David Cameron, toxic Tory (?)

Bagehot in today's Economist newspaper believes that the Conservative leader is under pressure to reverse his whole leadership strategy....

If David Cameron is loathed by voters but grudgingly credited with economic competence, can he win the next general election? A few months ago the question would have sounded bizarre. Mr Cameron secured the Conservative leadership in 2005 with a pledge to decontaminate the party’s brand. Rescuing the “nasty party” was Mr Cameron’s mission, and he pursued it with well-bred cheer, whether being pulled by huskies across an Arctic glacier to show concern over climate change, talking of his devotion to the National Health Service or making the conservative case for gay marriage.

With Britain seemingly headed back into recession, the prime minister finds himself at a turning point. Close allies, Conservative MPs and sympathetic think-tanks advise him that the quest for economic growth must trump all other considerations. Wish lists are pouring in from all sides, with a bias towards supply-side reforms aimed at making Britain a lightly-taxed, flexibly-regulated and competitive place to do business. All point to the same conclusion: that Mr Cameron might have to retoxify the Tory brand to save the economy.

Suggestions include abolishing the 50% top rate of income tax and speeding up cuts to corporation tax. Keeping wealth-creators in Britain matters more than accusations of being the party of the rich, many on the right tell Mr Cameron and his chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne. Ditch those huskies, others argue, and with them British pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions faster than European neighbours. There are calls to postpone dreams of “rebalancing” the economy away from the finance-oriented City of London and the south-east of England: this is a moment for helping the strongest first. Defend City institutions from hostile European Union regulations, it is argued. Slash back employment laws and other red tape, say many MPs: if that involves a dust-up with Brussels, good.

Tories close to the leadership insist that Mr Cameron is willing to stake everything on the economy. The mood inside 10 Downing Street is now “all about growth”, says one. “We can be thought of as nice or not, but if the economy isn’t growing, we’ve had it.”

Alas, many Tory MPs do not believe their party leadership, suspecting that Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are too focused on the party’s image to risk really unpopular reforms. As men of inherited wealth, the prime minister and chancellor cannot imagine the scrappy rage of the self-made entrepreneur drowning in red tape, suggests a Tory MP. Worse, their privileged backgrounds make them feel guilty about curbing workers’ rights.

Some senior Tories seem determined to force the pace of reform. Steve Hilton, the prime minister’s chief policy guru, commissioned a venture capitalist, Adrian Beecroft, to write a report on areas in which employment laws could be loosened. The Lib Dems rejected Mr Beecroft’s boldest idea—giving employers the right to sack unproductive workers with compensation but without giving a reason. Workers who fear the sack do not spend, argued the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.

Amid the worsening economic gloom, Lib Dem ministers are showing signs of flexibility. On November 23rd the business secretary, Vince Cable, announced a new, two-year probation period before workers could claim unfair dismissal, and said he was seeking evidence on whether Beecroft-style “no fault” sackings might be allowed in the smallest firms. Disgruntled, unnamed Lib Dems told reporters this was a return to “Victorian employment practices”—a painful rebuke for Mr Cable, who earlier this year swore he would not help the ideological heirs of those who sent “children up chimneys”.

Yet for now, on the big political choice facing the coalition—to worry about public opinion or gamble everything on economic growth—Mr Clegg’s party is hedging its bets. Well-placed Lib Dems talk about the need to fix the deficit while advancing goals such as social mobility, and continue to argue that their presence in the coalition is softening the harshest Tory policies. On November 26th Mr Clegg was due to unveil an avowedly interventionist scheme to subsidise the wages of teenagers hired by private firms. Too many Lib Dems complacently point to opinion polls showing that voters may be wary of the coalition’s economic management, but distrust Labour still more.

Just now, only the economy matters

Coalition tensions are rising. Tories blame the Lib Dems for holding the coalition back, accusing them of terror at being seen as “mean and nasty”. Lib Dems deny that they are blocking pro-growth reforms, saying that the real divide is between realists and “supply-side fantasists” in the Conservative high command who think that tweaking labour laws can offset billions of pounds of vanished demand.

Enough. The economic stakes for Britain are too high for such squabbling. The Lib Dems still dream of being the kindlier half of the coalition. Yet without economic growth, this will earn them no voter gratitude in 2015. The Conservatives are being hypocritical: for all their bold talk of deregulation, the party is still defending right-wing shibboleths, notably plans to limit skilled immigration, even though government-commissioned studies predict that this will hurt growth.

A grand bargain beckons. The Lib Dems should accept new, pro-growth reforms to employment laws, welfare and education that anger the left. In return, they should demand concessions on things such as immigration rules that will enrage the right. Coalition government is rare in Britain: both parties should use it to overcome each other’s flaws and remove obstacles to growth. It is a risky strategy. But the alternatives are worse.

David Cameron's statecrafty revolution

Danny Kruger, writing today in The Guardian's Comment is Free, argues that the rumoured 'rift' between George Osborne and Steve Hilton is actually a creative divide that reflects the PM's own character. Definitely worth a read ahead of moving into the Prime Ministerial topic of study. If nothing else, the situation in and around Number 10 presently is worth contrasting with Gordon Brown’s short premiership, where it is safe to say that it was toxic at the top....

