The Economist: All-substance Brown versus All-style Cameron

"If Gordon Brown and David Cameron face each other as party leaders, it will be a curious match, for they are, at present, opposites. Mr Brown is all substance and, sadly for his polling figures, no style. Mr Cameron is, so far, all style and not enough substance. If he can acquire a little of the dour Scotsman's intellectual seriousness, he will be a real contender at the next election. And that, for Britain, would be great: competition, as this paper occasionally points out, is a fine thing."

That is how this week's Economist newspaper concludes a leader on how the Tory leader can transform his "politically successful" start to his leadership into something less "intellectually vacuous".  Up until now Mr Cameron has been all repositioning:

"Mr Cameron has tried to change voters' attitudes by taking swipes at carefully chosen targets. The Conservatives are seen as too close to business? Attack shops selling provocative clothes for children and call for corporate social responsibility. Self-interested? Go to the North Pole and fret about global warming, preferably in the company of a furry animal. Too authoritarian? Suggest that louts need love and understanding. Stick to warm slogans such as “trusting people” and “modern compassionate conservatism”, and hope that the electorate's growing disillusionment with a fractious government that has been in power for nearly a decade would do the rest."

The weekly newspaper believes that the Tory leader needs to do three more things, however, to ensure his party is really ready for government:

1. To make it clear that he believes in a smaller state.  The Economist believes that the state of the public finances makes tax cuts "unrealistic" but that Mr Cameron should set out plans for how the delivery of public sector responsibilities might be transferred to the private and voluntary sectors.
2. To "follow up on his intention of making his party, once a club of (near-) dead white males, look as though it represents modern Britain."  It recommends  more organisational changes and tighter central control of candidate selection.
3. More statesmanlike internationalism.  This, for The Economist includes ditching his pledge to leave the EPP ("the best way to exercise influence in Europe is from within its biggest political group, rather than from the fringes") and for a less anti-American feel to his overall foreign policy ("The fifth anniversary of September 11th was the wrong moment to make a speech criticising Mr Blair's close relationship with the White House").

Comments

[christina speight]

The Economist totally undermines the rest of its own message by its suggestion that the Tory MEPs should stay in the EPP because "the best way to exercise influence in Europe is from within its biggest political group, rather than from the fringes".

Can the Economist point to a single issue of policy where the arch-federalists of the EPP have made any concessions or listened to the Tories in their ED section? Instead they have diverted EU funds to propagate federalist aims and have completely ignored any suggestions from opposing factions. We're outnumbered, outvoted and ignored.

Cameron said it was absurd and it is!

[Jonathan Mackie]

I agree Christina, the article is full of contraditions.

Two of its three points are risible. More control over candidates!!! We need less central control. Surely if the Economist believes in a free market, small state solution, candidate selection should be left to the free market as well.

Point one is stop on though. I think we have a (closing) window to set out a clear agenda of public sector reform, small state, big citizenship approach.

[Sean Fear]

Increasingly, the Economist has moved away from a small-State philoposphy to one of Europhile Blairism.

Its Bagehot column could be written by Blair, and perhaps it is.

[Simon Chapman]

The Economist is going to be thwarted on the EPP.

As William Hague says in his interview today, the Movement for European Reform (MER) will be launched at the party conference. I will be running a piece on this as part of the CH Foreign Affairs coverage at the party conference.

It's going to be essential that all Euro-realists make sure that the MER is well-supported and funded, and succeeds where the ED has failed.

[matthew]

ha ha, brown, all substance?

What substance have we got?

'no more boom and bust'

Oops, we've had 9 years of soaring house prices under Brown, benefiting nobody except the elderly and the Chancellor, with billions printed out of nowhere. Young graduates unable to afford a home to live in, or resigned to paying £100k+ to live among scrounging council tenants who get it all for free.

We've had the boom, soon comes Brown's bust.

And the Tories will have to clear it up.

