the pretence of bipartisan support.

Cameron was particularly poor today. He seemed to be asking questions that had been fed to him beforehand by the Prime Minister. After almost every question from Dave, Brown would respond by saying he was grateful for the question.

Message to Dave: Gordon Brown should not be grateful for your questions!

Cameron also tried to sound all left-wing and populist by attacking the bonus culture in the City. This got him many jeers from the Labour benches and a put-down from the PM who reminded the House of Cameron's claim to Andrew Marr that he wouldn't use "cheap jibes" which would undermine cooperation and the markets. Brown ruined the bipartisan unity a bit right at the end but he didn't care because Cameron had no more questions to respond and he was being cheered by his Labour MPs who were very happy with his robust performance (for a change!). Labour seems to be quite enjoying this financial crisis - it has put their man back in the game.

Clegg did a better job. He offered his full support to Brown but began with a nice Titanic joke. He said that when the ship was sinking you do not argue about who has steered it into an iceberg. This was better than Cameron because the clear implication was that Captain Brown has got us into this mess but still allowed Clegg to look bipartisan.

However, there is a flaw in the 'united' approach taken by the Tories and Lib Dems. They seem to think that by not opposing Brown's plan in any way, they 1) Look good - the public likes politicians working together for the good of the country; and 2) If the plan goes belly up in the months to come everybody will attack Brown - after all, it is his plan.

But i've got news for Cameron and Clegg - you'll be blamed too because you have tied your colours to Brown's mast. Your support now means you have foregone your right to criticise in the future without looking ridiculous.

RATINGS:

Brown - 7; Clegg - 7; Cameron - 5

Cameron's speech - Nulifies PM's novice attack

David Cameron closed the Conservative Party Conference – much overshadowed by the economic crisis befalling the world – with a passionate, substantial speech, devoid of flashy gimmicks that addressed the anxieties people have about the economy but also – in what was a surprise to commentators – also addressed a series of wide-ranging issues which he linked around the themes of his speech – responsibility, change, small government, values, character and judgement. It had been thought that Cameron would have drastically re-written his speech to take into account the gravity of the economic crisis otherwise he would have been criticised for being out of touch. Instead, he seemed to have kept much of his original content in place but with added passages about the economy, however, it is likely he did tone down his speech, limiting the jokes, and keeping the anti-Brown/Labour comments to a minimum.

Cameron faced a difficult balancing act with his speech – how much time should he spend addressing the economy at the expense of other issues – but probably felt that with his emergency statement yesterday, he did not want to overdo the economy. Had he done so he would no doubt have been criticised for having given a one-dimensional Shadow Chancellor’s speech. As it was, he adopted the right serious, Prime Ministerial tone, reiterating many of the points he had made yesterday about the economy and giving a critique of the Labour years, but also talked about other issues which he considers key such as social breakdown. He used talk of people’s anxieties to nicely link to other themes such as Britain being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Conservatives have always been the party of the military but the fact that Cameron chose to talk about the armed forces so early was no doubt meant as a riposte to Brown who only mentioned them as an afterthought at the end of his speech last week which those on the Right thought was disgraceful.

Much of the speech was in a measured tone with Cameron speaking with notes behind a lectern (rather than autocue, from memory, or TV screens a la Nick Clegg) to convey a more serious and statesmanlike image. However, at times Cameron became quite passionate especially when conveying stories about his constituents – particularly one about a small businessman who had lost his business and a man’s wife who had died without dignity from MRSA caught in hospital – and while he began his speech in sombre tones, he finished with a passionate, rousing and uplifting vision about Britain overcoming obstacles to reach better times ahead. Performance wise, Cameron has many of the gifts of Blair and Bill Clinton. At times he seemed to ad-lib, departing from his script so that he could speak direct to the audience without looking down at his notes. Whether genuine or rehearsed, it nonetheless made Cameron look more informal and his message heartfelt.

He talked about his passions and beliefs and the speech was designed to be a very personal – about him the man. He used it as a clever device, considering the political climate, to indirectly criticise Brown and Labour, subtly contrasting his opponents with himself without mentioning them. For example, he said: “I believe in building a strong team - and really trusting them. Their success is to be celebrated - not seen as some kind of threat. Thinking before deciding is good. Not deciding because you don't like the consequences of a decision is bad. Trust your principles, your judgment and your colleagues.” Here he was talking about himself but subtly he was clearly attacking Brown as a control freak who hoards power, does not delegate or trust his Cabinet colleagues, sees strong performances from his colleagues as threats to his leadership, and dithers over decisions because he is fearful of the consequences (here read: Northern Rock).

