Shadow Chancellor George Osborne will give a major speech to Policy Exchange later today in which he'll attempt to revive the idea that Gordon Brown is a serious roadblock to reform. He will test the patience of some Tory supporters by welcoming the suggestion that the Tories are the true heirs to Blair when it comes to public service reform but he'll also play hard politics by accusing Gordon Brown and Labour's deputy leadership candidates of abandoning choice and private sector involvement in their approach to public sector reform.
Mr Osborne will say:
"This growing consensus between the current Prime Minister and the Conservative Party does not appear to include the next Prime Minister. And therein lies the political battle ahead, for Gordon Brown rejects the very idea that there should be alternative providers of taxpayer-funded public services... The difference now is that the people around Gordon Brown are also making the case against choice and diversity, and challenging key aspects of the Blair settlement."
In recent days we have seen Peter Hain talk about the limits to public service reform and Alan Johnson threaten the charitable status of private schools. During last night's Newsnight debate amongst the deputy leadership candidates we saw Harriet Harman lead the 'leftwards lurch' with calls for an amnesty for illegal immigrants and more redistribution. She said:
“We are not just worried about where the bottom is in terms of poverty. We are worried about the gap with rich and poor. You can’t have proper equality of opportunity with a huge gap between rich and poor. Do we want to be a divided society where some people struggle and others spend £10,000 on a handbag?"
John Cruddas - who endorsed Ms Harman in the race should he not be successful - endorsed the idea of higher taxes “for the David Beckhams of this world."
ConservativeHome will be at the speech and will post a full report later today.
hhmm, Not sure which way to call this. Painting Gordon Brown as a man of the left (And the deputy leadership candidates are certainly helping us here), is a good and necessary plan.
I'm not sure about declaring ourselves as heirs to Blair. Blair has in many cases (such as city academies) simply implemented Thatcher policies badly, so a better way to look on it may be the true heir to Thatcher. I would imagine 'heir to Blair' is a phrase for middle England swing voters who still like Blair in spite of everything.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | May 30, 2007 at 09:14
"Tories are the real heirs to Blair" This proud boast from Osborne on the Today program this morning came, like a slap in the face. Did I mishear? Is it possible that Cameron and Osborne are proud of Tony Blair's inheritance?
When I first saw Cameron make his play at that Tory conference I felt just the same as I felt when I saw Blair outside No 10 the morning after election in 1997, imposters both. Revulsion. Where can a conservative hide on this disasterous day?
Posted by: Soothsayer | May 30, 2007 at 09:19
Gordon Brown as a man of the left
I wish!
Posted by: Comstock | May 30, 2007 at 09:22
Agree with the above. When will they realise that all the talk of being "heirs to Blair" is plain wrong, and that there is far more to be gained by promising to disclaim the legacy?
Posted by: David Cooper | May 30, 2007 at 09:26
Immigrant labour is a cause of depressing wages for those who are in competition for jobs with immigrants. As it takes around 85 years for an immigrant on average wages to pay for his share of capital as at 2007 in Britain this is a a further cause of impoverishment for natives as their capital is spread ov er more people.Of course most immigrants never pay for their share of capital as their labour productivity is so small.
Still we must not bang on about immigration or stray from the party line unless we are 'good ole Bullingdon Boris' who is part of the Tory 'broad church'
Posted by: anthony scholefield | May 30, 2007 at 09:37
And the final scene comes that little bit closer for the Blairo-Cameroons.
Posted by: ACT | May 30, 2007 at 09:38
"the Blair settlement"!! What!? Is Osborne suggesting that Blair has established some kind of widespread consensus around a new position - like the "Thatcher settlement" or Roosevelt's "New Deal settlement" or the "Elizabethan settlement" in the Church of England? There must be some mistake, surely? He can't seriously be proposing to say that...?!
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | May 30, 2007 at 09:51
Andrew Lilico - you're forgetting that Osborne has been reading the Tony Blair Songbook: first rename your party and change the logo; second chatter on about youth and modernisation; then stage an internal row about something or other and beat up your own side as idiots; then claim your enemy is "lurching" away from the centre (actual lurch not required) so that you are the true heir to his predecessor.
Coming soon: flying off to make a speech to Murdoch's minions; some crap about Europe.
Posted by: Long Memory | May 30, 2007 at 10:05
Osborne's comments show that it is Cameron's cronies who are lurching to the left. There is no Blair settlement, just a stinking Blair legacy of corruption, lying and incompetence. I will never settle for that even if Osborne will.
Posted by: Buck Flair | May 30, 2007 at 10:07
Sounds like the way to lose both the election and the battle of ideas.
"Heirs to Blair" at a time when the public has turned against Blair? Saying Brown is a fresh alternative, when that is what the public wants? Saying we aren't that fresh alternative? Keeping the many bad things Blair has done, when true conservatives want to reverse them? No fresh conservative developments? Mad.
Posted by: William MacDougall | May 30, 2007 at 10:09
To what extent have the public (I'm thinking middle England) turned against Blair? The way the polls drop when Brown is mentioned shows Blair must be maintaining some level of support. I keep finding people who say they like Blair, like Cameron but don't like Brown.
P.S I'm in no way endorsing the 'Heir to Blair' line, just posing a question.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | May 30, 2007 at 10:18
The nation is about to sigh a huge relief when this vainglorious Prime Minister leaves office, discredited and despised. And the Cameron clowns are claiming they are "heirs to Blair". Wow.
It's really sad, Major wasn't up to the job, Hague wasn't up to the job, IDS wasn't up to the job, Howard wasn't up to the job, David Cameron isn't up to the job. They're like the West Indies, a once-great team is now just a bunch of useless amateurs.
Posted by: Brian Jenner | May 30, 2007 at 10:21
"This growing consensus between the current Prime Minister and the Conservative Party does not appear to include the next Prime Minister."