[David Belchamber]

Can we accuse Brown of substance abuse?

[Serf]

I can't believe that the Economist falls for the idea that Gordon Brown has any sort of intellectual substance. The guy is completely devoid of intelligence. He talks in a way that nobody else understands and passes it off as a superior intellect. Unfortunately he believes his own lies, which gives him supreme arrogance.

On the EPP, its a lie and it always has been. We have no influence whatsoever. We are like a little old lady being dragged down the road by a rottweiller. We can occasionally slow it down, or move it a little from side to side, but that is it. The only sensible thing to do is let go.

[Off Message]

Gordon Brown intellectually serious?

The man who brought us child bonds, who has wreaked havoc on the best funded pension system in Europe, who brought in IR35, who sold gold at the bottom of the market, whose economic policies have led to the loss of 1.1 million manufacturing jobs, who can't stop fiddling, complicating and interfering. A simplifying Chancellor would be intellectually serious. This one is intellectually incoherent, inconsistent and damaging.

The Economist, the Mail, the FT - how many more supposedly serious papers are going to fall for this carefully packaged image which has no basis in reality?

[Jack Stone]

The thing we as Conservatives need to get over about Gordon Brown is that he as built our supposidly successful econonomy on debt both government and consumer.
He as built the economy on the foundations of sand and like anything built on such perilous foundations it will collapse sooner or later.

[Tapestry]

Gord has to do substance as he can't do image or personality or charisma.

Blair has transformed Britain away from an uptight class-locked society to one where people openly express their feelings, where leaders can come from any part of society - or at least no one attaches much significance to that any more. He's fucked up government totally but he's liberated us socially. That's the Blair legacy. Britain has a buzz it never had before.

Gord would be a return to the dullness and drabness of uptight class-based politics of the 1970's - the time he's from. He's out of his era now. He does not fit in the heart on sleeve, emotion-filled fast-moving world of today. He's wooden and cannot compete. Reid's a cheeky chappy with a sparkle. They'll roll him out if they've got any sense.

[George Hinton]

Gordon all substance..........what illegal substances has this particular hack been on.
Substance is the theft of £5bn per annum + from our pension funds, the imposition of so many stealth taxes that we lost count, the decline in retained earnings post tax, the imposition of so uch in the way of red tape and bureacracy that industry is creaking, The loss of £2bn per annum through criminal incompetence on the tax credits scheme...one can go on and on.
Gordon has no substance, he is no more than an official thief and mugger, licensed to pick our pockets and waste it on grandiose schemes and invoke that age old folklore of the socialists, the dogma of social and financial re-engineering.
A pox on him and the journo.

[TomTom]

The Economist was once a British magazine but now caters more for American subscriptions - i gave up on it 16 years ago - it is hardly worth readng nowadays so weird are its prescriptions

[Tapestry]

The Economist: 'It is overwhelmingly likely that the chancellor will be Britain's next Prime Minister.'

Sticking to the orthodoxy across TV, news media and all. On Question Time last night, the panel were universally backing Brown. The audience was universally sceptical. It shows how media dare not discuss any real options in case the ego of someone powerful gets dented etc. Any journo writing or saying that Brown's a basket case would fear for his job right now.

That's why blogs are more interesting, and The Economist has become so dull. I used to subscribe every week, but now buy only occasionally. I don't feel as if I'm missing anything. At one time Bagehot offered real insights, but once Labour won in 2001, they haven't dared. All media are programmed by some force in the aether - Brown will win. Brown will win. Brown will win. God it's dull reading this shit.

If only the occasional voice could speak outside the control system. It's not only boring. It's frightening.

[christina speight]

Jack Stone - "He as [sic] built the economy on the foundations of sand"

His legacy was a sound economy and sound pensions and low(ish) taxes. The foundations were sound but he's undermined them.