Cameron also took head-on the Prime Minister’s claim that this was “no time for a novice” making a powerful argument for change and deflating Brown’s ‘experience’ argument in what was perhaps the best part of Cameron’s speech. He said character and judgement were more important than experience. He said people wanted to know about his values and character, how he made decisions and how he operated. He said his values were conservative, not libertarian, and that the most important word for him was ‘responsibility’: “Personal responsibility. Professional responsibility. Civic responsibility. Corporate responsibility. Our responsibility to our family, to our neighbourhood, our country. Our responsibility to behave in a decent and civilised way. To help others. That is what this Party is all about.” Cameron said before he makes a decision he asks whether it will encourage or discourage responsibility. Cameron has talked about responsibility in his speeches before but it had added resonance after Brown had talked about the “age of irresponsibility” which the Conservatives say sums up Brown’s 11 years in power. Cameron said he could not prove he was ready to be PM – to say he was ready would be arrogant – the best he could do was to say who he is. He said his family was most important to him, that he was very patriotic, and that he was passionate about the Union. In a shot across the bows of Alex Salmond, he said he wanted to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not of England. Cameron said the long-term was important and that if elected tough decisions would have to be made which he was ready for.

He then moved on to addressing the experience issue directly:

“What matters more than experience is character and judgment, and what you really believe needs to happen to make things right. I believe that to rebuild our economy, it's not more of the same we need, but change. To repair our broken society, it's not more of the same we need, but change. Experience is the excuse of the incumbent over the ages. Experience is what they always say when they try to stop change.”

These were some of his best lines as he linked the issue of experience with more of the same from tired governments which fear making the changes necessary because admitting change is needed would mean they would have to admit they were wrong. Cameron then gave an example of experience not being all its cracked up to be which was well received in the Conference hall:

“In 1979, James Callaghan had been Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor before he became Prime Minister. He had plenty of experience. But thank god we changed him for Margaret Thatcher.”

And then made a joke at Brown’s expense:

“Just think about it: if we listened to this argument about experience, we'd never change a government, ever. We'd have Gordon Brown as Prime Minister - for ever. I won’t go on; there are people up there in balconies…”

Cameron then shifted focus to what the country has received from the Gordon Brown experience during the past 11 years:

“Gordon Brown talks about his economic experience. The problem is, we have actually experienced his experience. We've experienced the massive increase in debt. We have experienced the huge rise in taxes. We experienced the folly of pretending that boom and bust could be ended.”

Finally, Cameron argued that the country did not need Brown’s experience; what it needed was real change:

“The risk is not in making a change. The risk is sticking with what you've got and expecting a different result. There is a simple truth for times like this. When you've taken the wrong road, you don't just keep going. You change direction - and that is what we need to do.”

It is a gamble by Cameron but he obviously believes that ultimately change will trump experience at the next general election.

Cameron then returned to the issue of the economy outlining what he saw as being at the heart of the financial crisis. He sad the ‘tap’ marked borrowing had been turned on and left on for far too long and that governments on both sides of the Atlantic had been guilty of believing the good times would go on forever. He also criticised bankers but reiterated his measured appeal that now was not the time to turn against them with left-wing zeal. Their time would come down the line, he said.

Cameron said Brown had made two bad decisions. 1) He had taken away the Bank of England’s powers to call time on debt back in 1997. 2) Government borrowing had got out of control after Brown became a spendaholic leaving the cupboard bare.

He said he believed in sound money and low taxes. Portraying the Conservatives as the party of prudence and economic stability, Cameron said he would restore the Bank of England’s powers removed by Brown, as well as financial responsibility and fiscal responsibility. He hinted at cuts in public spending saying he had asked all his Shadow Cabinet members to review every spending programme they had committed to and said big savings would be made from reforming the public services and that the Tories would establish an Office of Budget Responsibility so there could be no hiding place for governments and no fiddling of the figures.