That is the most bizarre criticism of a political opponent I have seen in 30 years of involvement in British politics.
Exhaustion must be setting in. It was all going so well. Time for other Shadow Cabinet ministers to take the reins for a few months. The Cameron-Osborne motor has been over-revved and needs to cool down before a top overhaul is required.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew | May 30, 2007 at 10:36
Why vote for the monkey instead of the organ-grinder?
Osborne has actually admitted that the "Tories are the real heirs to Blair" and that makes Cameron Blair Mark 2.
Why have Tories spent the last 10 years complaining about the Labour Party when they now falling over themselves copying Labour?
Osborne is spelling it out loud and clear, you listen but do not really hear what he is telling you all, welcome to the world of the Red Tories or Blue Labour take your pick!
One way or another Labour cannot lose the next Election, we either get the real McCoy or the Clone, now that can't be bad!
Come the next GE your manifesto will read vote Blue, get Red, Yellow and Green Tories.
This remind me of the supermarket offer of BOGOF, but at least with Cameron, one gets 4 for the price of one. Some might think that is good value.
Your guy Osborne is whistling in the wind if you think for one minute that Brown is going to move to the left. I would start asking Cameron some searching questions as to why he is paying Hilton so much brass to get such poor advice, he is wasting his money.
As for Osborne give a squeeky voiced Choir Boy a Man's job, then sit back and reap what you sow. Give me a break, it would be comical if it was not so serious.
Osborne is living in a fools paradise if he thinks for one minute that Brown is going to abandon the centre ground to move to the left, after all Nu Labour was Brown and Blairs brain child.
As a footnote--How long has Blair and Brown really been Labour? They are more like Tories than the old Leftie Labour Party.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 10:40
Good ole OldLab, back to the dogma of jealousy and envy. Their solution? fiscal expropriation, no doubt ensuring that the Apparatchiks and Nomenklatura are exempt as a special case.
The sooner this gets spread around then the quicker they will loose support. Wasn't fisacal expropriation a Fib-Dem proposal for those earning over £100k, sounds like Cabinet Minsters getting screwed.
Why doesn'y NuLab deal with the Mittal's and Abramovitch's of this world, billionaires and resident and paying no tax.
Posted by: George Hinton | May 30, 2007 at 10:58
The problem is, where is the evidence of the brown lurch to the left? A few no hopers in an irrelevant campaign (neither Hain nor Harman nor Cruddas are going to win)? Brown is falling over himself to ensorse everything the Great Helmsman advocated.
And an argument about more choice (Osborne) versus more personalisation by the public (Brown), will be way over people's heads
Posted by: Not convinced | May 30, 2007 at 11:01
It can't be bad, Not convinced, to remind voters of Labour's left?
Posted by: Alan S | May 30, 2007 at 11:05
"It can't be bad, Not convinced, to remind voters of Labour's left"
I wish they had one. At the grassroots level, sure, but Mcdonnell couln't even get on the nomination paper...........
Posted by: Comstock | May 30, 2007 at 11:08
I heard a lot about redistibution of wealth last night, Comstock. And the 41% winner of Newsnight's debate by the Labour luvvies advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Blair accepted Thatcherism, at least partly. The PLP never did.
Posted by: Tory T | May 30, 2007 at 11:12
"I heard a lot about redistibution of wealth last night, Comstock. And the 41% winner of Newsnight's debate by the Labour luvvies advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Yes please. Who was the 41% winner?
Posted by: Comstock | May 30, 2007 at 11:24
Cruddas, Comstock.
You're still a party of lefties. Blears was easily your best performer last night, but the vote was for the ultraleft Cruddas. He's got my vote for Deputy Leader!
Posted by: Tory T | May 30, 2007 at 11:37
Here Comstock. Scroll down page to vote and view results.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_nn_deputy_29_05_07
Cruddas had 41% this am. It's being slowly gerrymandered down now (37.5%) but still the runaway winner.
Posted by: Tory T | May 30, 2007 at 11:41
Not convinced. |"The problem is, where is the evidence of the brown lurch to the left?
There is none and neither will there be. Brown has far too much political savvy, he will remain in the centre ground as he has always said he would.
Brown and Blair were after all the architects of Nu Labour. They have fought and won 3 elections occupying the centre ground, so why would he want to change a winning formula now?
Cameron, Osborne, Davies and Hague keep saying that Brown is an extremely formidable opponent who should never be under estimated.
Problem is their actions speak louder than their words.
Even those closest to Brown will inform people that nobody knows exactly what Brown will do as he plays everything far too close to the chest.
So now we have the spectacle of Osborne trying to second guess him. I am sure he will confound everybody with exactly what he does.
Osborne would be better holding his tongue and remaining silent because one thing is for certain, Brown is holding his thunder until he feels the time is right.
After all he has waited 10 years for this and he will savour the moment, he will probably end up making Osborne look foolish, still that is not a hard task to accomplish. Osborne will never learn, he jumps straight in with both feet.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 11:41
I think that the vociferous anti-Cameron grass roots Tories are so self-obesessed that they can't see why these kind of statements (and, for example, those directed at grammar schools) are made. Could they perhaps be directed at people who currently don't vote Tory? The regular posters on this site consist of the small fraction of Tory voters; those who don't support Cameron. I think that many of them would secretly rather lose and keep their moral purity so they can continue to snipe rather than deal with the reality of governance.
In the same way, most Labour activists are horribly left wing, and the Labour party has to tone this down for regular voters.
That's why we get such a fuss when the leadership directs its comments to mainstream punters. The constant sniping will lessen our chances of victory, something that Tories have succesfully and single-mindedly persued in the past.
Posted by: True Blue | May 30, 2007 at 11:52
Rather than being heirs to Blair, isn't this about seizing the baton in a relay race? Thatcher started the necessary reforms, John Major had a bit of a sit down, Blair ran in circles, but ultimately ended up a bit further forward than when he'd first got the baton, Gordon will probably drop the baton and run in the wrong direction, then we get to seize the baton again and take the reforms forward...
