David Cameron focuses on Labour incompetence

Later today David Cameron will mark the day on which Gordon Brown had planned to hold a General Election with a big picture speech.  There's nothing dramatically new in it - just a skillful bringing together of key themes including the idea that we are seeing a change in the tide of ideas every bit as significant as 1979 and 1997.  You can read a PDF of the whole speech here.  The most important passage is, I think, the one targeting Labour's incompetence:

"After ten years in power, it seems they still haven’t mastered that fairly basic requirement of government – running the country competently.  The shambles over immigration.  The fiasco over prisoner releases.  The first run on a bank for over a hundred years.  U turns every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.  This latest shambles over immigration shows exactly why we need a new government.  It’s not just because Gordon Brown has no vision for the future.  It’s because this government is incompetent.   They try to run everything but they can’t actually run anything.  Their whole philosophy is about top-down control, but on this vital issue of migration, they’ve lost control.  No wonder people are saying it’s time for change."

A reputation for incompetence is, I think, much more politically deadly than a reputation for sleaze.  Most voters don't have much faith in politicians' ethics but they hope for basic competence.  If we can destroy Labour's reputation for competence - and we have more and more ammunition - we have a good chance of finally ending the Brown-Blair years. 

Comments

[Chad Noble]

There's some really good stuff coming from Cameron right now.

For a moment you really feel that momentum is building to not just turf this discredited shambles of a Government out of office, but to do something great for Britain.

Unfortunately, reality then hits, and we remember that Cameron is going to renege on his EU referendum pledge, and internal warfare will hit a scale not seen before.

That's a real shame. The vast majority of Britons (unlike the activists here who will slam this post) have no affiliation to a rosette, but we know when we are told by the opposition leader himself that vital red lines to protect British sovereignty are actually red herrings, he *must* back up these words with real action to prevent this transfer of power from Britain to Brussels.

Britain's hands do seem to be in Cameron's hands, and we are unfortunately, all waiting for him to let us down.

[Chad Noble]

..oops Britain's 'future' not hands!

[James Burdett]

Chad, you really should stop doing your Private Frazer impression. Most of us are not waiting to be let down.

[Comstock]

"The first run on a bank for over a hundred years."

No way can Cameron blame Labour for that.

Demutualisation-moving away from the co-operative principles on which it was founded- brought Northern Rock down.

[David]

"No way can Cameron blame Labour for that."

The UK was the only country during the credit crunch to suffer from run on a bank. And part of the reason was very much the rules set in place for governance by Brown, and the sly undermining of Mervyn King.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Er I think you'll find that stripping the regulatory role away from the Bank Of England and giving it to the serially incompetent FSA has everything to do with it Comstock. Who came up with this idea? Mr G Brown.
The idea that Brown was an overwhelmingly successful Chancellor is a myth.

[Bexie]

Bearing in mind the picture, the big deal on their catalogue of failures in IT project management have been precisely the lack of leadership and direction. The project's aims shift, causing much rework, the objectives are insufficiently framed leading to inappropriate builds and more rework and then they allow changes that double or triple the cost because they cannot summon up the courage to resist them. Total Shambles really.

[David]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490988&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

"So far, the Bank of England, on behalf of government, has transferred £20.6 billion of taxpayers' money into Northern Rock to replace the funds removed by the private sector. "

Comstock,

Woudl you say this is sound financial management? What message does this send to other banks-screw up, it's ok the state will bail you out?

[Alistair Watson]

At last, focus on the real failure of Labour. Brown has been at the heart of this incompetence, hardly surprising, as he’s never had proper job. Tries to talk the talk but cant walk the walk.

The Flooding – Predicting rainfall is the duty of the Environment Agency, the chance of such heavy rain seems to have been very small. Much of the damage seems to have resulted from a neglect of land drainage over a long period of time. To suggest it was caused by consistent under funding by government over a long period of time might seem insensitive but it is the case it contributed to the disaster. Who is responsible for this, we have a right to know.
Foot and Mouth – The outbreak was handled reasonably well, political interference was absent, and decisions seem to have been properly made by the Chief Vet. The outbreak itself seems to be related to a lack of investment at the facility at Pirbright allowing the virus to escape. Who is responsible for this under funding, we have a right to know.
Northern Rock – The turmoil in the US sub-prime market was telegraphed well in advance of the European impact, the European Bank and the Federal Reserve reacted quite quickly. The Bank of England however took a different view of what needed to be done and failed to support the British Banks when everyone else could turn to their own Central Banks. The supposed independence of the Bank of England was exposed as a sham when the Chancellor told us he had instructed it to intervene. Clearly earlier intervention was in his hands but he failed us. Who is responsible, we have a right to know.
Failed Terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow – The discovery of the London bomb and the initial response to the Glasgow airport attack were nothing to do with government, brave, responsible individuals divorced from Health and Safety considerations and taking personal responsibility were our saviours. In this instance, despite government target (tail) chasing, interference and PC considerations the police have cleared up after the event. Why does the government make it so difficult for them, we have a right to know.

In actual fact Gordon Brown has contributed to these events and failures over the last 10 years, as holder of the state purse strings (Amnesia is a terrible thing), and most recently when he has been a bystander. He wants to be judged on his record, an election based on competence is what he wants, 10 years is long enough.

