Cameron now in a muddle, as winds of public opinion sway his policy again
David Cameron today announced that there would be no swingeing cuts in his first year, should he ever become prime minister. Almost simultaneously, shadow-chancellor George Osborne was saying what more or less amounted to the opposite.
Lib Dem treasury spokesman Vince Cable described their statements this way: "George Osborne and David Cameron seem to be at sixes and sevens on the crucial question of how the deficit should be addressed."
The truth is, there is a very clear, distinct and consistent approach pursued by David Cameron and George Osborne. It is the same approach, and the same policy, just to a different audience.
David Cameron listens to the polls, picks up what gossip he can on the occasions that he meets non-party activists. Having earlier said that the Tories will outdo Labour's cuts, he's got cold feet, as people seem to be responding to this with some dismay. So, in order to please what he perceives as the public mood, he is promising a year without swingeing cuts.
George Osborne is doing exactly the same thing. But the people he wants to accept him are business leaders, bankers, financiers. They want to hear about touch action to tackle government debt. So that's what he's promising them.
It worked out rather badly that the two made opposite promises on the same day. But they were adhering to exactly the same policy: promise people what they want, sort out the repercussions later. Those with long memories may recall one T Blair pursuing quite a similar policy. I can never quite remember whether Tony Blair actually said "…if that's what people want, then that's what they must have…", or whether it was just Rory Bremner's impression of him. But we all remember that he was the past master of courting popularity.
Is this a harsh view of what Cameron and Osborne are doing? Perhaps. But it is hard to resolve the differences between their rhetoric on any other basis. Unless there really is war within the Conservative shadow cabinet. Which, from the point of view of the nation, is actually even worse.
|
Home 