Posted by: Happy Tory | May 30, 2007 at 11:54
Happy Tory | May 30, 2007 at 11:54
Read and re-read your post.
The Labour Party and their supporters will love you, I only hope Tory "top brass" think exactly as you do.
You are underestimating Brown big time, keep it going and just watch where it gets you!
I am not so sure that you will end up a "Happy Clappy Tory" though
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 12:03
Cruddas walked away with it on Newsnight last night. Why? Because he obviously has principles and, rather than try to weasel his way out of answering questions, he answered them.
Whether you agree with his policies, you know what he stands for and he didn't come across as the usual lying toe-rag.
Posted by: Deborah | May 30, 2007 at 12:26
Brilliant, truly brilliant. Just as the country looks fwd to seeing the back of Blair, little George pipes up and squeaks that his legacy can live on.....A legacy that has created nothing in 10 yrs, apart from endless mendacity and epic incompetence.
Posted by: GU (Given Up) | May 30, 2007 at 12:27
Not the first time that Osborne has shown he is useless. The prospect of this gilded but rather foolish youth becoming Chancellor is deeply depressing ...
Posted by: Denis Cooper | May 30, 2007 at 12:28
Osbourne will not become Chancellor! I'm becoming more pessimistic of there actually being a conservative overall majority at the next election. Ossie:-'We'll carry on Bliar reforms'...Like Hell we will! Labour in '97 had 'things can only get better' as their campaign theme. I suppose ours will be ' i'm with stupid'.
Posted by: simon | May 30, 2007 at 12:52
Thanks for the links, Tory T :)
Posted by: Comstock | May 30, 2007 at 13:28
Deborah
Well said. Cruddas does come over very well. Trust the Tories to go all style over substance when the caravan has already moved on.
Posted by: Bill | May 30, 2007 at 13:29
How ironic. An advert was just on the page for a book entitled 'An Appetite for Power'.
Posted by: Ash Faulkner | May 30, 2007 at 13:52
Cruddas won last night as the only person to mention Iraq. Everyone else blatantly ignored it and by the time we got to Hain I wanted to slit my wrists due to the repetitiveness of the opening speeches.
Posted by: James Maskell | May 30, 2007 at 14:01
The entire conservative front bench seems to have taken leave of their senses. Perhaps it is the water in Notting Hill or what. The country is sick and tired of Tony Blair - for his arrogant sidelining of Parliament, cronyism, the sleaze and remember Tony Blair presided over a government which destroyed the credibility of Government. This government has taxed us, brought in draconian laws against individual freedom under the guise of National Security, never implemented any proper reform - except the talk.
Theirs was a double act - with Blair being the nice guy charming middle England while Brown and the rest followed their Socialist agenda (Blair colluded egegd on by Cherrie Booth).
We do not want any heirs to Blair, wake up Cameron, the country has moved on and tastes have changed. People have seen what has gone wrong with Blair and they want a true Conservative Government - not continuation of the failed Blair years.
If we do not wake up to it, I am afriad there is no chance of Cameron ever moving out of Notting Hill.
Posted by: Yogi | May 30, 2007 at 14:07
The true blue party, then mixed with sickly green, appeared to go yellow and now it appears red. Perhaps an artist can say what these colours make mixed together, is it insipid grey ?
Posted by: John Ashworth | May 30, 2007 at 14:10
Osborne, pot, kettle, black?
Its rich of us to say that Labour are lurching to the left when we are doing exactly that...and faster than Labour is. At least Labour is naturally left wing anyway...they have an excuse to do so.
Posted by: James Maskell | May 30, 2007 at 14:12
No,John Ashworth, I'm afraid it's brown....
Posted by: Serena Hennessy | May 30, 2007 at 14:36
"Tories are the real heirs to Blair"
Really? So when will history repeat itself and Inspector Knacker feel Tony Cameron's collar?
Has anybody else heard the rumour going around (I've heard it from two totally different sources) that shortly before the next election some Tory frontbencher may be arrested on drug charges?
Now wouldn't that be a terrible thing?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | May 30, 2007 at 14:36
No,John Ashworth, I'm afraid it's brown....
Posted by: Serena Hennessy | May 30, 2007 at 14:36
At least Brown is going to find it easy to ditch Tory Blair with Osborne's help and start a whole new chapter of Labour in Government......
I don't think the Unison members on their march on 13th October will be cheering for Osborne to have more private sector in the NHS.........I just don't understand these publc schoolboys - they seem to want to antagonise the voters
Posted by: TomTom | May 30, 2007 at 14:39
"Blears was easily your best performer last night"
Rubbish! Blears was the worst of the lot. Utterly pathetic, as she always is.
Anyway, who's going to vote for a munchkin?
Posted by: Downsize the NHS | May 30, 2007 at 14:42
Has anybody else heard the rumour going around (I've heard it from two totally different sources) that shortly before the next election some Tory frontbencher may be arrested on drug charges?
Is it normal for the police to wait 3 years before making an arrest - I know that the response times have slowed in some parts of the country but really.
Personally I think you should be banned - you are a muck raking sock puppet who is no more a tory than a toucan.
Posted by: JimJam | May 30, 2007 at 14:44
I listened with interest to George Osbornes speech this afternoon.
A couple of thoughts: Whilst I can understand that Osborne wants to sow divisions in the Labour party by emphasising points of agreement with Blair in contrast to his successor and the majority of the Labour party I'm not sure this is wise. I wonder if the electorate only aspire to us 'doing what Blair did, just a bit better' which was the inference of Osbornes speech. Blair is going to take a pasting now both from us and his own party after he resigns.Surely we as a party should be emphasing 'change' from what has occured in the last 10 years rather than points of agreement. To use the dreadful language of political apparatchiks, the 'Blair brand' is seriously tarnished and is about to get a whole lot worse.