It seems unnatural. The intrigues, the partisan loyalties and betrayals of court life seem largely absent from David Cameron's government. A number of backbenchers are grumbling, to be sure, with one even predicting a coup next spring. Yet at the top all is peace.

You can see why. The emollient personality of the prime minister makes the atmosphere in No 10 friendly. The key players have toiled and fought together for years, in much humbler offices than the ones they now occupy. They were friends long before they were bigwigs.

And yet there is a difference in Downing Street, not of personalities or even ideology, but of strategy – of how the government should operate, by what methods and in what time frame. It is the difference between George Osborne, the PM's long-term political partner, and Steve Hilton, his closest friend and adviser. It is the tension in Cameron between the statesman – or "statecraftsman" – and the revolutionary.

Statecraft, the use of the instruments of power for particular ends, is the vocation Osborne was born to. The chancellor knows the forces at work – the media, the political parties, the civil service, the European Union – respects their power, and plays them. Hilton, the revolutionary, is exasperated by these forces, frustrated by the checks on change and, often not very deep down, wishes he could abolish them altogether.

While the revolutionary is in a hurry, the statecraftsman takes the long view. Hilton wants Cameron to govern as if this term of office might be his last. Osborne wants to govern to win another election, and win that one outright.

The difference can lead to tension in policymaking, for instance over how far and fast to reform public services, and how much control central government needs to retain. But it can also be fruitful, prompting the effective use of state power for radical – Tory – ends.

In opposition Cameron promised a national citizen service for all school-leavers. Left and right united in disdain, if for opposite reasons: too military, not military enough; too statist, too wet; a waste of money, the kids won't sign up. But the PM plugged on, launched the scheme when he got into power, and we now have the lessons from a year of operations. The scheme has been an indisputable success. Contrary to critics of the "big society", there is clear demand for social action opportunities among young people from all classes, and plenty of space for new projects to enhance, without supplanting, existing provision. One NCS scheme, The Challenge, worked with more than 3,000 young people this year, half of them non-white, a fifth on free school meals, and two-thirds having never volunteered for anything before. Some 96% completed the programme and demonstrated greater levels of trust, belonging and responsibility.

The Challenge is a classic little platoon of the sort beloved by Tories: a means of engendering respect and responsibility in the young, using local activism to link them to the national story. What do we learn? That government can do big, comprehensive, uniform things, directed to collective goals; things that are good for morale. The NCS, like national service in the old days, is rigid, a prescriptive programme designed in Whitehall and delivered by the book. But though it is organised by government, it is not delivered by government. The state can work with small charities if the remit is simple and the outcomes clearly defined.

Another instance of the Osborne-Hilton axis working well is schools. There has been a statecrafty emphasis on the content of education, especially the way in which maths, English and history are taught. Yet at the same time a revolution is under way in the structures of education, with free schools and academies sprouting like mushrooms.

Government sets the curriculum – the big, comprehensive act, imparting non-negotiable values – while communities are free to run their own schools, and to create new ones: a conservative anchor in a revolutionary system.

Tory radicalism is about to receive the biggest boost yet with the announcement next month of neighbourhood community budget pilots. At their simplest, the budgets will consolidate public spending in an area in a single pot under the control of residents, with an emphasis on the role of the third sector.

This is government acting as the catalyst of radical localism, breaking down bureaucratic silos, banging heads together, routing funding outside the normal channels – all so that communities can run themselves. This is Osborne's statecraft in the cause of Hilton's change.

Just for context: the Daily Mirror archives a convenient article dating from before the last General Election exploring the rivalry between Osborne and Hilton in gaining David Cameron's ear. Take a look!

Cameron's trouble with women makes Theresa close to unsackable

The Guardian features an article today, penned by Allegra Stratton, suggesting that the Home Secretary - despite her problems this week - stands in an almost unsackable position within a male-dominated Coalition Cabinet. The article provides several useful insights into the thinking behind Prime Ministerial choice of Cabinet colleagues... Start reading ! :

This week the career of Theresa May, until now regarded as one of the cabinet's safest pair of hands, appeared in doubt as she attempted to explain exactly what she had or had not known about the relaxation of border controls. For David Cameron, the possibility of the home secretary's departure became potentially a bigger problem than Liam Fox's resignation as Defence Secretary last month. But May won't go. Nor, really, can she go.

May is close to the prime minister. Not showy nor a briefer, May embodies what the prime minister loves in his staff – discretion and loyalty. She's also central to Cameron's project – she intuitively understands the right wing of the party, something he has increasingly realised he has to, to survive. And having first coined the "Nasty Party" critique of its Conservatives, she also understands the branding problem Cameron has attempted to tackle. When, a few months ago, May blocked Downing Street's wish to make former US supercop Bill Bratton the head of Scotland Yard, May avoided Cameron's wrath. "What you have to understand about Theresa and David," said one of Cameron's staff, "is that he adores her."