[Gareth]

Crikey! Christina praising the achievements of the last tory government. Despite being led by the 'very evil' John Major and having Ken Clarke as Chancellor(surely a Quisling on planet Speight?), it apparently managed the economy well.

[Off Message]

An economy whose foundations were laid by the Thatcher government before Major, Clarke, the Labour Party, the Unions, the CBI and God knows who else forced it off the rails by obliging Maggie to agree to the ERM. Still Clarke did a pretty good job as Chancellor although he didn't have the nous to convert any of that success into electoral appeal.

[Off Message]

You'd think the pensions issue alone was enough to destroy Gordon Brown as PM. But we seem only to mention it in passing. The Party lacks the ruthlessness and focus to choose a weakness like this and then relentlessly exploit it. New Labour were brilliant at it (as Philip Gould explains in his excellent Unfinished Revolution) but we just don't do "Punching the bruise". Saying the same thing over and over again is tedious I suppose but necessary. Thatcher knew this and did it. Cameron knows it (I think) but doesn't yet do it. It'll be interesting to see if this changes or not.

[David Sergeant]

"You'd think the pensions issue alone was enough to destroy Gordon Brown as PM. But we seem only to mention it in passing. The Party lacks the ruthlessness and focus to choose a weakness like this and then relentlessly exploit it."

Bravo Off Message. Just keep saying it and someone in the party will wake up to politics post 1960s.

[Gareth]

"An economy whose foundations were laid by the Thatcher government before Major, Clarke, the Labour Party, the Unions, the CBI and God knows who else forced it off the rails by obliging Maggie to agree to the ERM."

Isn't it amazing how Margaret Hilda's disciples are forever praising her resoluteness, steadfastness etc. etc., but somehow she was 'forced' to agree to enter the ERM. She was obviously having a bad day ...

[christina speight]

~Gareth - Have you nothing better to do than make silly remarks. Just because because I think nothing good of Major and find Clarke lazily batty on the subject of the EU, the fact is that the economy was managed well once we got out / were driven out of the ERM. We went into the ERM against Maggie's wishes but with urging-on by Labour.

Unlike Gareth who can't take any criticism and who supported Major I speak according to the facts. This worries Gareth

[Gareth]

Silly remarks? Moi?

I very much enjoyed this:

"We went into the ERM against Maggie's wishes but with urging-on by Labour."

I would have been disappointed had shown yourself to be rational on this issue, which is one of my favourite litmus tests.

Poor old Maggie eh? Bullied and pushed against her will. Bless.

[Gareth]

"Unlike Gareth who can't take any criticism and who supported Major I speak according to the facts. This worries Gareth"

You certainly worry me Christina, but not on these grounds I promise you.

[Jack Stone]

I also find it rather strange when eurosceptics say that Margaret Thatcher was pushed into the ERM and greater European intergration.
It doesn`t really sound like the Iron Lady at all does it. Personally I think at the time she thought these things were simply right for the country.

[christina speight]

Maggie was NOT all-powerful and unlike her successors she kept her cabinet "on board" as long as she could. Ecomomics was not her strongest point and with a near 100% consensus against her throughout the political classes she let this one through.
=-=-=-=-=-
Gareth shows himself more and more as an apparatchik, unable to think for himself but slavishly following the party right or wrong.

[Given Up]

Every bien pensant wanted us in the ERM and yes they were all wrong as usual.

Thatcher was pushed into it, remember her adviser Sir Alan Walters was dead against it, but Lawson and the horrible Howe were all for it. Lawson effectively resigned over it.

When we fell out and the gu'mint had no economic policy, the economy took off, it was a glorious example of why no gu'mint intervention can allow an economy to thrive.

It also hopefully put to bed the idea of us ever tieing ourselves into the Euro and just how bad everything that comes out of Brussels is and has been ever since the nightmare was dreamt up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/1940421.stm

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

In addition the ERM, Thatcher also signed the Single European Act and signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement - all against the wishes of the Right. Margaret was either stupid, weak or more Left-wing than you think - which one was it, Christina?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

In addition to the ERM, Thatcher also signed the Single European Act and signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement - all against the wishes of the Right. Margaret was either stupid, weak or more Left-wing than you think - which one was it, Christina?