Secondly although I listened intently to what George was saying I was not sure how his ideas would actually work in practice. Choice must as George said, must be 'real choice'whether in Health or Education. I still don't understand after listening to this speech how we can introduce 'real choice' without it becoming prohibitively expensive for the taxpayer.
Finally I thought the language and tenor of the speech owed far too much to the vocabulary of Oliver Letwin. Can we really not make things a little simpler so that a humble ex-Grammar schoolboy like me can understand them?
Posted by: malcolm | May 30, 2007 at 14:57
Malcolm: there is nothing to understand. It's all post-modern posturing positioning triangulating PR rubbish. Take it from another
ex-grammar grub (as the PSWs used to call us).
Posted by: Bill | May 30, 2007 at 15:10
JimJam: who is no more a tory than a toucan.
You can these days easily find 't'ories, who has the same colours as a toucan: yellow, red, green and very little blue. However, if Traditional Tory is, who I think he is, he is pure blue.
Posted by: peter | May 30, 2007 at 15:21
I've just read the Osborne speech. And setting aside the question of whether it's a Good Idea to shackle ourselves to the heavily stained Bliar brand, it actually contains a lot of sense:
1.Education vouchers (OK, he doesn't call them vouchers, but that's surely what it means)
2.More new schools competing for voucher custom.
3.GP fundholding
4.More health providers competing for patient (GP) business
Personally, i still don't see why they've ruled out European style social health insurance, but it's at least they're now pointing in the Right General Direction.
All made possible by Brown and that Lurch to the Left line.
So three cheers for Gordon.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | May 30, 2007 at 15:28
3.GP fundholding
So how does this fit with PCTs being turned into commissioning-only agents and doctors forming into commissioning provider groups as at present ?
If you overturn this system to introduce GP fundholding you will need to have NHS Dentist Fundholding since they are in the same PCT Budget Pool together with hospitals
It is weird that the Conservatives agree with Blair on PFI Academies but decide to overturn the Blairite Commissining System to return to the GP Fundholding Model he scrapped in 1997 and reintroduced as PCT Commissioning........are we going round and round in circles ?
Posted by: ToMTom | May 30, 2007 at 15:50
Go and look
Commissioning
http://www.natpact.nhs.uk/cms/140.php
http://www.practicebasedcommissioning.info/
All that is being done is to create US-style HMOs which buy medical services - I don't see how GP fundholding improves on that
Article Date: 16 Dec 2004 - 10:00 PDT
| email to a friend | printer friendly | view or write opinions |
sign up to our weekly newsletter
Sign up for news alerts
rate this article
GP practices will be able to keep up to 100 per cent of any savings they make from the direct commissioning of services, Health Minister John Hutton revealed today. The move to encourage GPs to directly commission care could reduce prescribing costs, slash unnecessary hospital admissions and create savings for investment in local practices.
Draft guidance on Practice Based Commissioning, published in October, proposed that GP practices would be able to retain 50 per cent of any savings from provision of care they commission.
However, today's final guidance allows GP practices to share in a greater proportion of any savings, with the exact percentage set locally between individual Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and GP practices.
GPs must re-invest the savings in developing or providing services for patients. Options for re-investment include more specialist care, diagnostics, equipment, facilities and staff.
Under the Practice Based Commissioning scheme, GP practices will be incentivised for conducting x-rays, tests and outpatient consultations within their practice or commissioning these services from another provider.
John Hutton said:
"We want GPs and their practice staff to be encouraged to shape services around the needs of patients.
"There are real signs that practices are exploring the potential of this scheme and several are already involved in practice based commissioning in some way.
"By allowing practices to retain up to 100 per cent of any savings, we aim to encourage even more practices to adopt the scheme, which will free up resources and provide a greater variety of services for patients."
Dr James Kingsland, Chairman of the National Association for Primary Care (NAPC), said:
"There are many advantages of a practice based approach. Practice Based Commissioning allows clinicians and managers to tailor services to the needs of practice populations.
"The local knowledge a practice has about its population cannot be underestimated. Practice Based Commissioning empowers practices to support patients, who may be socially isolated, as well as those experiencing illness, in very practical ways, thereby avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions."
The introduction of the scheme could lead to more patients receiving care closer to home and minimise the number of patients being sent for unnecessary hospital treatment.
For example, a patient with back pain could be scanned using equipment in their local health centre and diagnosed without having to be referred for a hospital examination. If the patient's condition proved to be to a slipped disc, the GP could then prescribe appropriate treatment from a local physiotherapist.
From April 2005, every practice will have the right to hold a practice based commissioning budget. Participating practices will receive a paper or 'indicative budget' from PCTs that they can use to directly manage delivery of services for their patients.
Involvement in the scheme is voluntary, although the Department of Health expects all practices to be involved in practice based commissioning by 2008.
King’s Fund comment on Department of Health figures on GP commissioning
06.07.06
Commenting on the Department of Health's figures released today (6 July) on the uptake of commissioning by GP practices, King's Fund acting director of policy Dr Richard Lewis said:
"GP practices are starting to engage with commissioning but these figures only show how many practices have taken up initial payments to deliver commissioning. They do not represent how many practices are effectively commissioning services and may not necessarily result in better, more cost-effective services for patients.
"With fewer than half of practices currently taking part in practice based commissioning this is a first step towards better commissioning. However, with figures varying from area to area, much more needs to be done to get GPs fully on board and to fulfil the government's target of 100 per cent engagement by the end of this year.
"A big issue for GP practices is whether they will get to keep the savings they make through good commissioning. It is not clear how, in areas where primary care trusts are in deficit, they will be able to manage the conflicting aims of balancing their budgets and passing on savings to GP commissioners."
Posted by: TomTom | May 30, 2007 at 15:58
It's really sad, Major wasn't up to the job, Hague wasn't up to the job, IDS wasn't up to the job, Howard wasn't up to the job, David Cameron isn't up to the job.