An equal part of her indispensability comes from the fact she is the highest profile woman the government has, in a government that – the polls demonstrate – has turned off women voters. Women may not be persuaded a government is on their side because women front up the policies, but knowing women are party to decisions inside Whitehall might head off those own goals with women the government has repeatedly let in.

In opposition Cameron pledged that by the end of the parliament a third of his ministers would be women. Currently one-sixth are: 19 of 119. Seventeen of these are Tory and two (Sarah Teather and Lynne Featherstone) Lib Dem. There are now 41 female Tory MPs but very few of them are ready for hyper-promotion to the top of the government, and to do so would incur the wrath of male colleagues. The promotion of Chloe Smith, 29, to be economic secretary to the Treasury produced a large backbench splutter.

If May were to go Cameron would need and want to fill her shoes with a woman to ensure female representation in one of the big four jobs – Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary.

The other women in the cabinet do not have unblemished records. Conservative co-Chairman Lady Warsi has impressed with her handling of the riots, and pugnacious role attacking Lib Dems throughout the AV campaign. But she has also annoyed No 10, for instance by suggesting activists weren't campaigning hard enough in the Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection.

The current Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan is impressive and smart but has already served the coalition notice she will resign if they go ahead with pushing the new high speed rail link through her Chesham and Amersham constituency in Buckinghamshire. The Welsh-born MP for Basingstoke, Maria Miller, the Minister for Disabled People, is being lined up to fill those shoes.

The Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, could be subbed in to May's seat but her tenure has seen the government have to retreat on a perceived sell-off of the forests. That was not wholly her fault, but nor is it the stuff of herograms and does not suggest she could withstand the home office house of horrors where there is a bad news story buried under every desk.

Cabinet newbie Justine Greening, a beneficiary of the mini-reshuffle after Fox was forced out, could be promoted from Transport Secretary quickly. But this is unlikely – it flies in the face of Cameron's own preferred strategy of letting his people bed into their job.

If necessary Michael Gove could come in to be Home Secretary and Norfolk South MP Elizabeth Truss made Education Secretary, but this would incur much ire.

The PM's problem is partly of his own making. He has been party leader nearly six years, which should be enough time to bring some women up to the necessary level such that when your big beasts like May suffer damage there are options. A decent programme of mentoring would have meant that Miller or, say, Theresa Villiers, the transport minister who was in the shadow cabinet before the election, was seen as ready by now.

BBC News: MPs say new individual voter system has real risks

BBC News today presents news of the broad findings of the Parliamentary committee examining the Coalition government's proposals for changing the system of voter registration:

Changes to the way people register to vote could "damage democracy" by resulting in large numbers dropping off the electoral roll, MPs have warned. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee says there are "real risks" involved in the planned change from household to individual registration. The MPs want it to be an offence for individuals not to register to vote.

The government says it is "putting safeguards in place" to prevent people dropping off the electoral roll.

Currently, the head of a household can be fined up to £1,000 for failing to register all eligible voters at his or her property. The government wants to switch to a system in which individuals register themselves, but does not think there should be a similar legal penalty for those who fail to do so.

The committee's report says it welcomes the principle of individual elector registration (IER), but believes there is a danger that the number of people registered to vote could fall significantly if it is implemented in the way the government plans. It says some people may choose to opt out for reasons like avoiding jury duty, and warns that urban areas, with a rapid population turnover, are likely to be the worst affected.

In Northern Ireland, where IER is already in place, failing to register to vote is an offence and the committee says the same should be true in the rest of the UK. It suggests that penalty could be phased out after five years once the new system has bedded down.

The potential problem of voter drop-out could be compounded, the MPs say, by the government's decision not to hold an annual canvass in 2014. The report says this could lead to inaccuracies in the electoral roll for 2015 and also have "a marked and potentially partisan effect on the parliamentary constituency boundaries" for 2020 which will be based on that roll.

The chairman of the committee, Labour's Graham Allen, said: "Getting individuals to take responsibility for their own votes is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done in the right way.

"The transition to individual registration will only be a true success if the electoral rolls become not only more accurate but also more complete.

"The amendments which we propose - especially on the 2014 canvass and on not opting out - are essential if IER is to command public confidence and not to be seen as unfair and politically partisan."

A Cabinet Office spokesman said the move to IER would modernise the electoral system and help to combat fraud. "We are putting safeguards in place to stop people dropping off the register, as well as looking at ways we can increase registration levels," he said.

"Under the new system, everyone will be invited to register in 2014 and will receive a number of reminders - if they do not respond they will then be visited at their home by an electoral registration officer to ask them to register.

"In addition, there will be publicity to make people aware of the change and we are looking at opening up new ways of registering, including online registration."

Under Labour there were plans to introduce IER from 2015 at the earliest, but the coalition's plan to bring it forward to 2014 for new voters is designed to save £74m. But Labour argues that accelerating the process risks disenfranchising millions.

Deputy leader Harriet Harman told the party's conference in September the Tories were "hoping" that "if they take away the right to vote from students, young people living in rented flats in our cities, people from ethnic minority communities" it will help their chances of re-election.