In a dig at Brown, Cameron said he understood enterprise and that people created jobs, not governments. Brown, in his speech, said his government had created three million jobs. Even Brown has not made that many in the public sector and certainly has not made any in the private sector. Cameron said that Labour’s taxes and regulations had hurt business and that the Conservatives would cut corporation tax by 3p.

Leaving behind the economy for a second time, Cameron said he did not only want to be judged just by how he handled crises, but on two things: 1) the NHS and 2) “the long-term mission of the next Conservative government: to repair our broken society.”

He attacked Labour over their support for big government and signalled out David Miliband for particular criticism. Cameron said that in difficult times, Labour always argues for a bigger state. He said Miliband had been very arrogant for saying last week that unless government is on your side, you are on your own. He said for Labour there was just the state and the individual – nothing in between like families, faith groups etc. In a clever line, he said as far as Labour was concerned there was no such thing as society – clever because Labour has for years thrown this line at the Conservatives after it was first used by Margaret Thatcher.

Cameron said that the problem was not leadership (Brown or anybody else) in Labour; it was Labour. He accused the governing party of treating people like children; never trusting them.

Cameron said politics needed to be cleaned up. He said it was not a party issue but a Westminster one. He said he had shown leadership by standing up to vested interests, namely his MPs and MEPs over expenses. He then linked to another reason for the destruction of faith in politics, that is, when manifesto commitments are not honoured. This allowed him to throw some red meat to the party faithful by saying Conservatives will campaign in the European elections for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Cameron moved onto the NHS claiming Labour had blown its chance and proclaimed: “We are now the party of the NHS and that is the way it’s going to stay.” Labour will not like that one bit.

Returning to his theme of change, he said he would be as radical in social reform as Thatcher had been in economic reform and pledged this is how the Conservatives would fix the ‘Broken Society’. There has been some talk recently that Cameron had been pulling back from his ‘Broken Society’ assessment of the country, qualifying it, but he displaced any such notions in his speech saying those who disputed society was broken must be living in another world.

The Tory leader then sought to show his progressive credentials. He said society could be repaired but traditional approaches had only ever addressed symptoms not causes. He said the Tories were not an anti-state party. In the 20th Century state interventions had done much good. However, in the 21st century, there were diminishing returns to state interventions because they did not address the underlying causes of problems. He called the ‘family’ the “best welfare system there is” and the “first line of defence against social breakdown.” He said strengthening schools was the second line of defence and welfare reform the third. He said working together with Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, the Tories had become the party for “social justice.” Again Labour would not like this claim. He then repeated his claim that the Conservatives were the true progressives and that Conservative means would deliver progressive ends such as ending child poverty. By this point I expect Labour supporters would have become apoplectic with rage with Cameron driving his ‘tanks’ on to areas they consider their own.

One key message of Cameron’s speech was that he was leading a united party unlike Brown. He even began his speech with a light-hearted joke that they were in the Symphony Hall in Birmingham and that it was good to know everyone in his party was playing the same tune – the clear implication being that this is not the case in the disunited Labour Party. Presentationally the message was rammed home with the entire Cabinet positioned behind Cameron on the stage. The TV cameras showed Cameron flanked by his top two – Hague and Osborne. He returned to this theme several times, especially at the end of his speech, declaring that his party was a “changed party. A united party.” Cameron said the Conservatives were “united in spirit and purpose.”

He acknowledged that the task for his party was to take people with them saying his plan for change involved rebuilding the battered economy, renewing the bureaucratised NHS and repairing Britain’s broken society. However, Cameron was keen not to raise expectations too high saying these were “difficult times” with “no overnight transformations.” He said he was “a man with a plan, not a miracle cure.”

Cameron then brought his speech to a rousing, passionate end by offering an optimistic appraisal of the future and saying only the character, leadership and judgement that the Conservative Party offers (in other words what he offers and Brown does not) could deliver the change the country needs:

“These difficult times need leadership, yes. They need character and judgment. The leadership to unite your party and build a strong team. The character to stick to your guns and not bottle it when times get tough. The judgment to understand the mistakes that have been made and to offer the country change. Leadership, character, judgment. That's what Britain needs at a time like this and that's what this party now offers. I know we are living in difficult times but I am still optimistic because I have faith in human nature… In our remarkable capacity to innovate, to experiment, to overcome obstacles and to find a way through difficulties… whether those problems are created by man or nature. We can and will come through. We always do. Not because of our government. But because of the people of Britain. Because of what you do - because of the work you do, the families you raise, the jobs you create… because of your attitude, your confidence and your determination. So because we are united… Because we have had the courage to change… Because we have the fresh answers to the challenges of our age. I believe we now have the opportunity, and more than that the responsibility, to bring our country together. Together in the face of this financial crisis. Together in determination that we will come through it. Together in the hope, the belief that better times will lie ahead.”