IDS was up to it but faced bitterness from a parliamentary party a majority of whom either were resentful because they thought that Ken Clarke should have been leader or were resentful because they thought that Michael Portillo should have been leader, in fact if Ken Clarke or Michael Portillo had become leader then they might well have ended up being removed in the same way.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 30, 2007 at 16:41
"heirs to Blair"
No people do not wan't Blair 2 .
Who is controlling the Tories PR?!
Posted by: 601 | May 30, 2007 at 16:43
I wouldn't have used this particular "heir to Blair" turn of phrase but stop and think openly about the point. To many ordinary people (whether we like it or not) Blair was, and is generally still seen, as someone who took Labour into the mainstream and was reliable. He appeared to be protecting the good things inherited from Thatcher and rejecting the extremes of old Labour (we may not see it this way but many do). We can argue till we are sick but in fact many ex-tories switched to new Labour because of this. Even in the elections just gone and despite all that has happenend there were still people voting in this way! Talking to people on the doors they see Brown very differently to Blair and see Brown as a threat to continuity. That is why what Osbourne says is broadly correct. I think one of the problems exhibited in some of the comments on this site is that they are not representative of the mainstream voter not matter how genuniely they are held by those that post them here. I don't agree with everything DC does and says (no normal person agrees with everything) and I think we could focus our efforts more practically, but we have got to resist being merely a right-wing debating society.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 30, 2007 at 16:46
The Tories are Blair's heir in one sense. I expected to discount everything New Labour said. I did not expect the Tories to become so dire (whilst still only in opposition) that their utterances also deserved such heavy discounting that they probably aren't worth listening to at all. Quite some achievement. Not.
Posted by: Bill | May 30, 2007 at 16:51
Judging by Osborne's "Tories are the real heirs to Blair" announcement Brown isn't the only one lurching to the Left.
Perhaps Squeaky might explain to the genuine conservatives in the Party just why we would want to adopt and campaign for the very things that we have all been fighting so hard against for the last 10 years?
Posted by: Matt Davis | May 30, 2007 at 17:04
Matt:
Talking to people on the doors they see Brown very differently to Blair and see Brown as a threat to continuity.
How long do you think it will take before the people on the doorstep realise what every Labour supporting person can and will tell them;
Blair and Brown ARE the architects of Nu Labour, whatever gives you the idea that Brown is going to Lurch to the left? He sees Nu Labour as his brainchild.
The only difference between Blair and Brown is, Blair is more telegenic, he does not appear to be quite so dour and seems more amicable. Brown is by far the biggest brain and there is nothing to chose between either of them when it comes to thinking on their feet and their performances during political debate.
Cameron is a political lightweight when compared to Brown's experience.
Come the next election it will not be a beauty competition it will boil down to what it has always boiled down to " The Economy".
Party's do not win elections in this country it is Governments who lose them.
Brown will have well and truly painted Cameron as a Flip-Flopper well before we get there and sad to say the evidence will be well and truly on his side. After all he has been every colour under the Sun since becoming the Party leader and everybody on this blog knows it.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 17:10
I fear Joseph is right. The economy is headed for rocks but I doubt if the outcome will be so bad that Labour won't get in again. After all the Tories got the benefit of the doubt (underservedly so) in '92.
Posted by: Bill | May 30, 2007 at 17:15
Joseph, I agree that Blair and Brown are both the architects of New Labour but it is still the case that people see Brown in a different light. I think it will be very hard indeed for Brown to shake that im[pression off. I also think there are some significant differences between the two. Blair was very much the actor but he did have some broad vision of where he wanted things. I think it is fair to say that Brown is a control freak and a detail man. He is also unable to actually make decisions on difficult issues and doesn't listen properly. A very bad set of characteristics to have a man about to lead the running of the UK. Joseph, your comments and some of the comments of others on here are overly negative. On the one hand people try to say DC changes his views and on the other that he is pushing through his changes unbendingly. Can't be both,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 30, 2007 at 17:47
Sadly Matt (Wright) what I am hearing on the doorstep is that Blair, Brown & Cameron are "all the same" in the eyes of the electorate. Statements such as Osborne's don't help to dispell that perception unfortunately and it is one that will up the "won't votes" a situation that will prevent us winning an election outright.
Mind you a hung parliament does seem to be Cameron's option of choice perhaps because that way he can then blame his hoped for LibDem coalition partners for his wholesale unwillingness to propose or implement conservative policies or ideas.
Posted by: Matt Davis | May 30, 2007 at 17:55
Politicalbetting has a thread headed "New Poll Shows big Labour Progress" - yes up to 31%!
Thats after a fortnight of nostaligic reminders of 1997, after soft focus stuff from Brown while Cameron has been facing down his grammar school critics and press has been full of attack stories. Result : Labour have recovered to the dizzy heights of the pre-Cameron Tories.
Labour will recover more in next months; the press will give Gordon a honeymoon, he'll come out with lots of initiatives. If Cameron & co can keep us in the upper 30's and the pain is on the LDs they'll have done a good job.
Brown will use his public spending largesse as a blunt weapon. What's our choice? We can say its all waste and we need to cut spending or perform radical surgery on public services - and lose the next election. Or we can say that Blair recognised the need for choice and reform but it was Gordon's pigheaded and centralised control that meant the deserved improvements didn't happen. That we can take that which was good and in tne right direction and develop it because we aren't the control freaks that Brownites are.
To put it another way - we can call our electorate poor deluded fools for falling for all this New Labour rubbish or we can say we understand what they wanted and why and we have better ways of meeting their expectations, much better than Gordon Brown who has blocked any real progress to improvements, just thrown their money at it.
Posted by: Ted | May 30, 2007 at 18:07
It's all about branding...nothing to do with policy...........
