Blogger thinks the party’s over

For the past few weeks I have been trying to drum up support among students for political parties. They are the lifeblood of democracy, I say. The whole British political system could be considered and analysed through the prism of political parties, I plead - in a poor attempt to foster genuine enthusiasm. As a desperate measure I put it to them that there is no better time to be studying parties than at any time since the emergence of New Labour - or, arguably, since the ideological wars of the early 1980s.

But fellow Edexcel Unit 1 examiners should expect the usual flood of responses on pressure groups and election systems. For, I think, I have failed. Parties just don’t do it. But in some ways, who can blame our young charges when our political leaders shed more heat than light on the major issues facing our country today

The Times rather excitedly proclaim in an editorial today that: ‘The economic crisis has now provided a real political choice between Labour’s proposals for fiscal stimulus and the Tories’ tougher line on public debt.’

It goes on:

‘Mr Cameron’s “compassionate Conservatives” have, until recently, been Budget Brownites: the Tory party spent two years promising to match the government spending levels set by Gordon Brown. And, over the past year, Mr Cameron and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, have struggled to keep pace with the events unfolding in the financial system.

They have occasionally delivered a decent critique of the Government, often provided a clever soundbite and, now and again, offered lukewarm support for emergency government action. But they have not provided a convincing account of how they would have handled things differently, let alone outlined a credible alternative to the bank recapitalisation scheme put in place by Mr Brown and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor. As a senior party figure put it recently:

“David and George have not had a good war.” The Times/Populus poll published yesterday morning suggest that British voters are of the same opinion: Mr Brown and Mr Darling now have a sizeable lead over Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne on the current handling of the economy.

But since the Pre-Budget Report (PBR), the Conservatives have stopped fumbling for a response and taken a much firmer position. Mr Cameron has set himself and his party in unequivocal opposition to the approach taken by Mr Brown. The Prime Minister has authorised a huge increase in public borrowing to mitigate the effects of the recession by putting money in people’s pockets through the cut in VAT, by spending on public services and state infrastructure and by flushing money through the tax system into small businesses. Mr Cameron, on the other hand, has positioned the Tories against the fiscal stimulus, arguing that the cost of repaying public debt will choke a future recovery.

For the first time, there is a clear choice between Left and Right on how to govern the economy through the recession. The PBR, it seems, did more than just shatter new Labour’s economic credentials; it marked the beginning of the end of the Blairite consensus on the management of the economy. There are now fundamental differences between the Conservatives and Labour on tax, borrowing and public expenditure.’

But Cameron and team have taken a long time to wake from their slumber and lay out an alternative vision of economic management. Since 2005 the Tory plan ahs been to argue that they would carry out Labour’s promises better, whilst sitting and waiting until the next election would see the electorate swing their way after a tiring decade plus of the same old thing.

A colleague said to me that this is no different to Tony Blair’s waiting game in the mid-nineties. And he wasn’t far wrong. Blair, too, lacked a vision thing. Yet he was massively popular in opposition and maintained a honeymoon period in office unparalleled in modern times. Ultimately, he could not convince the public to think seriously about the country they wanted to live in.

This is a theme picked up by Hamish McRae in today’s Independent. Cameron’s argument about £20 billion worth of borrowing is not insignificant but it masks a more serious debate about whether the UK can continue to fund public services at their current levels. As McRae puts it:

‘Of course what happens in the next two years matters but we really should not be arguing about the odd £20bn of extra borrowing during this time.

Or rather, sure, let’s argue about that, but let’s use what is, I am afraid, a fiscal catastrophe to trigger a measured and honest debate about what kind of public sector we want and are willing to pay for. And that debate has to acknowledge the interests of the next generation, not just this rather greedy one.’

Periodically one thinks the day will come when politicians will put short-term political gain on the backburner and turn their attention to long term strategic thinking. Then you check yourself, and remember that you are talking about politicians.