All-in-all, the speech was very good. It received rapturous applause as one would expect. He adopted the right Prime Ministerial tone for these austere times but refused to allow it to limit the scope of his speech and finished on an optimistic, uplifting note that was designed to offer the country hope and show he was the man to deliver much needed change. It might be criticised for not offering anything new in terms of policy pledges but Cameron sought instead to offer a detailed critique of the past 11 years, show the direction the Conservatives would take and their priorities for office, and importantly, to show himself as a Prime Minister-in-waiting who might not have the experience but has the values, character and judgement which is what matters which matters most. It was astonishing that the speech was 10 minutes longer than Brown’s yet felt so much shorter. Whereas Brown’s badly began to flag two-thirds of the way through losing structure and the audience’s attention, Cameron, like Blair used to do, was able to keep his voice and words interesting – a key advantage Cameron holds over Brown.

Dispatches - Hedge Funds are evil

I watched Channel 4's Dispatches programme last night entitled: 'Cameron's Money Men'.

It wasn't the most balanced of documentaries to say the least and portrayed Cameron as a hypocrite, saying that despite the Tory leaders lofty rhetoric about transparency in party funding, the Tory leader had not matched it with action.

So we had reporter Antony Barnett (never heard of him) dig up the standard stories about Lord Laidlaw and Lord Ashcroft.

But Barnett also sought to make a huge issue out of the Tories being funded by 'secretive' hedge fund managers who use that most 'evil' of financial practices to make money, namely short selling - the favourite scapegoat of every government of today.

The documentary was essentially saying: Tories are being backed by wealthy people which raises 'cash for access' issues and Tories should not be benefiting from short selling.

This made me think several things:

• How on earth is the Tory party supposed to raise the necessary funds to fight an election if it cannot take donations from wealthy backers?
• The Tories do not get given millions of pounds from unions like the Labour Party.
• Parties cannot rely on lots of very, very small donations to function - who do you personally know has either the inclination to donate to a political party and/or the money to do so in prosperous times, nevermind during an economic downturn?
• £50,000 a year per wealthy individual signed up to the 'Leaders dining club' is hardly a lot of money in the whole scheme of things. It's hardly buying influence. I know are ploiticians can be cheap, but surely not that cheap?
• Those who give the money are obviously going to be more inclined to do so if they get to meet Cameron, Osborne, Hague etc.
• Just because Cameron meets these people does it mean he rejects the views of voters who do not donate? This just does not follow.
• Why should Cameron not meet these types of people - they are voters and taxpayers.
• Modern communication costs lots of money; do we really want hard-pressed taxpayers paying for party funding because that's the alternative? I certainly do not - public spending and my taxes are high enough!
• In the US, donating money is equated with freedom of speech. Curtailing donations is seen by many as violating the 1st Amendment. Why, in this country, is exercising one's freedom of speech via a donation always seen as dodgy and morally corrupt? Cynics always choose to believe a donation is given to get something in return. It is not naive to suggest that sometimes people give money because they support the aims and aspiration of the party and its leader. You would be surprised how even businessmen are dazzled by politicians, and a meeting with them is enough for them. Those in public affairs are always amazed by this.

• Politicians have made short-selling the scapegoat in the current economic crisis, particularly the fall of HBOS, whereas data has shown short-selling activity had been steady and was not the cause. Governments like to show to their citizens that they are not helpless and can do things which is why we have a lot of unnecessary legislation because politicians feel they always have to act. Therefore, a ban on short-selling was a cheap, populist way of showing voters that government was keeping a check on the practices of those nasty bankers.
• Short-selling has been in practice for over a century and is a legitimate financial practice which even Alistair Darling has conceded. The Church of England has got on its high-horse saying it was morally wrong but was then found to have egg on its face after it was revealed it has benefited from the practice. Oh dear, God won't be happy...
• And as Guido has pointed out, the Lib Dem's Lord Oakeshott was up in arms on the Dispatches documentary about the Tories and short-selling but one of the Lib Dems biggest donors, is Paul Marshall who is worth over £300 million and has donated seven-figures sums to the Lib Dems despite being half of Marshall-Wace, hedge fund managers, who engage in short-selling! Oh dear, Lord Oakeshott is In the Brown!!!
• Furthermore, as Guido has also pointed out, Labour too has benefited from donations from hedge fund managers engaging in short-selling - inc. Paul Myners, Ronald Cohen, Derek Tullet and Gilad Hayeem to name a few - which perhaps explains Labour's silence on this issue.