They have to outrage Conservative activists to convince Limp Dems that Cameron's moving to the middle ground. They want more resignations from sensible middle of the roaders like Brady. They want to arse-lick Blair. Yes the stink is atrocious but this is politics.
A Chief Executive of a successful banking organisation was recently asked the secret of his success. He said, 'When I see an arse, I kiss it.'
Posted by: tapestry | May 30, 2007 at 18:09
Matt Wright @17:47pm
He is also unable to actually make decisions on difficult issues and doesn't listen properly.
Who told you that?
As I remember it was a Whitehall Mandarin who first stated that. Can I remind you of the answer to that at PMQ's when Cameron stated the same thing.
A Labour backbencher said quote: What would the electorate rather have, a Chancellor who makes his own decisions and "we enjoy a successful economy" or the Mandarins who made the decisions for the Tories and we suffered "Black Wednesday" as a result of it.
Next you go on to say:
I think it will be very hard indeed for Brown to shake that impression off.
Matt do you seriously believe that the electorate are going to be swayed by impressions, they all will be too busy thinking of the Economy, Jobs, Mortgages and who can run the Country the best. I keep saying a GE is not a beauty pageant it is about bread and butter issues and most sensible people would rather vote for a boring old fart who is seen as a man of substance than a shallow man of straw. People get their priorities right at these times and will not take chances with flip-flopping amateurs.
How little you seem to understand the British people, they put families first and fore-most not political party's. That is stretching political loyalties a lot too far
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 18:43
Joseph a GE is about several things and I agree that includes bread and butter issues. Yet anyone who has been involved in elections knows that impressions of people form an important part of it. Brown has a problem in that respect something that he quite clearly is trying to address but not very successfully. When combined with the other problems I mention then it becomes more serious. There are plenty of accounts of the things I have described from different people. It is interesting that you quote back what is just Labour PR.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 30, 2007 at 18:56
Sorry Matt, what I am quoting is pure common sense. I neither like Cameron or Brown, I find Blair the nicer personality by far.
However if you ask which one did I trust most with my own future and that of my family, Brown would win hands down.
It is not about personalities it is about competence and experience, nothing more nothing less. That is how the both of them are going to be judged by the electorate, not by who looks best on TV and who has the nicest haircut and smile, that is juvenile thinking.
You are listening too much to the PR people and believing your own party's propaganda.
It is all about substance, just wait until Brown is the PM, we will hear about all sorts of new things and thinking from him, he has ten years to form his own way of doing things and he will put them into place with a vengeance.
What have we heard from team Cameron?
First a tax policy by George Osborne, announced and given to the Telegraph in the morning, withdrawn by lunch-time and dead and buried in the evening.
Then of course we have the latest fiasco about grammar schools, not to mention the EPP promises he made to get elected.
His Guru Oliver Letwin is a thoroughly nice gentleman who lives on planet Utopiah, Cameron would rather listen to Letwin than take the advice of the likes of Michael Forsythe, whom whether you agree with him or not he is certainly a force to be reckoned with when it comes to economics.
Letwin in my opinion is the Tories equivalent to Tony Benn, there is not a fag paper to chose between either of them.
Cameron has cleverly silenced the people whom he did think could give him trouble such as Redwood and Clarke by putting them in charge of projects to satisfy their ego's and keep them quiet, he has as much intentions of acting on what they have to report back as he did with Forsythe. Time will tell if I am right or not these reports are due about now, we will wait and see.
I could bet good money on it that they will end up in the waste bin, but they achieved their objective it kept the awkward squad quiet for a while.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 19:49
"It is all about substance, just wait until Brown is the PM, we will hear about all sorts of new things and thinking from him, he has ten years to form his own way of doing things and he will put them into place with a vengeance."
Having seen the way that Brown operates within his own party and his behaviour towards colleagues I find your optimism extremely misguided. This man is not fit to be PM of our country and has done nothing to warrant the blank cheque mandate his party gave him on our behalf.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 19:56
In your opinion Scotty and you are entitled to that just as I am to mine. Your vote is of equal value to mine and all the rest of the electorate.
Time will tell and I would still bet good money that Brown will flourish and succeed.
Have you ever thought that Brown is like a good many other Scots they do not suffer fools gladly and I cannot imagine him putting up with incompetence either.
For all you and I know this could be the reason for his reported behaviour and after all, we only have the word of the Press and Media for that, we do not know if it is fact or conjecture do we?
I for one do not believe everything I read or hear.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 20:10
"I for one do not believe everything I read or hear."
Joseph, just look at the way the man has behaved in the last 10 years when his government has been in trouble or hard decisions have to be made. He has not had the courage to stand up and defend his own actions, mistakes or enter a contest with conviction. He relies on others to take the flak and his Stalinist and macivity tendencies are well documented. His last budget and the smile on his face as drove away from Downing Street as his own government nearly went into meltdown showed his own ambitions rather than the greater good of his party or the country were more important to him.
Driving around in cars with blacked out windows following Labour's defeat and a refusal to even speak to the new first minister of Scotland tells us all we need to know about how he operates.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 20:22
"I for one do not believe everything I read or hear."
Joseph, just look at the way the man has behaved in the last 10 years when his government has been in trouble or hard decisions have to be made. He has not had the courage to stand up and defend his own actions, mistakes or enter a contest with conviction. He relies on others to take the flak and his Stalinist and macivity tendencies are well documented. His last budget and the smile on his face as drove away from Downing Street as his own government nearly went into meltdown showed his own ambitions rather than the greater good of his party or the country were more important to him.
Driving around in cars with blacked out windows following Labour's defeat and a refusal to even speak to the new first minister of Scotland tells us all we need to know about how he operates.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 20:23
"I for one do not believe everything I read or hear."