[R.Rowan]

Now a labour think tank want to do away with christmas,that will go down like a lead balloon with 90% of the population,who are these idiots and why are they so intent on destroying all our traditions.Come on David get stuck in and while your at it give us a retrospective vote on the constitution oops treaty,lets have a modicum of democracy.

[Patsy Sergeant]

And yet still quite a few people, other than labourites seem to think Gordon Brown has no responsibility for what happened at Northern Rock and indeed for the many other things that have affected both the economy and ourselves over the last ten years.

I suppose for most people it is because they just don't understand what a Chancellor of the Exchequer does, and certainly not the detail of the job, and the same goes for the perception of what a PM's job is supposed to be, like the children who apparently think that the Queen sits on her throne all the time, with her crown on - and these are NOT toddlers.

I think that Mr. Brown is quite aware of this lack of perception, and uses it whenever possible to his advantage. Only when things go wrong or 'times get tight' do people start to question the illusion of a gilded reputation, so maybe the time-bomb is ticking, economically speaking.

[EML]

Good stuff from Cameron - attacking Labour's incompetence, wasted opportunities and lack of vision for the country, while at the same time setting out the Conservatives' stall.

As far as i'm concerned Brown will have to do something special in the Queen's Speech to get back on course.

[Martin Wright]

Some good stuff here. I love the graphic- it would make a good advert: "how Labour works".

As for the liquidity crisis at Northern Rock,it seems likely that the creation of tripartite supervision played a key part. No prizes for guessing why Brown wanted the Treasury to have a role. Now the Treasury has fine brains but banking supervision should have been left to the equally fine brains and professional bankers at the Bank of England.

If the Bank had retained its sole regulatory role, the run would have been less likely. Of course that would have been dependent on the Bank being able to act in secret as lender of last resort. This would not necessarily have lasted long - the lending would only have been needed until either interbank lending resumed or until a takeover (Lloyds TSB was in the frame) could be arranged.

[David Belchamber]

Absolutely excellent stuff:

"After ten years in power, it seems they still haven’t mastered that fairly basic requirement of government – running the country competently. The shambles over immigration. The fiasco over prisoner releases....".

I have waited a long time for the tories to latch onto this; "competence" is a fairly basic requirement of government and, as Comstock seems a fair minded chap, I think that even he would agree that Blair was not the sort of chap best able to organise a party in a brewery. Most of the great offices of state became an absolute shambles a few years after 1997, and if it wasn't such tragic waste of our money, it would have been riotously funny: Gordon's own Carry on Governing!

[David Sergeant]

The point about sleeze at the begining seems important. There was a general acceptance that Blair had as much sleeze in his first year as Major had had in all his years but it was a big reason for Major losing in 1997 but didn't affect Blair in 2001. I suggest the problem was that sleeze was only picked at individually and not related generally to New Labour; e.g. "Labour is the party of spending other peoples' money and manipulation of government for their own benifit. To such people, what others call sleeze, is a way of life."

The same point needs to be made about incompetence. e.g. "Labour's government is control by Brown of government organisation for the benifit of politicians. We are seeing, almost daily, that this approach does not work but, above all, by putting Labour's political interests above the public's creats endless bungles."

I know it's longer than "top down" but I don't think "top down" means anything to voters.

[Yet Another Anon]

There's nothing dramatically new in it
The policy reviews of the summer were supposed to end the fuzziness that there has been in recent years, there has been a lot of vague sort of skipping through daisies stuff from David Cameron and more recently a lot about what he doesn't want, people though want to know what a government lead by David Cameron will be like and they want a certain amount of substance. Criticising what others are doing tends to sound a bit negative if alternative solutions are not outlined, and a lot of the substance has amounted to George Osborne announcing his intention to follow Labour spending plans for 3 years.

The Flooding – Predicting rainfall is the duty of the Environment Agency
The Environment Agency is involved in Flood Management, as well as Environmental issues relating to waste, food stocks and general environmental issues. The Met Office and The Hadley Centre are responsible for predicting weather and also for researching long term climatic trends including future weather.

There have been problems with people building in flood plains - this is down to inadequacies in planning regulations and unscrupulous developers and a largely ignorant public, however flood control has to be prioritised on a strategic basis and it is not practical to attempt to defend every bit of existing land, in some cases areas that have been viable cease to be so and others become viable. Practically though given higher sea levels and increased storm surges and intense rainfall events I think building properties below 200 feet above sea level or near floodplains is a bad idea - much of the house building has been actually in floodplains. A warmer climate does mean that increasingly upland areas will be more habitable in the British Isles so long as the North Atlantic Drift slows gradually rather than stopping suddenly which would result in sharply colder climate.

[James Maskell]

"On what should have been a General election"...

What??? CCHQ should think about if they were in that position. Would they have called the election, seriously? If so, then use that line. If not, then please stop talking about the election that should have been. An early election would have been a stupid decision to make and the Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think they could have won it. We dont really know that November 1st would have been the date if one were called.

Just another excuse to shove Cameron in front of a camera. When I see him it just looks contrived. Blair was bad enough.

[Bexie]

JM I thought getting spokes folk in front of the camera was part and parcel of politics....

[clive elliot]

If the only people you've got to choose Government Ministers from (MPs) consist very largely of Trade Union Officers, second-rate local Government Civil Servants, failed polytechnic lecturers and bored housewives you're not going to get a very high level of competence at the top.

Witness how difficult it is for ex-Labour MPs to get any other job at anything remotely near an MPs package, let alone a Minister's.