[Tapestry]

Maggie trusted her foreign office advisers who told her not to worry about all that 'ever closer union' stuff. She realised her mistake later, but was got rid of before Maastricht. The eurocompliant John Major was rolled out to replace her. The age of spin was born.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

If you believe that, Tapestry, you believe in Father Christmas. Did she one say, "Advisers advise, Ministers decide"? How does that square with your analysis?

[christina speight]

Justin - No need to say it all twice!!!

The Single European Act was / is like the curate's egg Personally I regret it.

But why this concentration on Thatcher. She didn't get everything right - I never said she did - but she saw one calamitous future ahead unless the economy was strengthened and union political power crushed. The prosperity we have lived on since is entirely thanks to that fight.

[Julian Williams]

Brown has little substance, but he always had balls; Ed Balls. What Ed Balls said this month was what Brown said next month.

When Balls didn't like the EMU Brown blocked it and Brown did the country a service.

To have a choice between Brown and Baby Blair is a very sad state of affairs. Brown is the more obnoxious which means he is more likely to fight with the EU which gives him the lead by a nose.

[Julian Morrison]

I think people assume GB has substance because he seems very grimly earnest. That is to say, his "substance" is all style!

Assess him on his record, and he comes over as a half-competent. His only good decisions were made before Labour took office - and mostly by the Tories.

[changetowin]

Interesting Economist article. Particularly strong points on candidate selection and the EPP. This is a serious paper - let's hope the leadership takes its points seriously...

[David Belchamber]

Gordon Brown should be less difficult to oppose, if he becomes PM, than John Reid. Not only has he been a half-competent Chancellor, with all the failures listed above against his record, but, despite his surly occupancy of the Treasury bunker for so many years, he has also been a key member of Blair's government that so clearly has failed to deliver the goods.
On top of all that, he has shown spectacular disloyalty to his boss over recent years. If he so disagreed with Blair, he should have had the courage to resign. On the other hand, if Blair had had the courage, he should have sacked Brown.

[David Banks]

Erm.. Brown and substantial , could that be the merde that the present government haas dropped the country in through ineffective immigration vetting / controls?

[Off Message]

I think Thatcher is guilty as charged re the Single European Act but could do little to resist the ERM despite her and Walters' misgivings because the Cabinet and opinion was so united against her. Anyway the point, in this thread, is to make clear that the transformation of the UK economy from basket case to strongest in Europe had its base in Thatcherite reforms, was temporarily derailed by the ERM, was consolidated under Major and Clarke but had nothing to do with Gordon Brown.

[David Belchamber]

"Punching the bruise". Saying the same thing over and over again is tedious I suppose but necessary".

Absolutely correct, Off Message @ 18.20.

We must punch home the message that Brown has raided pension funds, tries to micromanage everything, wastes huge amounts of taxpayers' money, takes too much in personal taxes, has presided over record levels of personal debt etc.
The biggest thing to get over to the public is that spending on health and education will not reduce under the tories and that tax savings will not come from cuts to these.
Taxes will fall, though, once we can eliminate quite a few of Brown's quangos that waste so much taxpayers' money.
I think we can - and should - be quite specific about where savings will be made.

[TomTom]

The Tories were stupid on Pensions - yes Brown's raid has hurt not just private sector but public sector pensions.

At the BBC, in the NHS, in local government and Inland Revenue the AVCs were invested with Equitable Life.........and under Inland Revenue rules AVCs could not switch provider................only MPs had a special deal with Equitable Life.......

Then there are the Local Authority Pension Funds such as West Yorkshire Councils - invested in the Stock Market and partially-funded - how much has he cost them ?