Joseph, just look at the way the man has behaved in the last 10 years when his government has been in trouble or hard decisions have to be made. He has not had the courage to stand up and defend his own actions, mistakes or enter a contest with conviction. He relies on others to take the flak and his Stalinist and macivity tendencies are well documented. His last budget and the smile on his face as drove away from Downing Street as his own government nearly went into meltdown showed his own ambitions rather than the greater good of his party or the country were more important to him.
Driving around in cars with blacked out windows following Labour's defeat and a refusal to even speak to the new first minister of Scotland tells us all we need to know about how he operates.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 20:24
"I for one do not believe everything I read or hear."
Joseph, just look at the way the man has behaved in the last 10 years when his government has been in trouble or hard decisions have to be made. He has not had the courage to stand up and defend his own actions, mistakes or enter a contest with conviction. He relies on others to take the flak and his Stalinist and macivity tendencies are well documented. His last budget and the smile on his face as drove away from Downing Street as his own government nearly went into meltdown showed his own ambitions rather than the greater good of his party or the country were more important to him.
Driving around in cars with blacked out windows following Labour's defeat and a refusal to even speak to the new first minister of Scotland tells us all we need to know about how he operates. He has more feuds going with his own colleagues than I have had haggis suppers so no I don't think that you can spin this as conjecture instead of fact.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 20:32
Editor, could you delete my multiple posts. I kept getting google error when I tried to post.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 20:35
Scotty I learned a long time ago that one cannot debate with a person who has a closed mind.
You are concentrating on gossip and inuendo, for all you or I know he most probably had a word with the people concerned and chose not to broadcast it. There are some people who would do that instead of running to the press and media all of the time...the Brady incident comes to mind. Who fed the press and media with that?
At every election he has stood shoulder to shoulder with Blair and they have won quite handsomely, now you cannot deny that, this is fact not conjecture.
Why do you continue to believe everything you read and hear.
In my opinion this is coming from people who fear Brown and would say and do anything to place him in the worst possible light, it will not last, most sensible people can see further than the nose on their face and this sort of thing is not going to put bread on the table and keep roofs over people's heads. This is the antics of the playground, not mature politics.
As we will no longer be subjected to the TB's and GB's, people have to come up with another gimmick to sell newspapers,get decent ratings and feel important, I suppose this one regarding Bown's alleged character flaws is as good as any for the gullible to swallow.
It will not attract more votes to the Cameron cause any more than it will lose votes for Labour.
It is what it is, pure Westminster village gossip.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 20:58
Joseph, can you remember the last time that Brown put himself up for a grilling in front of the public or a tough political operator?
Blair has done it numerous times and Cameron and Davis did it during the leadership contest. I cannot count the number of times Brown manages to disappear off the radar when there is trouble.
If he is to be PM then he needs to up his game dramatically by starting to take the tough interviews and realising that the responsibility for this governments record will now rest with him. Having seen the amount of bad news which has been cynically slipped out over the last 3 weeks I judge the Brownite spin machine to be working as normal, and that includes the briefings against colleagues never mind the opposition.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 21:21
Quite easily Scotty.
Just think back to the Pension debate in the commons when he took the whole of the Tory front bench on and won hands down.
He also won the vote afterwards.
You are making the same mistake as a few of your front bench people, even after being warned by the likes of Lord Tebbit, Chris Patten, Ken Clarke and David Davis who all say he is the most formidable Politician imaginable.
Still even after ten years in opposition some people will never learn.
Brown has been doing this sort of thing since his University days, it is nothing new to him. You still have a lot to learn about the guy but hey just do it the hard way.
Anyway you and I will have to agree to differ as I have blogged long enough on this subject.
You will have the next three years to find out for yourself.
Posted by: Joseph | May 30, 2007 at 22:09
"You will have the next three years to find out for yourself."
I look forward to the many PMQ's in difficult weeks when Brown will strive to be absent, I also await to see if he continues the monthly chat with the Lobby too.
It will be interesting to see if the Labour party has gambled a 4th GE on a mythical politician who did not have the courage or conviction to run against Blair 12 years ago, instead preferring to tie up his succession behind the scenes.
Posted by: Scotty | May 30, 2007 at 23:38
Joseph, Don't agree with your analysis at all but how would you out gun Brown then? Serious question,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 31, 2007 at 00:38
George Osborne sounds sensible and committed to sound policies on education...
see Local Democracy website report -http://by105w.bay105.mail.live.com/mail/mail.aspx?&ip=10.1.106.205&d=d3456&mf=0&gs=true -
on his performance at Policy Exchange.
As for admissions based on 11+ or equivalent, why not offer a chance to resit at 12 and at 13? So each child would have 3 chances to get to the grade required (if their parents so desire)?
Posted by: tapestry | May 31, 2007 at 06:11
"You will have the next three years to find out for yourself."
All this supposition. Before entering Parliament in 1983 Brown had been a TV interviewer at Scottish TV. I don't think he is as media-obsessed as Blair (thankfully) and I doubt he will be available for interviews - Thatcher restricted them too.
I think he will change PMQs - probably back to two per week - I suspect he will out-conservative the Conservatives in many areas. The Conservatives have become fixated on Blair and seek to replicate the Brown-Blair conflict of Cabinet since 1997.....but it will simply highlight why people are turned off politicians.
Brown can bring in lots of backbenchers - put Dobson back at Health for example. He needs to bed down one or two areas and make the Tories look like wreckers.....
I am afraid there are very few experienced politicians in the Conservative leadership and Brown will want them on the ropes within 18 months....their active cooperation will be necessary.
Had Callaghan gone to the country months earlier in 1978 he would probably have beaten Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: TomTom | May 31, 2007 at 08:17
Matt Wright:
At 74 years old 00:38 is well past the land of nod time for me.
Answer to your question...Personally I never could, but if I was much younger man, even then I doubt if I would do what Brown has been known for all of his adult life. He is a complete workaholic he lives-eats and breaths politics not only is it his career it is his whole way of life 24/7. It has been said of him that he has a brain the size of Mars by one of his opponents and I am not jesting with that statement either.