Is Cameron's background relevant? It is to Sky's Kay Burley!

Sky News's rather annoying Kay Burley asked Cameron in Sky's self-styled panel of experts interview due to be screened tonight at 8pm whether Cameron can relate to people who are struggling during these hard economic times given his privileged background - she even described him as a Toff.

I just can't see the relevance of these questions, and neither can the majority of the public (see my earlier posting on MORI's findings about what voters look for in their leaders).

Why is it relevant? Do we need to experience everything for ourselves to know what is best needed to remedy the situation? For example, does a minister or civil servant devising schemes to help drug addicts have to actually become a drug adict so they can experience the needs of a drug addict for the themselves? No, its preposterous!

Furthermore, why is this stupid question not asked of Gordon Brown? On his £188k salary as PM, I don't suppose he knows from experience how people are currently struggling - but that does not make him unqualified for the job (there are plenty of other reasons for that), and nor does it David Cameron.

Labour would be making a mistake with an anti-Toff electoral strategy

Two slides from Ipsos MORI below indicate that Labour would be making a mistake if it tried to make capital from David Cameron's priviledged background.

The first slide features the question: What people dislike about Cameron / Brown. One of the answers is 'too posh'. But only 5 percent of those surveyed said they disliked Cameron for being too posh. Interestingly, Brown also scored exactly the same!

And the second slide asks: What kind of leader would you prefer? The overwhelming majority (71 percent) say they want someone better qualified than themselves in terms of background and experience as opposed to 24 percent who say they want someone similar to them in terms of background and experience.

The two slides seem to indicate that the electorate is not perplexed by the 'class' of its leaders. The class warriors like the Ed Balls's of this world ought to think again if they wish to make Cameron's background a feature of the next general election.

As the Crewe and Nantwich by-election showed us, old-style class politics has had its day.

Ipsos MORI - 'The Verdict on Brown'

I’ve just come into contact with Ipsos MORI’s Party Conferences Briefing entitled ‘The verdict on Brown’.

It is an interesting slide-show document that provides an overview of where the parties and leaders stand PRIOR to the Labour and Tory party conferences.

The key messages from MORI are:

• David Cameron and the Conservative Party are still making real headway against Gordon Brown, with more than half the public agreeing that the Conservative Party is ready to govern.
• Cameron has struck a note with the populace, with two-thirds (63 percent) agreeing with his assertion that “British society is broken,” and half believing that “David Cameron represents modern Britain.”
• The Tories are now seen as better than Labour on having the best team of leaders, understanding the economic problems facing Britain and having the better policies on family issues.
• The Tories are also seen as having better policies than Labour on all key issues to voting except healthcare and education (but fewer voters now feel these matter in deciding who runs Britain).
• In contrast 44 percent say there is nothing they like about Gordon Brown and 69 percent are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as PM.
• However, half (51 percent) do agree Brown is going a reasonable job in difficult circumstances.
• Brown’s ratings are now where Major’s were after Black Wednesday – the Conservatives never recovered from this point and remained around 13 points behind in the polls for the best part of a decade.

What the MORI findings show is that far from Cameron's and the Conservative Party's poll ratings being simply a function of Brown's and Labour's unpopularity, the Tory leader has been able to make positive headway of his own - particularly with his messages about the 'broken society' and Cameron looks like he has successfully tapped into the zeitgeist of the 'modern', much as Blair once did, and this has contrasted badly with Brown, a man in his mid-fifties who has been in office for 11 long years.

It will be interesting to view the weekend opinion polls to see whether Brown's 'relaunch' conference speech (how many relaunches has this man had - was that his 102nd?) has helped his dire personal ratings, humanising him, and whether that in turn gives Labour a much needed fillip in the polls.

More to follow later on specific slides...