They also say he has a fantastic memory. Whether you agree with me or not I think it would be a good idea for you to read the facts behind the man and forget the propaganda for a while, then perhaps you will see for yourself just how formidable he really is as a serious politician.
The only way I could see him being outgunned is by people holding on to strong priciples and checking each fact and figure very thoroughly and equaling his brainpower before confronting him (I would fail miserably at that hurdle).
Here lies the weekness in Cameron; he is a proven flip-flopper he has not only thrown away his own values-principles at the drop of a hat, he is doing likewise with the Tory Party's principles and values (compare last Tory manifesto to what he is saying now) to get an extra vote or two. This is seen as dishonest by a lot of people
Cameron is excellent at delivering set piece speeches, will never match Brown for thinking on his feet. Cameron needs rehearsal Brown does not require it. Cameron is very telegenic, but the electorate will see Brown as an experienced, internationally respected solid but safe, dour, bore, but worst of all in Browns and a lot of the electorate's estimation Cameron is shallow. Even your own supporters would agree with a lot of that analysis regarding Cameron. If you do not agree with my last statement just read all the threads on this very blog, you need not look any further for proof of what I am saying.
Scotty...in your dreams, Brown will relish PMQ's he has waited 10 long years to get there, as for the deal between the two of them, how they reached the agreement of who would run for leader of the Party and who would stand down is pure speculation on everybody's part as neither one of them has openly stated how they arrived at the decision, so you are doing the same as the press and media just guessing and arriving at the conclusion that ticks all the boxes.
That in my opinion is called brainwashing by allowing the press to dictate what you do or do not believe. Research for yourself do not allow others to dictate your thinking for you.
Posted by: Joseph | May 31, 2007 at 08:21
Joseph, you haven't answered my question other than to say the Conservatives should be sure of any facts when debating with him. You then repeat your analysis of him as before, although this time adding he is very clever. I don't think anyone disputes he is clever, what I and others have said is that there are aspects to his behaviour that could put his leadership into trouble. You say that I only need look at this site to see what people think of Cameron but you fall into the same trap as others do in thinking that comments on this site are representative of ordinary people or of ordinary party members. On your point about shallowness or principles, I think the Conservatives have always adapted to each age using the strong foundations of Conservatism. In many ways Conservatism boils down to a concept about the way in which freedom and responsibility should interact. What Cameron has said about social responsibility is entirely in that mould and the way forward for the country at the moment. We have to carve out what that means and what we stand for in the 21st Century by focusing on the issues that matter to ordinary people and illustrating them with practical new ideas. Those ideas should form a series that are digestible for mainstream voters so we take the country forward in stages. It is very tricky as to date Labour keep trying to steal our clothes and then botching things as the party as a whole don't understand or belive in those ideas. So far Conservatives have been avoiding giving too much away too early. Maybe we should accelerate, that would be a genuine debating point although no doubt the negative thinkers will be out as well on that one,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 31, 2007 at 09:14
Matt:
How much plainer can I make it.
The answer to your question is quite simple.
I could not out gun Brown. I do not know is the pure unvarnished truth.
As for one party stealing another party's clothes the first time I heard that along with the other old "Chestnut" about waste was way back during the time of Harold McMillan so there is nothing new in that Matt.
Matt as for your comment quote:
"but you fall into the same trap as others do in thinking that comments on this site are representative of ordinary people or of ordinary party members.
I am sorry to disllusion you Matt it is you who are falling into the trap of only listening and believing what others holding the same opinion as yourself does.
The ordinary man in the street does not care a fig about Politics until election time and they are not going to bother how pretty David Cameron looks hugging Huskies, they will vote for the person whom they think has the best chance of looking after their interests. In the meantime Brown will not have done a bad job along with a few in the right wing press of painting Cameron as a flip-flopper.
I do not think your answer about shallowness is going to wash with the great British public anymore than it does with a lot of real Dyed-in-the-wool Tories.
What makes you so sure Cameron is still going to be around for the next GE. I think he is on borrowed time now.
One last footnote Matt;
Cameron has fought only two bye -elections, the one in Scotland he manged to drop the Tory vote down by -2% I do believe. When he fought the late Eric Forth's seat he turned a safe seat into a marginal. Please do not remind me about the local elections I voted Tory to get my dustbin emptied once per week but would never vote for Cameron in a GE. A good many people thought likewise.
I mix with people of all political presuasions and have always been a good listener. I would suggest you broaden your horizons quite a bit.
Posted by: Joseph | May 31, 2007 at 10:58
Joseph, I didn't say there was anything new about parties stealing each other clothes, what I said was about factoring that into our strategy.
Other than that thank you for your plain answer - that you don't know how to out gun Brown.
Your comment about me not knowing what ordinary voters think is off the mark but to be fair you don't know me so its maybe not suprising!
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | May 31, 2007 at 11:16
Matt:
In my lifetime I have respected everyone's opinion whether I agreed with it or not. It is their right to hold the views that they do and whatsmore to express those views.
I do think it is an asset to mix with people from all walks of life and one very important factor is, I like people and being around different company. I listen-look and still learn. I judge by actions not words, they always speak louder in my view.
When I do not know I have never been too proud to admit that.
I did enjoy the debate. Thank you.
Posted by: Joseph | May 31, 2007 at 12:03
Your comment about me not knowing what ordinary voters think is off the mark but to be fair you don't know me so its maybe not suprising!
You are in Wales and are Welsh.....what is your daily interaction in Tottenham where this blog has different perspectives from yours
http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/
or in Northern England.
Even in Wales you are not a popular force, and just as in major West Yorkshire cities you need a rainbow coalition to even dream of running the administration.....that suggests you are not really in touch with ordinary people but need to play the kind of coalition politics that PR was supposed to generate
Posted by: TomTom | June 01, 2007 at 09:02